• 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!

What can the government force you to do?

Read the scenarios in the OP carefully, and decide which punishment is acceptable.

  • A

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • B

    Votes: 16 57.1%

  • Both A and B

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • Neither A nor B

    Votes: 9 32.1%
  • Total voters
    28

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
12,210
Reaction score
7,341
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Please read the scenarios below carefully before you respond to the poll. This centers around what form of punishment the government can impose upon you and to what extent they can hold you responsible for mistakes you have made.

A.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to donate blood against your will in order to save the victim of the car accident you caused?

B.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to pay for the ambulance ride to take the victim of the accident you caused to the hospital and cover whatever medical treatments were necessary to save that person's life?

Which would be an acceptable thing for the government to do, and which one would not? Is it neither, both, or one or the other and why?
 
I see both as perfectly acceptable. I see why people would have a problem with A as they're taking your body fluids, but at the end of the day I'm a realist. The person in question through negligence seriously endangered the life of someone else, and if they're compatible giving a little blood that they'll replenish naturally anyway is the least they can do. The second scenario is even more acceptable. Of course you should pay for the damage you caused.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
if they're compatible giving a little blood that they'll replenish naturally anyway is the least they can do.
Click to expand...
I see you have no issue with the Government forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will? Obviously, it would be good for the person to donate their blood, and obviously, I think most people would be willing to donate their blood. But you're okay with the government forcing a person to do it against their will?

To what end? What if the accident caused the victim to lose the use of their kidney? Can the government force them to do that?

RabidAlpaca said:
The second scenario is even more acceptable. Of course, you should pay for the damage you caused.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you can at least see the important difference between the two.
 

A. Aids, Hepatitis, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, etc.

B. Insurance.
 

I do see the difference, I just don't see a slippery slope in this scenario. It's not like the government is going to use this precedent to start forcing you to give your seamen to fertilize government soldiers. If you put someone's life in serious danger because of your negligence, you should be forced to help, giving blood is not going to kill you.
 
B gets my vote.

A is useless if your blood type is different from the victim's.

B is already the case due to mandatory auto liability insurance laws.
 

I voted for B. Covering the medical expenses would include the cost of blood transfusions, so option A wouldn't be necessary. Besides that, I don't like the idea of the Government telling me what to do with my body. At all.
 
Neither. The government does not have the authority to demand someone donate their blood or organs to someone else - this is the essence of bodily autonomy, which is a requirement in a free state.

The state has no authority to demand you make payments to someone in a case like this because it is an accident. Had you done it on purpose, as a criminal matter, restitution would be sorted out in a court of law.

Both of these scenarios set up a ridiculous conundrum. Donate blood or you are charged with murder; pay for the ambulance or you are charged with murder.
 

A is a complete violation of bodily autonomy regardless of blood type compatibility.

B happens quite often via litigation.
 

The problem with requiring to give blood (A) is that the police instantly then become judge and jury over who caused the accident, so that would never pass Constitutional rights states. Only a court can decide who caused an accident as a governmental decision. Police can only write a report or issue a ticket. Even if the person is arrested, that does not establish guilt - at least not by the Bill Of Rights.

As for B, that's what lawsuits are for. I see nothing special about the petty ambulance bill for a major accident in which a person's "life hung in the balance." The ambulance will transport the person whether paid or not and it is very rare ambulance companies pursue unpaid transportation costs.

So the answer is no to both, unless by "government" you mean a court judgment ruling the person owns ambulance fees.

Why do so many Democrats want to erase the Bill of Rights?
 

This....this is the type of crap that scares me.
 
I would be on team "neither A nor B", assuming 'the government' means the federal government... These aren't Federal Government powers...
 
bearpoker said:
I voted for B. Covering the medical expenses would include the cost of blood transfusions, so option A wouldn't be necessary. Besides that, I don't like the idea of the Government telling me what to do with my body. At all.
Click to expand...

A would likely be too late since it must occur post criminal conviction or finding of civil liability.
 
I voted B. My objection to A has to do with religions that consider blood transfusions wrong for whatever reason.

They are apparently more common than I had realized, and many of them would rather die than receive a transfusion (it happens regularly,) and wouldn't want to give one either.

Holding someone financially liable for damage they've caused seems pretty straightforward.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Boo hoo, you gave blood and saved a life you tried to take. Cry me a river with your melodrama.
Click to expand...

And doing that stuff voluntarily is wonderful and all... But unconstitutional government compulsion??
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I do see the difference, I just don't see a slippery slope in this scenario. It's not like the government is going to use this precedent to start forcing you to give your seamen to fertilize government soldiers.
Click to expand...
But what about donating a kidney? That is unlikely to kill you as well. Generally a fairly safe procedure. How likely does a procedure have to be to kill you before the government can no longer force you to go through with it against your will?

RabidAlpaca said:
giving blood is not going to kill you.
Click to expand...

While it is highly unlikely that giving blood would ever kill you there is always the potential possibility of needle contamination or user error causing an excessive loss of blood. Needle sticks can potentially pass various STDs to be transferred. The risks are minimal, but they are there.
 
WillyPete said:
I voted B. My objection to A has to do with religions that consider blood transfusions wrong for whatever reason.

They are apparently more common than I had realized
Click to expand...

Why couldn't someone's religious beliefs consider monetary compensation to be wrong for whatever reason? If it's taken against your will that could constitute theft which the Ten Commandments would suggest is a sin.
 

No, your kidney does not grow back. Like I said, I just don't see a slippery slope there. I'm very pragmatic when it comes to life and death situations. Saving a life over something someone grows back and isn't a risk to them.

gfm7175 said:
And doing that stuff voluntarily is wonderful and all... But unconstitutional government compulsion??
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's constitutional, I'm just saying I don't care. Saving a life that person almost killed for a fluid you just grow back for free.

Fledermaus said:
Tried to take?
When?
Click to expand...

Read better.
 
gfm7175 said:
I would be on the team "neither A nor B", assuming 'the government' means the federal government... These aren't Federal Government powers...
Click to expand...

The which level of government is doing the forcing in this situation is irrelevant. We're not discussing what the government is currently allowed to do under the laws we have. We're discussing what the government should be allowed to do. Which level in a case like this is likely irrelevant. However, given that U.S. interstates and highways allow free travel between the various states it would stand to reason that the Federal government would have to clear any state punishment which could be imposed on someone from a completely different state.
 
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…