It is not robbing people on the transplant list out of their
chances to live - nature took their chance away so why
should those who refuse to donate should be made to feel bad about
what is not their fault ?
Earth has its way of population control for animals and even human
beings - the weakest die , the strongest survive . This is the way
life works. Some have the unfortunate time to die early and some
survive to old age takes them . There is a delicate balance and I
refuse to tilt it either way.
Well in the end it's still your choice, however I wonder where
exactly do you draw the line at "nature taking their chance
away".
By the natural extension
of your logic, there is really no need to help provide medical care
to the poor and needy or make affordable medicines and treatments
for those who are at the mercies of market forces.
If fact you are pretty much saying if I come across you lying
broken and bleeding on the side of the road after a hit and run, I
have every right to take one hard look at you, stare you in the
eye, and walk away muttering somthing about "survival of the
fitness" under my breath and sleep well at night. After all,
unfortunate circumstances are simply "population control" and those
too weak to save themselves certainly aren't worth tilting the
balance of nature or karma invoking this bizzare thing called
"compassion".
For if you truly decide to "refuse to tilt it either way", and go
the way of true Social Darwinism, this would be the natural
conclusion of your reasoning. For one thing I find such a notion
rather hard to accept... and as you indicated... even you are
willing to bend and tilt nature's laws and rules when it comes to
your family members... in fact you more or less totally contradict
and deny your previous position on naturalism when you made that
statement.
Why?
Donating your organs while you are alive to anyone (loved one or
not) is prehaps the most unnatural to do, going by your own thesis
of "nature". There is a high chance of mortality in your loved ones
who are revieving your organs anyway, and in many cases following
transplant there is a increased chance that the person will be
unable to have children.
Hence what is happening is that you are compromising your own
health and genetic fitness (the chance to pass on your genes) by
devoting resources to aid the survival of another individual who is
all but genetically irrelevant to the human race and through which
nature is removing by totally natural processes.
In fact, what you said you are willing to do (donate while alive)
is more anti-nature then giving up organs after you are dead. You
are compromising the chances of a fit individual to pass on their
genes for the sake of a weak (and by many chances) individual who
is unlikely to make that investment pay off in gene-survival.
In fact, donating your organs after you are dead, by all reasoning
is certainly more natural given that your ability to carry on your
genes has now terminated and at the very least, the most
rationalistic gamble to help the human race in survival is to have
one last shot in boostering some other person's gene fitness in the
survival of the fittest.
I am afriad you are contradicting yourself. I understand your
personal stance in this issue... but I regret to inform you that
your justifications are quite illogical. You can only justify your
appeal for your choice on emotional grounds, certianly not the
"nature" and "natural" talk you tried to spin out to make it more
tasteful.
