• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should people be forced to give of their bodily resources if it saves lives?

Should people be forced to give of their bodily resources if it saves lives?

  • Yes, saving a life overrides a person's right to their own body.

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • No, people's right to control their own body is not affected by the need of others.

    Votes: 31 96.9%
  • Total voters
    32
S

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If a person can safely give of their bodily resources and this would result in the saving of a life (Such as giving blood or donate a kidney to somebody dying from kidney failure), should they then be forced to give these bodily resources, even against their will?
 

I answered no. I am an organ donor, and I used to give platelets every month (which takes about 2 hours). That was my choice. Now that I am trying to get pregnant, I can't donate platelets anymore.

Anyway, I don't believe anyone should be forced to donate bodily resources.
 
5 no votes so far. No prolifer is going to vote here?
 

As a registered Organ Donor, I am responding fully in memory of my father in law, recently deceased, who also was an organ donor. When he passed away, it was never an option NOT to fulfill his wishes. It also made us, his family, think about how important a choice he made. Just 2 weeks ago, my mother in law was given a plaque in his honor, for HIS choice to be a donor, and OUR decision to follow his wishes.

Listening to Organ Recipients speaking of their hopelessness in their situation, wondering if they would ever get the organ they needed to survive another day, and then their elation at the call being made, and then the realization that someone had to die in order for them to get what they need to live. These are truly special people, who understand that the person who dies gives them another chance at life. These also are the ties that bind families, who otherwise would never have met, together.

I believe with a resounding NO that blood, organ and tissue donation should not be forced, but encouraged through education, and understanding. Because one never knows when their going to have a debilitating disease in one of their organ's, and one never knows when they would have the opportunity to offer a stranger, and fellow human a second chance at life!
 
People shouldn't be forced to give organs. Some people believe that keeping their whole body intact is needed for the afterlife...if you force people to give their organs, you are tramping on their rights. And if you try and take the organs from them while they are living...then the innocent giver is taking a risk where the giver might die because of that loss.

As for blood...what would you guys think of having people who caused the accident to donate the blood? Maybe intent and malice would have to be established? Or don't force anyone to donate blood? I mean, if you intentionally hurt the other person...then you should be able to compensate the victim, with blood if necessary.
 
Last edited:
I personally give blood and am and organ donor but don't think anyone should be forced to do so........
 
FinnMacCool said:
I must say I've never seen the forum so united on an issue.
Click to expand...

What's funny is I knew where Steen was going with this thread...unfortunately he appears to have gotten banned before he could make his point, so I'll make (what I think) was his point for him:

If you ask exactly this same question but include the word "abortion" somewhere in the question, suddenly anyone who voted for the obvious choice becomes a baby-killer in the minds of the pro-life crowd, even though the philosophy/morality behind it is EXACTLY the same as it would be when the poll is phrased as it currently is.
 

I noticed he was trying to pick a fight with the pro life crowd, hoping they would say no, it shouldn't be forced, to then throw in their face the abortion issue, and they're stance of respecting all life, etc. Folks try to do it with the death penalty all the time. I overlooked it, because it's something that touched so close to home.
 
Except with blood the people didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be forced to give their time and risk themselves for someone else...with abortion, they could have used preventative measures, but since they didn't they assumed the risk and had the baby, which then means they would have to follow through with the abortion (or they should have to, anyway).
 
Hornburger said:
Except with blood the people didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be forced to give their time and risk themselves for someone else.
Click to expand...

And this is the real motivation of a large portion of the pro-life crowd: It has nothing to do with protecting the innocent life of the fetus, it has to do with sex being evil and needing to be punished.

Hornburger said:
with abortion, they could have used preventative measures, but since they didn't they assumed the risk and had the baby, which then means they would have to follow through with the abortion (or they should have to, anyway).
Click to expand...

And if they did use preventative measures? Is it then OK to abort? If not, why use this irrelevant argument?
 
[QUOTEAnd this is the real motivation of a large portion of the pro-life crowd: It has nothing to do with protecting the innocent life of the fetus, it has to do with sex being evil and needing to be punished.][/QUOTE]

Wow that is quite a mouthful..I did not know you were a mind reader and could rad pro life peoples minds........Fact is you have no clue.......
 
Navy Pride said:
Wow that is quite a mouthful..I did not know you were a mind reader and could rad pro life peoples minds........Fact is you have no clue.......
Click to expand...

Who needs to be a mind-reader? I was responding to a post that basically said as much.
 
Kandahar said:
And this is the real motivation of a large portion of the pro-life crowd: It has nothing to do with protecting the innocent life of the fetus, it has to do with sex being evil and needing to be punished.
Click to expand...
umm...no? lol

How about you ask me my reasons instead of telling me? I know my own opinions much better than you.

I don't care if you have sex in the bathroom, in a closet, in a ****ing dumpster. Just don't kill an innocent life. How can we not punish murderers? I don't get it.

And if they did use preventative measures? Is it then OK to abort? If not, why use this irrelevant argument?
Click to expand...
Because birth pills have extremely high success percentages.
 
It's interesting, not one of the people who think people's money should be stolen for the "common good" thinks the government should steal blood more directly.

What hypocrites!
 
If someone is guilty of some crime and results in the injury of another person, then I think the convict should be forced to give blood if the injured person desperately needs it.
 
Hornburger said:
If someone is guilty of some crime and results in the injury of another person, then I think the convict should be forced to give blood if the injured person desperately needs it.
Click to expand...

You think the person is still going to be in desperate need of blood after the six months a trial will take to determine guilt?
 
Hornburger said:
umm...no? lol

How about you ask me my reasons instead of telling me? I know my own opinions much better than you.

I don't care if you have sex in the bathroom, in a closet, in a ****ing dumpster. Just don't kill an innocent life.
Click to expand...

You wrote this:
Hornburger said:
Except with blood the people didn't do anything wrong
Click to expand...

The obvious implication being that women who get pregnant ARE doing something wrong.

Hornburger said:
How can we not punish murderers? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

You still haven't given a satisfactory reason why it's OK to force someone to give their bodily resources in one case, but not the other. Until you do that, you'll not even begin to convince me that it's murder.

Hornburger said:
Because birth pills have extremely high success percentages.
Click to expand...

That's a non-answer. If people use protection and get pregnant anyway, is it then OK to abort? Yes or no.
 
Kandahar said:
If people use protection and get pregnant anyway, is it then OK to abort? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

No.

They excercised their freedom of choice, and then they screwed up and created a person anyway.

It's not the new person's fault that mommy and daddy are screw-ups. Why should the new person have to be executed for their crime?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No.

They excercised their freedom of choice, and then they screwed up and created a person anyway.

It's not the new person's fault that mommy and daddy are screw-ups. Why should the new person have to be executed for their crime?
Click to expand...

So if I understand your position correctly, the only real difference between abortion and mandatory blood/organ donation is that someone (supposedly) "screwed up" or is "at fault" in the case of a pregnancy?

If that's the only distinction you're able to draw, then I reiterate that once again it has nothing to do with any right to life (since you don't seem to feel the same obligation to the blood/organ recipient), and it's all about punishing people for having sex.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You think the person is still going to be in desperate need of blood after the six months a trial will take to determine guilt?
Click to expand...
The lawyer I know has cases last a max of two weeks.

Kandahar said:
The obvious implication being that women who get pregnant ARE doing something wrong.
Click to expand...
If they kill a baby...yes, they are doing something wrong.

You still haven't given a satisfactory reason why it's OK to force someone to give their bodily resources in one case, but not the other. Until you do that, you'll not even begin to convince me that it's murder.
Click to expand...
Because the baby isn't part of the woman! It's a seperate entity that resides in the mother. Just because it is inside the mother doesn't mean it is the mother's...If I put my **** in a woman's ass then she doesn't OWN my ****.

That's a non-answer. If people use protection and get pregnant anyway, is it then OK to abort? Yes or no.
Click to expand...
No. You can't kill someone just because you don't feel like following through with the pregnancy.

Birth Control pills 97% to 99.9% effective. Now, that is pretty damn likely to work. Use condoms in addition to the pill, and the success rating goes up even higher. Now, it is very rare with things of that high success rating to fail. Even if it does fail, it is unlikely that the woman will get pregnant. If it does and she does get pregnant, it would be a very rare case. And we can't deal with these "very rare cases" but have to deal with the vast majority of cases. And we have to do something to reduce this vast number of abortions taking place.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that people should not be forced to donate organs I definitely would encourage people to do so. In the case of postmortum organ donation I think it should be pretty much be a no brainer (except on religious grounds). But because of the obvious health risks with any kind of organ donation it should be a matter of choice if the donor is still alive.
 


No. Neither adult is being punshed. If you think they're being punished can you identify them and explain how exactly they're being punished and what they're being punished for?
 
Hornburger said:
The lawyer I know has cases last a max of two weeks.
Click to expand...

The lawyer you know sucks.

Do you think a critically ill patient should wait two weeks before getting necessary blood? Do you think the words "necessary" and "wait two weeks" are compatible?
 
Of course not, what a ridiculous notion to begin with, is nothing sacred anymore?:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…