Organ donation (religions, science)

[michel]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

Normally the way someone is prepared at death is a sign of religion. And to use logic... You say that if someone dies and they do not want to donate their organs to science they are both immature and selfish. If their religion dictates this, then by your standing the religion is both immature and selfish. This IS an attack on religion because burial rights are mostly dictated by religion.

Again, this is an all inclusive statement. You are attacking peoples religious views here. If someone believes that there is a reason to keep their organs in their body, then they get to keep them. That is the law. If you don't like it, go out and educate those people who aren't organ donors.

The necrophiliacs thank you for your support.

Yet they are against it. So just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true. There are religions in this world that believe you need your organs in your body even when you are dead. Would you deny them this right?

I would hope that if someone had a genuine belief you would take them seriously to some degree. Your beliefs might look equall strange to someone of a different faith.

You said that the burial rights of some religions is immature and selfish. Just because you did not use these words doesn't mean it wasn't said.

You body should have rights after you die. We have religious freedom in this country.

First off if a religion thought it was right to murder is a false statement. This would be a cult and NOT a religion. As far as mandatory organ donations go... This is an example of the state imposing religious views on the living and the dead. How do you think the family of the dead person would feel when they hear his body was harvested for parts and then the family believes he will not get what he deserves in the afterlife? Plus the view that you are dead and do not need your organs IS a religious view and to make a law that you need to donate your organs again would be a religious law and therefor unconstitutional.

You are saying that at least the organs of a dead person belong to the state. You say there should be mandatory organ donation so therefor the organs are the property of the state when one dies. Again, this is a religious law and would be very bad.

Even here you admit that you are going with an athiest viewpoint! This shows that the law would be a religious law.


After reading the posts on this thread i have to say... So much for religious tolerance...

I don't understand the point you are making with "So much for religious tolerance.." - unless you mean as in tollerance for other's beliefs by non-mainstream believers; anyway, this thread is not about tollerance, it is just about organ donation.

[Jaymes]

I think we're forgetting that 'tolerate' means 'to put up with,' not 'respect.' I'll put up with someone's decision to not donate their organs, but I find it terribly selfish.

[Unedited]

Originally Posted by michel

"But I also know that if I took another's organ, I would be in hell afterwards knowing my decision." - may I ask why you would feel that way?

It is my belief that, when I die, my body is to be cremated and thrown into a river. It is my belief that, until all parts of my body is dealt with in this manner, my soul will no be free to do as it may and to again be reincarnated. It is my belief that, were I to take someone else's organ, I would be preventing them from 'being free.'

It is also my belief that, damaging the body in such a way could damage my very soul, depending on the organ.

So, were I to take another's organ, I would live with the guilt of harming two souls.

[Fluffy]

You body should have rights after you die. We have religious freedom in this country.

And my point is that religious freedom should only be given up to a point otherwise it will become what I call over-tolerance.

First off if a religion thought it was right to murder is a false statement.

No. A hypothetical scenario is bounded by the constraints originally imposed upon it, not by any which passers-by wish to add. I do not consider 16th centure Christianity a cult. Nor do I consider Roman mythology a cult. Yet both murdered minorities for religious reasons. I argue that such religious freedom should not be tolerated.

This is an example of the state imposing religious views on the living and the dead. How do you think the family of the dead person would feel when they hear his body was harvested for parts and then the family believes he will not get what he deserves in the afterlife? Plus the view that you are dead and do not need your organs IS a religious view and to make a law that you need to donate your organs again would be a religious law and therefor unconstitutional.

That is an interesting argument. Which religion believes that donating organs should be mandatory? They would probably feel terrible. Some Christians feel terrible about the fact that gay marriage is on the road to becoming legal in many western countries. What is the difference and why should one be given priviledge over another?

You are saying that at least the organs of a dead person belong to the state. You say there should be mandatory organ donation so therefor the organs are the property of the state when one dies.

I never once stated there should be mandatory organ donation. I posed the question and then got into a related debate.

Even here you admit that you are going with an athiest viewpoint! This shows that the law would be a religious law.

Atheism is not a religion. Furthermore, if state law coincidentally coincides with religious belief, do you believe that the law is wrong since it is promoting a given religion? If so do you believe that murder being illegal is wrong? For example, if state law existed as it is, stating that people do not have to donate if they wish, how is that not a religious law? It backs up Unedited's religious beliefs...

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

And my point is that religious freedom should only be given up to a point otherwise it will become what I call over-tolerance.

Yet the founding fathers stated that NO law should infringe on religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

No. A hypothetical scenario is bounded by the constraints originally imposed upon it, not by any which passers-by wish to add. I do not consider 16th centure Christianity a cult. Nor do I consider Roman mythology a cult. Yet both murdered minorities for religious reasons. I argue that such religious freedom should not be tolerated.

Your argument is still flawed. In order for this "religion" to spring up it needs to have many, many followers. Once when it had a certain number of followers, and has met many other restrictions, it is considered a religion. The thing is, if one of these religious members killed another person outside of their religion they would be forcing their religious beliefs on that person, which is illegal. In your hypothetical situation, i feel the law would allow them to kill members of their own religion... thus making the religion have fewer and fewer people, eventually to the point where there is no religion at all. But still, it is a horrible hypothetical situation because in order for that "religion" to spring up you need alot of murders who never get caught (like a few thousand) living in America. Because if they murder and say "oh its just my religion" well it would actually be considered a cult. Please stop using this arugment, it is flawed in many ways.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

That is an interesting argument. Which religion believes that donating organs should be mandatory? They would probably feel terrible. Some Christians feel terrible about the fact that gay marriage is on the road to becoming legal in many western countries. What is the difference and why should one be given priviledge over another?

The gay debate is something I should be argueing. You are saying that we should force everyone to be organ donors, thus taking away their right to choose. Gay marriage right now is trying to fight for the right to choose if they want to marry or not. And just because one religion does not hold the view that "everyone" should donate their organs does not mean this law would be religious. If the country decided that everyone should say prayer in the classroom this would most surely be a religious law. There isnt any religion on the planet that says that everyone is required to pray (some do say their memebers are required to pray, but none say that you should go out and force everyone to pray) but somehow i think people would consider it a religion.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I never once stated there should be mandatory organ donation. I posed the question and then got into a related debate.

And I was just debating you on the subject... I was debating this point...

Originally Posted by FLuffy

Also I don't so much believe that the body belongs to the state. Just that it does not belong to the person that used to inhabit it and that they do not have a right to exert influence over it AFTER death.

I was point out that although you do not believe the body belongs to the state, if you do believe in mandatory organ donation, then you believe that the organs at least belong to the state.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Atheism is not a religion.

Yes, atheism IS a religion if we just call a religion a perons belief regarding god. But even if you agree that atheism is not a religion, a law stating that "When you die you cease to exist so you no longer need your body" This law agrees with the atheist view point, but also states a clear religious belief.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Furthermore, if state law coincidentally coincides with religious belief, do you believe that the law is wrong since it is promoting a given religion?

Yes if that law forces one religions views on another. Please show me where a valid religion keeps getting members arrested because the law does not allow them to do whatever their religion tells them to do.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

If so do you believe that murder being illegal is wrong?

Again, we get to the murder debate. Such a horrible example. Please show me a religion that is currently having members arrested because their religion believes murder is good.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

For example, if state law existed as it is, stating that people do not have to donate if they wish, how is that not a religious law? It backs up Unedited's religious beliefs...

Huh? Not in the least! The law states that you have the choice to do as you please in regards to organ donation. I do not see how anyone can think for a moment this is anything like backing up a religion of any kind. A completely absurd statement.

[Jaymes]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

Yet the founding fathers stated that NO law should infringe on religious beliefs.

If that were the case, female circumcision/stoning people to death would still be legal.

EDIT: What the heck, female circumcision... female genital mutilation.

[Unedited]

I was thinking about this yesterday...what if to be eligible to receive organs, you had to be willing to donate your organs. Does anyone think that would motivate people to be organ donars? Or would they still just say 'no' until the time came when they needed an organ?

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Jensa

If that were the case, female circumcision/stoning people to death would still be legal.

What religion (hint: in america) believes that you should stone someone to death for something. Please tell me the religion and show me the numbers that shows this religion has enough members in america for it to be considered a vaild religion in america. The same with female genital mutilation (though I was really unaware that if the female was willing that there was a law stating that they were not allowed to do the genital mutilation)