3 ms·

> I believe that individuals have rights over their own body which supersede anyone else's rights to their body You do understand how this can be twisted for _

> I believe that individuals have rights over their own body which supersede anyone else's rights to their body You do understand how this can be twisted for __very__ bad things, right?

viksit 4y ago
actually no, can you elaborate?
- Levitz 4y ago
  If your bodily rights supersede anyone else's rights to their body, then someone with lung cancer can go ahead and murder someone to obtain a new pair of lungs.
  - bettysdiagnose 4y ago
    I think you misunderstood who the word "their" is referring to here.
  - tzs 4y ago
    There was a pretty nifty short story called "Dibs" by Brian Plante in the April 2004 issues of Analog that was sort of along those lines. Whenever someone would die soon if they did not get an organ transplant the government would check the records to identify all people who would be good donors. Those donors would all receive a notification that someone has dibs on that organ. If one of those donors died while the person with dibs was still alive their organ would be used to save the life of the person with dibs. When that happened, or when the person with dibs dies before getting a transplant, all the people who had been potential donors were notified that no one had dibs on their organ any more. Most of the time for most people they would occasionally get notified someone had dibs on some organ of theirs and then in a week or two they'd get a notice that it was resolved and their organ was no longer under dibs. Rarely, someone who had an organ under dibs would get a notification that a second organ was under dibs. Most of the time that would end like the single dibs case. Two or three weeks later they would be back to normal with no organs under dibs. Very rarely someone with two organs under dibs would get a notification that a third organ was under dibs. In that case they were required to give up their three organs to save the lives of the three people under dibs.

> I believe that individuals have rights over their own body which supersede anyone else's rights to their body You do understand how this can be twisted for __very__ bad things, right?

viksit 4y ago

actually no, can you elaborate?

Levitz 4y ago
If your bodily rights supersede anyone else's rights to their body, then someone with lung cancer can go ahead and murder someone to obtain a new pair of lungs.
- bettysdiagnose 4y ago
  I think you misunderstood who the word "their" is referring to here.
- tzs 4y ago
  There was a pretty nifty short story called "Dibs" by Brian Plante in the April 2004 issues of Analog that was sort of along those lines. Whenever someone would die soon if they did not get an organ transplant the government would check the records to identify all people who would be good donors. Those donors would all receive a notification that someone has dibs on that organ. If one of those donors died while the person with dibs was still alive their organ would be used to save the life of the person with dibs. When that happened, or when the person with dibs dies before getting a transplant, all the people who had been potential donors were notified that no one had dibs on their organ any more. Most of the time for most people they would occasionally get notified someone had dibs on some organ of theirs and then in a week or two they'd get a notice that it was resolved and their organ was no longer under dibs. Rarely, someone who had an organ under dibs would get a notification that a second organ was under dibs. Most of the time that would end like the single dibs case. Two or three weeks later they would be back to normal with no organs under dibs. Very rarely someone with two organs under dibs would get a notification that a third organ was under dibs. In that case they were required to give up their three organs to save the lives of the three people under dibs.