re: #746 LotharBot

1 handed, feedin baby

i see no need to take a stance. only to note that many stances stand up to your reasoning. why make my point narrower than it has to be? why defend only one view when i can defend many, right and left? why do you think i even have a specific stance?

you raise some good points regarding property and the extent to which one should take their morality. if i ever settle on a stance i’ll take your points into consideration.

The reason I ask you to take a stance is because if you don’t take one you’re not really arguing in my eyes, you’re just nit picking my argument without bringing anything to the table yourself. Its like playing football when the other team has no endzone.

If you want to talk about points”A B C D” that you mentioned earlier I’d actually argue with point “B” “killing” in the violinist example.

His body is so warn down that it can not survive on its own, and yet am I truly “Killing him” when I pull the plug that connects us?

I am leaving him to die, but people are left to die from their problems all over America.

Are we “killing” people if we refuse to help them? If you drive by a car crash and you see someone struggling free from it covered in blood, are you “killing” them if you keep on driving and don’t stop to help them?

As a leftist yes I believe in big government and I may play hard and lose with money sometimes, but I believe there is no wiggle room with organs.

As for how I can explain this it goes like this.

None of us are born with money, in the sense that we emerge from our mother’s wombs gripping greenbacks.

None of us are born with any external belongings.

But we’re born with our internal organs.

Our bodies should be sacrosanct, our most private of private possessions that can never under any circumstances be used by another without your permission.

I feel that there yes there should be a law that it is not illegal to deny someone your internal organs and I believe that its impossible to argue ethically otherwise, without making us HAVE to give of our bodies to every poor sod who comes to our doors, why should the fact that some lucky violinist managed to make it a Fait Accompli make a difference?

If our organs aren’t ours to decide what to do with in every situation, then whose are they?

Do they belong wherever they can do the most good?

If you can’t pay your taxes the government can take one of your kidneys?

If “private property” isn’t private in the sense that we can defend it and deny others access to it, then don’t we have to seriously rethink how society functions?