(Original post by oo00oo)
I know I don't get to choose... and that's the problem.
It doesn't make me God, no. But it does make me the owner of valuable and desirable goods, and as owner of those goods, I should reserve the right to exercise control over who I do business with concerning those goods.
I have the right to judge whoever I like in whatever way I like... there's no limit on the extent to which I can judge a person or the conclusions I can reach.
Well that's fair enough if people want to donate to babies... I don't. I want a return on my investment, and the best way of getting that is to have assurance that the recipient of my donation meets my criteria.
I don't need them when I'm dead, but I'm a selfless person, and I'd like to think that I can exert whatever influence I have once I'm dead to improve the world and not worsen it.
Well, that's just nonsense. An alcoholic chooses to get out of bed, go to the post office, cash in their giro and then take it for a spree in the off-licence. A cripple does not choose to have non-functional limbs.
If an ailed person has ANY level of control over what they're doing, then they should be exploiting that control to its full extent to help end their ailment. I'm sure if a cripple did have some element of choice, they would opt to use it to their benefit and to their recovery, and not opt to use it to continue down the spiral of decadence.
Probably not. After all, they want to die, and they might well want to kill themselves again after they are discharged with a brand new liver. Seems like a horrific waste to me.
Okay, it's a shame that they were born with a debilitating condition and that they suffered in life, but that doesn't mean it's okay to just waste vital organs on them.
I'd pick somebody who needs a liver through no fault of their own... through no consequence of their own choices and actions, and somebody who can show me that they will cherish the sustained life that my liver will bring them, and use it to be a good, moral, contributing member of society.
None of it is.
But I'd rather it didn't go to any of them and went to somebody who was neither.
Yes, and isn't that a disgusting notion? If people could exercise the right to choose their recipients, or choose the criteria that their recipients must meet, then despite the law, NO convicted criminals would be getting organs.
I think it is implied that they are included in my blacklist...
No (or trivial) criminal record would definitely be a criterion to be met.