KRC Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 This seems to belong in the PC thread, but wouldn't the govment be infringing on my rights as a dead person if they harvested my organs? 296592[/snapback] Yes, they would be infringing on your rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Arranged marriages: I'm for it. It would give the single people the same chance to be happy as the married people. Love can grow in a realtionship. Donor Organ Shortage: What's this about people being on a waiting list? If I were Prez I would pass a law that all vital organs from the recently dead become Federal Property to be distributed to those on waiting lists. I mean for people that their organs are worth the trouble of harvetsing. It's selfish to keep your organs after you are dead. 296588[/snapback] Here's your first date then, I'm sure you'll get to really love her. http://www.thespoof.com/picstore/people/re...gly%20woman.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonprophet Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 They absolutely would be infringing on an individual's rights and I don't like the thought of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that an organ donor's beneficiaries get paid anything for the deceased person's harvested organs. Obviously, healthy organs are worth something to the health care industry so perhaps monetary compensation should be offered as an incentive for people to fill out their donor cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Here's your first date then, I'm sure you'll get to really love her. http://www.thespoof.com/picstore/people/re...gly%20woman.jpg 296597[/snapback] I bet she was something before electricity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 According to the article on CNN:CNN Thingy 296310[/snapback] I know you're the messenger so I'm not going after you, but I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the "additional risk of 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent" cited by the author is not significant enough to be relevant. I imagine that psychologists and sociologists could argue that there are simply too many variables in the test sample to claim such a small percentage. Some variables might be that as lower income people are more prone to marrying cousins, they are also more prone to drinking, smoking, and other drug use during pregnancy. Lower income people also tend to not receive the best health education and healthcare, and they tend live in areas that are more conducive to disease. I'm sure there are others much better acquainted with scientific research than I am, but I gotta' believe that a range that small fits well within a statistical error margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 I know you're the messenger so I'm not going after you, but I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the "additional risk of 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent" cited by the author is not significant enough to be relevant. 296621[/snapback] I agree with you that percentages that small usually fall within the error cited with the study. I just wanted to provide additional data to the comment made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheManTheMythTheLegend Posted April 5, 2005 Author Share Posted April 5, 2005 I know you're the messenger so I'm not going after you, but I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the "additional risk of 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent" cited by the author is not significant enough to be relevant.296621[/snapback] Tell that to a pregnant woman. I'm sure any woman who is pregnant would do ANYTHING to reduce the risk of a birth defect by ever a small amout like 1.7%, ya know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Yes, they would be infringing on your rights. 296595[/snapback] Would I be powerless to do anything about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Tell that to a pregnant woman. I'm sure any woman who is pregnant would do ANYTHING to reduce the risk of a birth defect by ever a small amout like 1.7%, ya know? 296633[/snapback] Wow, missed the point entirely, did you? The percentage may not be accurate. Percentages that are that extraordinarily low in scientific studies are generally nothing more than statistical anomalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
col_forbin Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 According to an article from CNN.com two cousins (1st cousins) from Pennsylvania recently went to Maryland because PAs laws prohibited them from getting married. Maryland is apparently all for kissing cousins, as they were wed there. CNN.com's front page poll asks: "Should states prohibit first cousins from marrying each other?" Only 67% of people say yes, states should prohibit 1st cousin marriages. W T F ? 296255[/snapback] You haven't seen my cousin then have you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Would I be powerless to do anything about it? 296637[/snapback] Once you are dead, yes, if you did not take the proper precautions before you died. The point would be to fight to make sure the politicians do not impliment something like this in the first place. Also, make sure your wishes are detailed in a legal document (Living Will, POA, etc). It makes it easier for your family to fight for you after you are gone or when you can't fight for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Would I be powerless to do anything about it? 296637[/snapback] You'd be dead - so your survivors or estate would have to be proactive on your behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Would I be powerless to do anything about it? 296637[/snapback] You could haunt the guy that ok'd the transfer of your organs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 According to an article from CNN.com two cousins (1st cousins) from Pennsylvania recently went to Maryland because PAs laws prohibited them from getting married. Maryland is apparently all for kissing cousins, as they were wed there. CNN.com's front page poll asks: "Should states prohibit first cousins from marrying each other?" Only 67% of people say yes, states should prohibit 1st cousin marriages. W T F ? 296255[/snapback] PA might not allow it but they don't require a bloodtest either so I don't know why they would bother. Of course, two first cousins probably aren't that bright... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 I just don't understand why the state has any interest in banning cousin marriage. I think it's pretty gross myself, but I think lots of things are pretty gross. I don't make laws based on what I think is gross, otherwise Nate Newton would have to emigrate (well, I don't make laws anyway, but you know what I mean.) Yes, there is a marginally increased risk of genetic defects. But we can find lots of people that, if they married, would have a high risk of genetic defects. I don't mean to be insensitive, but marrying Jim Kelly gives your children a hugely increased risk of Krabbe's Disease. Banning cousin-marriage on this grounds is equivalent to banning marriage to Jim Kelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 You could haunt the guy that ok'd the transfer of your organs... 296666[/snapback] What if they gave one of my organs to a woman? That would be freaky. (for her I mean, I think I would be beyond caring) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 What if they gave one of my organs to a woman? That would be freaky. (for her I mean, I think I would be beyond caring) 296725[/snapback] I guess you'd be singing 'I feel pretty, oh so pretty' in the afterlife... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 "I refuse to live in a land that stops us from marrying our cousins!" 296330[/snapback] Ok Piglet! Start squealin! Where did you get these lemons for this lemonade??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Ok Piglet! Start squealin! Where did you get these lemons for this lemonade??? 296729[/snapback] And with that, a mighty cheer went up from the heroes of Shelbyville. They had banished the awful lemon tree forever, because it was haunted. Now let's all celebrate with a cool glass of turnip juice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 I think FAMILIES should keep first cousins from marrying...not states. 296313[/snapback] Right, it's the GAYS that the states need to keep apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts