3 ms·

Because opt-out implies that my body is not my property nor my heirs but the property of the state upon my death (and possibly before), whereas the opposite is

Because opt-out implies that my body is not my property nor my heirs but the property of the state upon my death (and possibly before), whereas the opposite is true for opt-in. Like most rights and freedoms, opt-in protects me legally better than opt-out but makes life more difficult for the group if people use their freedoms selfishly. I would never opt-in to opt-out because I value freedom and want humans to do the difficult bit of persuasion and education instead of coercion and the nasty ramifications that can come of the state getting even a camel's nose inside the tent of owning my body (and thus the right to do things to that body). Pick any freedom/right you like and it'll be like this, whether it's speech or guns or right to silence or right to a lawyer, bodily autonomy against vaccine mandates or bodily autonomy in getting abortions… freedom is just so inconvenient for those who want what's best for the collective, but never mind the individuals who get crushed along the way to utopia. So no thanks (and that includes your generous offer of a time limited opt-out).

saiya-jin 4y ago
Well no, if you are actually truly in your heart subscribed to any major religion, after your death its not 'your' body anymore, just some leftover soon-to-rot garbage on the level of trimmed nails or cut hair, nothing more. In fact, its rotting garbage regardless of your beliefs, nature doesn't care about those pesky things. The other side is about saving actual lives in no small numbers, so what OP describes are tons of lives saved by just amending bureaucracy slightly, while preserving all those 'freedoms' that people like you keep repeating ad nausea anytime anything worthy is discussed. If you actually really care about those freedoms, doing 2 minute bureaucratic work (or 5 seconds) every 5 years is no brainer. But if you just have knee jerk reactions to any change, well thats another problem on your side that is no concern to rest of society.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  >Well no, if you are actually truly in your heart subscribed to any major religion, after your death its not 'your' body anymore, just some leftover soon-to-rot garbage on the level of trimmed nails or cut hair, nothing more. Confident assertion of what people unlike you must believe makes me extremely skeptical about letting anyone on your side of this debate near the levers of power.
- brigandish 4y ago
  I'm an atheist.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Like most rights and freedoms, opt-in protects me legally better than opt-out but makes life more difficult At that point are already dead, too late to protect you. Dead people's 'rights' is a strange legal concept, and they shouldn't not be valued above the living. Your pontification about 'mah freedom' doesnt work, because your freedom is someone else's liability. If you have the right to a fair trial by your peers, now I have to pay the salary of a judge, and I have to go on jury duty. But maybe by freedom is more important? Why am I being forced to do work in a courtroom against my will for free, is this like slavery? So you won't get a trial of your peers.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > At that point are already dead, too late to protect you. If the implication is made before my death, in law, that I do not own my body then I am not protected when I'm alive. > Your pontification about 'mah freedom' doesnt work Please, cut that out. Go to Reddit or Twitter if you want to have discussions of that kind, but like a lot of other people on HN, I hope for basic courtesy when starting a conversation with someone.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    >>If the implication is made before my death, in law, that I do not own my body then I am not protected when I'm alive. We can all make whatever wishes we want before our deaths, but they are just suggestions not law - like OP said, dead people(corpses) are not legally people anymore, they have no rights. The law protects your body from certain things, but it's by binding the living, not by granting the rights to the dead. To put it in other words. You absolutely own your body - while you are alive. When you are not, you don't because you don't exist anymore. It's not yours, because there is no you. We have a legal system that will respect some of your remaining wishes, and hence the ability to opt-out. But there is zero reason why the list should be opt-in by default, or at least I don't see such a reason, neither in your post nor elsewhere.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      To quote myself, “Because opt-out implies that my body is not my property nor my heirs”.

saiya-jin 4y ago

Well no, if you are actually truly in your heart subscribed to any major religion, after your death its not 'your' body anymore, just some leftover soon-to-rot garbage on the level of trimmed nails or cut hair, nothing more. In fact, its rotting garbage regardless of your beliefs, nature doesn't care about those pesky things. The other side is about saving actual lives in no small numbers, so what OP describes are tons of lives saved by just amending bureaucracy slightly, while preserving all those 'freedoms' that people like you keep repeating ad nausea anytime anything worthy is discussed. If you actually really care about those freedoms, doing 2 minute bureaucratic work (or 5 seconds) every 5 years is no brainer. But if you just have knee jerk reactions to any change, well thats another problem on your side that is no concern to rest of society.

SuoDuanDao 4y ago
>Well no, if you are actually truly in your heart subscribed to any major religion, after your death its not 'your' body anymore, just some leftover soon-to-rot garbage on the level of trimmed nails or cut hair, nothing more. Confident assertion of what people unlike you must believe makes me extremely skeptical about letting anyone on your side of this debate near the levers of power.
brigandish 4y ago
I'm an atheist.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> Like most rights and freedoms, opt-in protects me legally better than opt-out but makes life more difficult At that point are already dead, too late to protect you. Dead people's 'rights' is a strange legal concept, and they shouldn't not be valued above the living. Your pontification about 'mah freedom' doesnt work, because your freedom is someone else's liability. If you have the right to a fair trial by your peers, now I have to pay the salary of a judge, and I have to go on jury duty. But maybe by freedom is more important? Why am I being forced to do work in a courtroom against my will for free, is this like slavery? So you won't get a trial of your peers.

brigandish 4y ago
> At that point are already dead, too late to protect you. If the implication is made before my death, in law, that I do not own my body then I am not protected when I'm alive. > Your pontification about 'mah freedom' doesnt work Please, cut that out. Go to Reddit or Twitter if you want to have discussions of that kind, but like a lot of other people on HN, I hope for basic courtesy when starting a conversation with someone.
- gambiting 4y ago
  >>If the implication is made before my death, in law, that I do not own my body then I am not protected when I'm alive. We can all make whatever wishes we want before our deaths, but they are just suggestions not law - like OP said, dead people(corpses) are not legally people anymore, they have no rights. The law protects your body from certain things, but it's by binding the living, not by granting the rights to the dead. To put it in other words. You absolutely own your body - while you are alive. When you are not, you don't because you don't exist anymore. It's not yours, because there is no you. We have a legal system that will respect some of your remaining wishes, and hence the ability to opt-out. But there is zero reason why the list should be opt-in by default, or at least I don't see such a reason, neither in your post nor elsewhere.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    To quote myself, “Because opt-out implies that my body is not my property nor my heirs”.