Colo. legislator dropping organ-donor proposal

Good.

It should never be presumed that anyone can steal parts from your body.

Good.

It should never be presumed that anyone can steal parts from your body.

Next step is to end the presumption that the rest of your property, your money and wealth, belong to 'society'.

The solution is very simple, if you want to receive a donated organ you must have been a registered organ donar for at least one year prior to receiving a donated organ. No giving, no taking.

oldman2,

The solution is very simple, if you want to receive a donated organ you must have been a registered organ donar for at least one year prior to receiving a donated organ. No giving, no taking.

No, it really is not that simple. That same thinking really bugs me about blood donation where the donors are given a priority status (or their group, etc.). It permanently excludes people who, for whatever reason, cannot donate. For example, if you have viral hepatitis, cancer, etc., you cannot give blood nor will you be a candidate for organ donation. But you may need blood or organs.

ryggesogn2 ,

Next step is to end the presumption that the rest of your property, your money and wealth, belong to 'society'.

Excellent!

I take it you are in favor of eliminating the "death tax" as am I.

"They assert that tax cuts are the equivalent of government funds, a conclusion possible only if one assumes that all personal income belongs by default to the state rather than to the individual who earned the money."
http:/biggovernment.com/abschaeffer/2010/11/04/all-of-your-money-belongs-to-the-state/

Imagine that.... a Democrat would assume that a small piece of your liberty is the States, it must come from their school of thought.

I am against that you are presumed to be an Organ Donor. In my opinion, if you sign that you want to be a donor, you take the risk of becoming one unnecesarily.

I'm not against living donors, or donation of parts from a person who's heart has stopped beating, but if a heart is beating, we have no right to remove it.

The solution is very simple, if you want to receive a donated organ you must have been a registered organ donar for at least one year prior to receiving a donated organ. No giving, no taking.

"Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." luke6:38

No, it really is not that simple. That same thinking really bugs me about blood donation where the donors are given a priority status (or their group, etc.).

Well obviously dog the law would have to be tailored to accomodate those who can't donate through no fault of their own. And exclude smokers and others who have willfully damaged themselves and continue to do so, as they do in England.

TheGhostofOtto1923 ,

Well obviously dog the law would have to be tailored to accomodate those who can't donate through no fault of their own. And exclude smokers and others who have willfully damaged themselves and continue to do so, as they do in England.

And who will be the arbiter of who is deserving and who is not?

Did John Smith get hepatitis from sharing needles or did he get it from a blood transfusion or perhaps he got it while assisting a bleeding motorist who was in an accident. Will you decide whether he "deserves" medical care?

And yes, England does discriminate arbitrarily -- which is a good argument against government run health care.

I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance of those who presume to judge others and determine their "worth".

I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance of those who presume to judge others and determine their "worth".

It's unjustified hubris. Thus, it's not true arrogance (which is somehow justified), but born out of fear. Fear of worthlessness. Which they fight by declaring others to be worthless. Common stupidity. One root of fascism.