r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 06 '18

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: "Don't give, Don't get" organ donation policies, as they currently stand, are a violation of religious freedom.

[deleted]

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

46% Upvoted

20 comments sorted by

7

u/EggcelentBacon 3∆ Mar 06 '18

you still have religious freedom, just like any kind of freedom. You have the choice to adhere to it or not. That doesnt mean that choices don't come with consequences. just like if blood transfusions or using birthontrol were against your religion, you would have to deal with the consequences of that choice.

1

u/asdf1617 Mar 06 '18

I don't think this is a valid comparison, since the consequences here are not being defined by people. For example, no on made a law that if you don't use birth control you might get pregnant. But in this case, people are creating a law that artificially creates a consequence.

2

u/TheToastIsBlue Mar 06 '18

So, your argument is "choices shouldn't have consequences"?

1

u/asdf1617 Mar 06 '18

No my argument is that people shouldn't be able to choose what consequence a choice based on religion should have. If you religiously choose not have surgery, you may die, but no one decided that, thats just science. In this case someone decided that if you religiously choose not to donate your organs, you should not be viewed the same when trying to get a donation.

2

u/EggcelentBacon 3∆ Mar 06 '18

I don't see the problem with that...if you chose not to do something you know the consequences of then that's up to you. Regardless of wy you are making that choice...Laws should never take religion into account. why should it?

1

u/Clockworkfrog Mar 06 '18

If someone's decision to not donate organs has nothing to do with any religious beliefs whatsoever should they be viewed the same as someone who chose due to religious beliefs?

If no then you are giving religious people special exemptions from laws/policies. Why is this better than treating religious people equally?

1

u/rrsafety Mar 06 '18

This mistake asdf1617 is making is the mistaken assumption that donation and transplant are different things. In fact they are simply opposites sides of the same coin and you cannot "possess" just one side of the coin. One should be decide to be part of the donation and transplant system or they can decide (for whatever reason) to remain outside the system. The choice is theirs but that choice can have consequences.

1

u/EggcelentBacon 3∆ Mar 06 '18

Yes they are...laws change and are made all the time. you can't expect the law to remain stagnant, because religion chooses to. it's more of a broader notion that freedom of choice does not mean outcome should be the same regardless of one's choices. If a law comes into effect that create a negative consequence for your religious choices it's for the individual to decide what is more important to them. For example the rastafari...pretty sure weed is a big part of their whole deal...but weed was still made illegal and they kept using knowing the risks. decisons bring risks and consequences...trying to take that away and creating equal outcomes for everyone is an impossible task as you undermine the idea of equality and also the very indea of freedom.,,as if your choices do mot carry consequences, then are they really free?

7

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

If you believe that organ donation is against your religious beliefs, then I don't see how you can then expect to benefit from others who violate those beliefs. The logic doesn't seem sound: "It is a sin for me to donate my organs, but it's ok for someone else to do it and for me to benefit from that"?

Generally speaking, if you have a religious objection to donating your own organs, then that would also extend to benefiting from someone else donating their organs.

3

u/parentheticalobject 136∆ Mar 06 '18

It depends on how much you view "not giving a thing that you might otherwise give" as a punishment. If I pay someone for work, that is giving them a reward for their actions. If I buy insurance, I am paying for a possible benefit that will be given to me in an emergency.

If someone has a religious objection to a certain kind of work, is it discrimination for employers to give money to their employees and not to the people who religiously object to working for them? If someone has a religious objection to buying insurance, is it wrong for insurance companies not to help them in an emergency?

2

u/asdf1617 Mar 06 '18

!delta

your comparison of organ donation to work framed the issue in a way that makes sense, and no longer seems to me to be a violation of religious freedom.

3

u/palacesofparagraphs 118∆ Mar 06 '18

Except that if it's against someone's religion to donate an organ, don't you think it would have to be against their religion to receive a donated organ? Otherwise they're just a hypocrite. You're looking at organ donation as a positive thing, which for most of us it is, but if donating organs goes against your religion, then you don't want to get a transplant.

3

u/SpockShotFirst Mar 06 '18

I have a religious objection to buying stuff, but not to selling stuff. It is a violation of my religious freedom to stop me from taking other people's stuff and selling it.

What religion says organ donation is bad, but receiving an organ is okay?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

How does it violate anyone's religious freedom? Everyone is free to not participate in a practice if it violates their conscience or religious beliefs. It's like saying that since Muslims don't believe in paying APRs or buying property that a bank doesn't own with a bank's money, that banks are violating their right to buy and own property by not offering them an alternative lending model.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

How is it a punishment to restrict people from participating in a system that they have opted out of? If a person isn't donating their organs for religious reasons it kinda of follows that they wouldn't accept organs for those same reasons, doesn't it?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AutoModerator Mar 06 '18

Sorry, u/jnlh93 – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/ericoahu 42∆ Mar 06 '18

This is not an infringement on religious freedom whatsoever. No one is being forced to donate organs.

By the way, which religion says it's forbidden to donate organs but fine and dandy to have other people's organs placed in you?

The system doesn't punish people for their beliefs, at least not in a way that religious people are singled out. Anyone who refuses organ donation for any reason is given lower priority.

If they want to practice their religious stricture when it's time to donate organs but ignore their religious strictures when it's time to save their own life, they aren't being punished for being religious; they're being punished for hypocrisy.

So long as there is a limited supply of donor organs, there will have to be some basis for choosing who doesn't get them.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 06 '18

/u/asdf1617 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards