4 ms·

Could this meandering obfuscating "argumentation" stop? The people arguing for the law are putting up an extremely embarrassing intellectual show here. They sn

by akll 6y ago

Could this meandering obfuscating "argumentation" stop? The people arguing for the law are putting up an extremely embarrassing intellectual show here. They snipe, engage in "organ shaming", change lines of argumentation, move goalposts and generally behave like indoctrinated teenagers who picked up some lines in a course.

Fnoord 6y ago
There is no obfuscation here. The default here, is to assume that people are good, loving people. If you would be ill, and you'd require a replacement organ or you'd die, you'd be grateful if someone who passed away would donate that organ to you. My father, in his last ~5 years, was on kidney dialysis 3 times a week. It really hurt, seeing those people in pain, but it was the most beautiful department I ever saw of a hospital. Because people leave for quality of life, temporarily better. They come in exhausted. Heck, they often leave exhausted. But next day is gonna be better. There's no dept. which regularly provides a bigger impact on such a time based term. Now, no my father was too old for a transplantation. He was low on the list. But I have seen young people on that dept. too. Young people of an age where normally their life is flourishing. Young people who, normally, have a full life ahead. Young people of whom my father could've been father, if you get what I mean. It really requires a lack of empathy, or some kind of convincing of a religion (which cannot be proven true either, and is in contrast with what Jesus would've educated), that you say that after you passed away you don't want your organs to be donated. Well, then have the balls to put in the effort to say so. Because the vast majority of people, are loving and good people. On top of that, in The Netherlands (where the default was recently changed as well), most people are not even religious anymore (making the default donor more adequate). Plus, its an investment in a life, which should on the long term be good for the economy, as well as the happiness of families.

by akll 6y ago

Fnoord 6y ago

There is no obfuscation here. The default here, is to assume that people are good, loving people. If you would be ill, and you'd require a replacement organ or you'd die, you'd be grateful if someone who passed away would donate that organ to you. My father, in his last ~5 years, was on kidney dialysis 3 times a week. It really hurt, seeing those people in pain, but it was the most beautiful department I ever saw of a hospital. Because people leave for quality of life, temporarily better. They come in exhausted. Heck, they often leave exhausted. But next day is gonna be better. There's no dept. which regularly provides a bigger impact on such a time based term. Now, no my father was too old for a transplantation. He was low on the list. But I have seen young people on that dept. too. Young people of an age where normally their life is flourishing. Young people who, normally, have a full life ahead. Young people of whom my father could've been father, if you get what I mean. It really requires a lack of empathy, or some kind of convincing of a religion (which cannot be proven true either, and is in contrast with what Jesus would've educated), that you say that after you passed away you don't want your organs to be donated. Well, then have the balls to put in the effort to say so. Because the vast majority of people, are loving and good people. On top of that, in The Netherlands (where the default was recently changed as well), most people are not even religious anymore (making the default donor more adequate). Plus, its an investment in a life, which should on the long term be good for the economy, as well as the happiness of families.