Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Legality of organ repossesions?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 2:59:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This idea manifested itself in the rock opera (and one of my favorite movies) REPO! THE GENETIC OPERA. In it, a company, Geneco, finances organ transplants, replacements, surgeries, etc. However, if you're 90 days late on payments, they send out a repo man to repossess the financed organ, killing you in the process (most of the organs or structures are vital, and he just cuts you open too, while you're awake).

And, while this is indeed a pretty morbid and crazy thing, it made me wonder: for anyone out there, would you consider that kind of thing to be permissible in a society? Would a written contract make such a thing permissible? Why?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 3:07:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Don't like it? Don't sign.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
aubrey20042
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

On a related note, I've heard of that opera, but have never gotten the chance to see it. It sounds entertaining.
"The only truth is music" - Jack Kerouac
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" - Thomas Paine
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:00:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

Well I've stated before that I don't believe in self-ownership. There's really no clear "test" as to how far one can go with contracts. Most contracts we sign without actually reading it. The episode of south park comes to mind in which Apple creates a human centipede i which stan's mouth was tied to another man's anus because he didn't read the terms of agreement.


There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

However the law makes sense. If I need emergency treatment and don't have my health insurance card on me, I'd be screwed despite ability to pay. The whole point of emergency treatment is that its suppose to be down quickly, so one can't exactly quibble over whether one can pay or not.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:01:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 2:59:29 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This idea manifested itself in the rock opera (and one of my favorite movies) REPO! THE GENETIC OPERA. In it, a company, Geneco, finances organ transplants, replacements, surgeries, etc. However, if you're 90 days late on payments, they send out a repo man to repossess the financed organ, killing you in the process (most of the organs or structures are vital, and he just cuts you open too, while you're awake).

And, while this is indeed a pretty morbid and crazy thing, it made me wonder: for anyone out there, would you consider that kind of thing to be permissible in a society? Would a written contract make such a thing permissible? Why?

I doubt it would ever be legal to make a contract like that.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:36:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.
How is it more compassionate to offer someone fewer choices at no benefit to them?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
aubrey20042
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:39:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

Yes, but why is it legally required? Because it is widely considered to be inhumane and cruel to refuse treatment to someone with the inability to pay, or who have the misfortune to forget their insurance cards. These feelings of disgust and outrage are grounded in humanity's ability for compassion. From an economic standpoint, it would be much wiser to turn away these people.
"The only truth is music" - Jack Kerouac
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" - Thomas Paine
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:48:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:39:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

Yes, but why is it legally required? Because it is widely considered to be inhumane and cruel to refuse treatment to someone with the inability to pay, or who have the misfortune to forget their insurance cards. These feelings of disgust and outrage are grounded in humanity's ability for compassion. From an economic standpoint, it would be much wiser to turn away these people.

If most people agree than why is the law even needed?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:49:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:48:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:39:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

Yes, but why is it legally required? Because it is widely considered to be inhumane and cruel to refuse treatment to someone with the inability to pay, or who have the misfortune to forget their insurance cards. These feelings of disgust and outrage are grounded in humanity's ability for compassion. From an economic standpoint, it would be much wiser to turn away these people.

If most people agree than why is the law even needed?

Obviously some people do not have a sense of ethics.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:00:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:49:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:48:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:39:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

Yes, but why is it legally required? Because it is widely considered to be inhumane and cruel to refuse treatment to someone with the inability to pay, or who have the misfortune to forget their insurance cards. These feelings of disgust and outrage are grounded in humanity's ability for compassion. From an economic standpoint, it would be much wiser to turn away these people.

If most people agree than why is the law even needed?

Obviously some people do not have a sense of ethics.

First of all, not agreeing with your own conception of right and wrong does not entail that someone has no sense of right and wrong. Second, if the majority of society believes that turning someone away to die is wrong, I would think that some form of societal pressure could be lulled together rather than expanding centralized authority of the government.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:24:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:00:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:49:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:48:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:39:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

Yes, but why is it legally required? Because it is widely considered to be inhumane and cruel to refuse treatment to someone with the inability to pay, or who have the misfortune to forget their insurance cards. These feelings of disgust and outrage are grounded in humanity's ability for compassion. From an economic standpoint, it would be much wiser to turn away these people.

If most people agree than why is the law even needed?

Obviously some people do not have a sense of ethics.

First of all, not agreeing with your own conception of right and wrong does not entail that someone has no sense of right and wrong. Second, if the majority of society believes that turning someone away to die is wrong, I would think that some form of societal pressure could be lulled together rather than expanding centralized authority of the government.

This has mitigated the existence of murder, correct?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:44:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:24:46 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:00:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:49:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:48:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:39:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

Yes, but why is it legally required? Because it is widely considered to be inhumane and cruel to refuse treatment to someone with the inability to pay, or who have the misfortune to forget their insurance cards. These feelings of disgust and outrage are grounded in humanity's ability for compassion. From an economic standpoint, it would be much wiser to turn away these people.

If most people agree than why is the law even needed?

Obviously some people do not have a sense of ethics.

First of all, not agreeing with your own conception of right and wrong does not entail that someone has no sense of right and wrong. Second, if the majority of society believes that turning someone away to die is wrong, I would think that some form of societal pressure could be lulled together rather than expanding centralized authority of the government.

This has mitigated the existence of murder, correct?

And we can see how well simple prohibition has worked out.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 5:08:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:44:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:24:46 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:00:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:49:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:48:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:39:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

Yes, but why is it legally required? Because it is widely considered to be inhumane and cruel to refuse treatment to someone with the inability to pay, or who have the misfortune to forget their insurance cards. These feelings of disgust and outrage are grounded in humanity's ability for compassion. From an economic standpoint, it would be much wiser to turn away these people.

If most people agree than why is the law even needed?

Obviously some people do not have a sense of ethics.

First of all, not agreeing with your own conception of right and wrong does not entail that someone has no sense of right and wrong. Second, if the majority of society believes that turning someone away to die is wrong, I would think that some form of societal pressure could be lulled together rather than expanding centralized authority of the government.

This has mitigated the existence of murder, correct?

And we can see how well simple prohibition has worked out.

It has probably reduced the amount of murder.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 5:29:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 5:08:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:44:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:24:46 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:00:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:49:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:48:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:39:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

Yes, but why is it legally required? Because it is widely considered to be inhumane and cruel to refuse treatment to someone with the inability to pay, or who have the misfortune to forget their insurance cards. These feelings of disgust and outrage are grounded in humanity's ability for compassion. From an economic standpoint, it would be much wiser to turn away these people.

If most people agree than why is the law even needed?

Obviously some people do not have a sense of ethics.

First of all, not agreeing with your own conception of right and wrong does not entail that someone has no sense of right and wrong. Second, if the majority of society believes that turning someone away to die is wrong, I would think that some form of societal pressure could be lulled together rather than expanding centralized authority of the government.

This has mitigated the existence of murder, correct?

And we can see how well simple prohibition has worked out.

It has probably reduced the amount of murder.

Proof?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 5:35:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 5:29:38 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 5:08:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:44:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:24:46 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:00:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:49:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:48:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:39:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

Yes, but why is it legally required? Because it is widely considered to be inhumane and cruel to refuse treatment to someone with the inability to pay, or who have the misfortune to forget their insurance cards. These feelings of disgust and outrage are grounded in humanity's ability for compassion. From an economic standpoint, it would be much wiser to turn away these people.

If most people agree than why is the law even needed?

Obviously some people do not have a sense of ethics.

First of all, not agreeing with your own conception of right and wrong does not entail that someone has no sense of right and wrong. Second, if the majority of society believes that turning someone away to die is wrong, I would think that some form of societal pressure could be lulled together rather than expanding centralized authority of the government.

This has mitigated the existence of murder, correct?

And we can see how well simple prohibition has worked out.

It has probably reduced the amount of murder.

Proof?

It is only logical to conclude that some people are not murdering others because it is illegal. How am I going to be able to offer statistics for this?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 5:55:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 5:35:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 5:29:38 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 5:08:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:44:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:24:46 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:00:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:49:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:48:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:39:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:26:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:03:31 PM, aubrey20042 wrote:
You can cite legality and contract law all you want, but at some point compassion and humanity has to supersede legal issues like that.

The point of the OP is to scope the legitimate limits of self ownership. Starting with the premise of self ownership, the question arises of how far one can go with it. This specific formulation probes whether or not one could legitimately form a contract where, as a condition of you not fulfilling your terms, the other party would be allowed to actively endanger your life by ripping out your organs. If we grant that people own themselves, obviously they have the right to do so but your ambiguous citation of compassion is unhelpful in the scope of any actual intellectual discussion.

There's a reason that emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment.

The reason is that the government makes them, that it is LEGALLY required. Nothing about compassion there.

Yes, but why is it legally required? Because it is widely considered to be inhumane and cruel to refuse treatment to someone with the inability to pay, or who have the misfortune to forget their insurance cards. These feelings of disgust and outrage are grounded in humanity's ability for compassion. From an economic standpoint, it would be much wiser to turn away these people.

If most people agree than why is the law even needed?

Obviously some people do not have a sense of ethics.

First of all, not agreeing with your own conception of right and wrong does not entail that someone has no sense of right and wrong. Second, if the majority of society believes that turning someone away to die is wrong, I would think that some form of societal pressure could be lulled together rather than expanding centralized authority of the government.

This has mitigated the existence of murder, correct?

And we can see how well simple prohibition has worked out.

It has probably reduced the amount of murder.

Proof?

It is only logical to conclude that some people are not murdering others because it is illegal. How am I going to be able to offer statistics for this?

My point exactly. You seem to just assume it which is funny to me.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.