Fellow Brits

Fellow Brits

What the FUCK is this shit?

>Theresa May announced plans to make it easier for doctors in England to take organs for transplants without explicit consent

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4949958/Opt-DON-T-want-donate-organs.html

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.co.uk/news/health-41435255
imgur.com/a/kibaJ
imgur.com/a/YFBBs),
gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-consultation-on-organ-donation-opt-out-system
bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Organ tax, and the state only grows.

Daily reminder to not become an organ donor if you plan on signing up for cryonics

it will never work in your lifetime user

made in bulgaria?

It appears she's taking the Corbyn approach.

How long until rouge doctors steal organs from the street?

I'm no Tory supporter, but there's seriously nothing wrong with this. We do have hundreds of people dying because they can't get organ transplants, and it's your fault if you're too fucking retarded to opt-out. The only thing I would be wary of is that they won't make it obvious how to do so, or hide it behind paperwork.

An obvious tick box on the census and birth certificate ought to do it, so you can be opted out by your parents and opt back in if you want to when older.

It's up to you to decide what you want to happen to your body after your death, of course dependent on how you lived your life. It's not a lolbertarian argument to say the government shouldn't have the power to demand forced extractions of your organs m8.

You do decide...

Did you read what was said in the OP?


>Theresa May announced plans to make it easier for doctors in England to take organs for transplants without explicit consent and Jeremy Corbyn's long standing plans

and Jeremy Corbyn's long standing plans *

That's kinda the idea, isn't it?

Without explicit consent in this case means they're introducing an opt-out system, you fucking retard. Read news on the matter before trying to construct an argument based off the wording of one announcement.

In fact, here you go: bbc.co.uk/news/health-41435255

The plan has existed under Jeremy Corbyn since 2014 you utter fucking mongloid. No really, I'm sorry that I'm not as in the blue on recent developments in organ transplant laws under the Conservative Party as you you arrogant cunt, but you're still wrong. The article is about a potential policy which makes people mandatory organ donors after their death.

I'm not reading your shitty BBC article that steers off course from what the original post is in reference to.

>Hurr, Corbyn endorsed it, therefore it's bad
Yeah, I'm sure ad hom doesnt exist either.

How is it mandatory if one can choose if they don't want to have it done?

Reminder if youre welsh this is already in place and to OPT OUT NOW

>Yeah, I'm sure ad hom doesnt exist either.
That wasn't even remotely my point you spastic. My point was that the policy that Corbyn has endorsed is wrong for completely seperate reasons to it being endorsed by Corbyn, but because some people don't want to become organ donors after their deaths.

This is a policy that has been debated in many western countries and has a large following that descends beyond Conservative and Labour and just as I say, would make everybody an organ donor after their death and is what I was responding to. This is along the same lines in the fact it makes everybody an organ donor by default having to opt-out.

>but because some people don't want to become organ donors after their deaths.
So opt out. It isn't mandatory, contrary to what you claim.

>HURRRR U CAN OPT OUT

Fuck every single person supporting this. The state has absolutely no say on my body or what happens to it. If I want to donate it to others after my death then that's up to me, it's not for the government to take it unless I say otherwise. I guess I'll just rob every house on my street and if anyone doesn't like it they can send me a letter to opt-out :^D

Cunts. This isn't some nice act from the government to look after people, this is the government looking at your unused resources and thinking 'we know what's best'.

>looking at your unused resources
>your organs AFTER you are dead

There is literally no reason to not be an organ donor. Anyone that does not sign up to be an organ donor is a certified cunt.

Read:

But that already happens.

People who need organ transplants should die.

You must be alive for them to be able to harvest your organs.

>The state has absolutely no say on my body or what happens to it
See: Abortion
See: Drinking laws
See: Drug laws
See: Utilities
Hmm, seems they do.

> If I want to donate it to others after my death then that's up to me, it's not for the government to take it unless I say otherwise.
These. Are. Exactly. The. Same. Thing. It is up to you.

>I guess I'll just rob every house on my street and if anyone doesn't like it they can send me a letter to opt-out :^D
I fail to see how this is a relevant counterexample, given that this is relation between two citizens that's an act already in flagrant violation of the law whereas the donation debate is regarding exchange between a dead-body-to-be and the state, and whether such laws should be revised.

`Cunts. This isn't some nice act from the government to look after people, this is the government looking at your unused resources and thinking 'we know what's best'.`
How so? You can opt out, bud. It's a simple fact that not enough organ donors exist, and that this is intended to help people. If you don't want it done, just opt out! It's not hard!

Ahem. You have no control where your organs go. They could go into a nigger or a faggot.

lol you fucking cuck, doctors get big cash money on every organ transplant, 95% of doctors will turn you into a vegetable if you have non family members (uh oh 99% of Sup Forums)

There is no reason to donate organs in Western multicultural societies, your organ would most likely goto some street urchin who will blow up your organ on the newest drug craze.

Fuck em.

Tell that to the pharaohs of ancient Egypt. Of course you know better than them right?

no actually, you have to be recently deceased

Who needs organs? Druggie faggots and niggers, fat people with cancer and boomers and Jews that never die.

Literally grabbing at your innards now.
Going for your organs.
Taking your literal heart from your chest.

I have a donation card, and that still sound fucking horrible.

Jesus fuck, bongistan. Organize demonstrations or something. And write to your fucking representatives.

Does Rees Mogg have anything to say about this?

>Daily Fail
Fake news
This already happens in the US with skin taken from circumcised infants.

Way to completely miss the point. I'm already a donor, but the idea that the government will take something unless told otherwise sets - who am I kidding? - continues a dangerous precedent.

>See: A bunch of areas where the government shouldn't be intruding but is

Good boot licker. Now jump!

>These. Are. Exactly. The. Same. Thing. It is up to you.

They really are not. One is me voluntarily giving something, the other someone else taking what's mine unless I say otherwise. And eventually that option to say no will disappear.

>If you don't want it done, just opt out! It's not hard!

If you want it done, just opt in! It's not hard!

>Does Rees Mogg have anything to say about this?
Why would he? It's not as if he's saviour of Britain. I very much doubt he agrees with Jeremy's Corbyn plan of forcing everybody to be an organ donor, but he'll likely vote in favour of Theresa May's policy to make organ donors the default option and forcing others to opt out. He went along with the Snooper's Charter after all.

Why is my country's flag on the french toast package?

I support this
Almost everybody would accept organs from other people if they needed it but they dont want to donare their own. Those who dont want to donate their organs should be banned from receiving organs should they ever need it

I posted this in a thread about this yesterday but it died shortly after.

Why should I have to donate my organs by default? In doing so someone who would have died now gets to live. They might go on to do great things and make the world a better place, but let's be real, the majority of people who need transplants are due to substance abuse. Why should my organs go to someone who's abused their body with cigarettes and alcohol? Just look at George Best, he had 3 kidneys!

I'm responsible for my consequences and I want them to end with me, I don't want my organs to perpetuate that misery. Am I wrong?

Would you accept somebody elses organs if you needed them?

Because he can make it very clear when retarded shit is clearly retarded. Whether he votes for the party instead of the policy or not in the end, if he could represent the opposition's point if only to play devil's advocate, which he often does, it would be nice to see those in favor of this thing try and go against such an argument.

Why would he? Everyone knows that organ replacement can usurp control from your mental state.
If you're Bob and you have Tom's kidney you're no linger Bob but Bob and a small percentage Tom.

The ultra rich are immune to this because they're vampires so they can't get usurped from within.

Haha of course.
In my opinion organ donation should be madatory for everyone unless you agree to opt out from receiving organs too.
Furthermore those who need transplants due to alcohol/drug abuse should be put at the bottom of the list and only be entitled to one transplant procedure if it is needed because of said substance abuse

>See: A bunch of areas where the government shouldn't be intruding but is

>Good boot licker. Now jump!

Uhu, you're changing your argument from descriptive statement to prescriptive statement without providing an argument as to why this is so.
See: imgur.com/a/kibaJ
"The state has absolutely no say on my body or what happens to it"
Demonstrated as false, and you moved the goalposts from such an 'is' statement to 'ought' statement. I would also appreciate it if you could not insult me when you're proven wrong, or if you are, at least accompany it with some sources or an argument.

>>These. Are. Exactly. The. Same. Thing. It is up to you.

They really are not. One is me voluntarily giving something, the other someone else taking what's mine unless I say otherwise. And eventually that option to say no will disappear.
According to whom? When will the option disappear? Also, you're moving the goalposts again. From "makes people mandatory organ donors after death" (see imgur.com/a/YFBBs), which the the statement on the matter shows as patently false - gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-consultation-on-organ-donation-opt-out-system - to 'oh well in the future it won't be opt out!'


>If you want it done, just opt in! It's not hard!
This argument fails for the very reason that opt-in has not been sufficient to prevent hundreds of deaths. Human beings have agency and free will, if you want to opt out you are free to do so. Contrary to these goal

"goal..." you keep asserting the government has despite giving no reason to believe so, your own idea of opting-in is shown to not be sufficient for modern health problems

Won't affect me,, if I die my body isn't going to be found for several days, long after they can harvest my organs

>"The state has absolutely no say on my body or what happens to it"
>Demonstrated as false
You idiot. It's just a question of nuance.

Of course he doesn't literally mean "The state has absolutely no say on my body or what happens to it". What he means is, "The state SHOULDN'T HAVE absolutely ANY say on my body or what happens to it".

It's your fucking native language (unless you're a filthy immigrant, in which case, you have to go back - and as you might gather from the previous paragraph, by that, I actually mean, you SHOULD go back), not mine. You should know how to correctly understand it.

Fucking hell.

I'm okay with this.

As long as politicians are the first people to have their organs harvested.

Jumping from "the state has no say" to "the state should not have a say" is qualitative change, as earlier stated, from descriptive to prescriptive. According to formal logic, this is fallacious (See: Is/ought fallacy). Without providing an argument as to why this should be so, it would be wise for him to simply admit that made a mistake and want to change what he means.

>if I die
>if
tell your secret, pls

>Jumping from "the state has no say" to "the state should not have a say" is qualitative change
Again, it's a question of nuance. He was trying to make it sound stronger, but they're the same in practice.

Your argument is that he's saying "LEGALLY, the state has absolutely no say on my body or what happens to it". But there was none of that legality distinction. And because there isn't, the phrase is equivalent to saying "The state has absolutely no say on my body or what happens to it", though with a more forceful nuance.

Again, it's your own fucking language. Don't you feel ashamed you can't properly understand its usage?

Im ok with this as long as polititians cant receive any organs themselves

The only toasty treat worth having is a toast sandwich pic related
1 make slice toast
2 put on lower slice bread, butter to suit. Margarine if preferred
3 salt on toast to taste
4 second slice bread on top

Eat one and you’ll understand

I mean,
>it's equivalent to saying "The state SHOULDN'T HAVE absolutely ANY say on my body or what happens to it", though with a more forceful nuance.

Didn't notice what I'd pasted. Sorry about that.

OOoo those are delicious. I love eating other countries traditional foods!

>english french toast
>japanese writing
>picture of a pizza on the package
>bulgaria flag

I don't even know what I'm looking at anymore

>Your argument is that he's saying "LEGALLY
Already wrong. De jure this is not true. De facto this is not true.


>Again, it's your own fucking language. Don't you feel ashamed you can't properly understand its usage?
Uhu, again - change from descriptive to prescriptive statement is a FALLACY without giving an argument as to why. There is a QUALITATIVE difference between 'it is this way' and 'it should be this way'.

Also, claiming 'this is what he really meant' is unironically useless given that it's EXPLICITLY descriptive.

>I don't even know what I'm looking at anymore
a culinary version of cultural marxism

n u a n c e

Colloquialism.

Jesus fuck, Mohammed.

>Colloquialism
Uhu, colloquialism in an argument? Uhu. Please use formal logic and read statements that are made before making them then backtracking when proven wrong.

Anything besides organ donation for people that get into accidents they weren't responsible for is morally wrong, on both a natural and societal level.

glorious Europunionian culture that awaits us in future. only replace japanese with arabic

I don't want my organs to go to some faggot cuck loser.

If it's a family member that's fine, but no randies are getting my liver.

I'm not backtracking. That's what I meant by nuance.

My point is, you're focusing in very particular grammar slips (which aren't really slips due to questions of nuance, but fuck it, let's say they're slips and be done with it) instead of providing a proper counterargument to what the argument was really about. That the argument wasn't about what your government has the power to do (protip: you don't have a constitution, so your government can do whatever the fuck it wants) legally, but what it should have the power to do or not morally.

And what are you basing this morality on? Your worthless opinion?

you have no rights britbong.

>grammar slips
Uhu, I presume that's 'nuance' and not qualitative change in meaning as I demonstrated? if you're too stupid to read messages before posting, then it's not my fault for showing such claims as untrue.

I have the right to fuck your boipucci

We do have a constitution, too. It's just not a codified one.

That's a good idea but now there is niggers and lower people everywhere, i wouldn't want a paki's liver in me for any reason or my kidney going to waste on a subpar black mother. Are you ready to share organs with these people ?

No, but the teachings of the religion which made us successful economically and politically throughout history. (Ferguson, Civilisation, pp. 261-277)

Matthew 10:8 : Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay.

I'm taking your corpse when you die, as my passive necrophilia partner

You have no say in this

It's not a qualitative chance, because they were equivalent to begin with. I already explained why in a couple of posts.

And again, you're clinging to grammatical particularities instead of focusing in the real argument, on the fact that a government SHOULDN'T (which colloquially could be written as DOESN'T to sound stronger) have such a power over its people. That this shit is dystopian and tyrannical in nature.

And there you go clinging to grammatical particularities again.

Not saying that my government respects my country's constitution, don't get me wrong. But I'm (theoretically, at least) guaranteed some liberties and protections against my government, legally, that you are not guaranteed, because my country does have a (codified or whatever) constitution, unlike yours. That your argument of your country having the right of fucking you up the ass is true, yeah, but it's beyond the scope of the argument because your government has the right of doing whatever the fuck it wants because you don't have a (codified or whatever you want) constitution, and the argument was one of right and wrong and not one of legal and illegal.

>change from descriptive to prescriptive isn't qualitative
You heard it here first, boys! See: is/ought fallacy!

>that your argument of your country having the right of fucking you up the ass is true, yeah, but it's beyond the scope of the argument because your government has the right of doing whatever the fuck it wants because you don't have a (codified or whatever you want) constitution, and the argument was one of right and wrong and not one of legal and illegal.
Except it's not really. We do have a constitution, it just isn't codified. What does this mean? It means that the boundaries are BLURRY, but it doesn't mean they aren't there. There are actions the government tried to take in the past which got shot down by the monarchy because they were just out of order.

The issue you're highlighing is that because the constitution is based on certain cultural stigma and the attitude of Parliament, it's to an extent dependent on who is in power. This is why I support(ed) UKIP - they're the only party who support codifying it.

>this guy is leader of the opposition

Srsly bongs wtf

>is/ought fallacy
Again, it's clear his argument wasn't one of "is". It's not a fallacy. Just a colloquial way of speaking.

>We do have a constitution, it just isn't codified. What does this mean? It means that the boundaries are BLURRY, but it doesn't mean they aren't there. There are actions the government tried to take in the past which got shot down by the monarchy because they were just out of order.
And if the monarchy hadn't stepped up, those actions would've passed.

And of course, I also support UKIP for you, for questions of libertarianism such as the one you're listing.

tl;dr: YOU KNOW WHAT I (and the guy you were replying to first) MEAN. Stop being a faggot.

Access to someone elses organs is not a right. It's a privilege and the owner of said organs should be the sole person who decides if and who should have access to them. If you die while waiting for an organ transplant, it sucks but that's fucking life.

You have no right to another persons organs, even if they no longer need them. That's just fucked up.
This isn't like some treatment where you just pop a pill and get better. It's not an issue of money or even labour. This is the body of another person we're talking about, you should never have any kind of claim over this unless that person explicitly states so.

>You have no right to another persons organs, even if they no longer need them. That's just fucked up.
A dead body is not a person.

>the owner of said organs should be the sole person who decides if and who should have access to them.
This is still in place, even in opt-out system.

>This is the body of another person we're talking about, you should never have any kind of claim over this unless that person explicitly states so.
A dead body is not a person. It's about a person who wants their body to or to not be used for medical purposes after death, and they are still free to opt-out unless you're retarded.

(This is tangential, but what kind of white nat isnt invested in contributing to helping fellow whites live after their passing?)

>And if the monarchy hadn't stepped up, those actions would've passed.
Uhuh, the Constitution of my country is contained within the Parliament, Lords AND the Monarchy alongside other things: bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution

Organs have a very short shelf life. So short infact that they have to be harvested while the person is alive.

Besides, when someone dies, they get to bequeath their property to someone else. Those organs were my property and I sure as hell should be given the right to choose what happens to them after my death as I get with any other property I own.

>A dead body is not a person.
Yet it still deserves dignity.

>It's about a person who wants their body to or to not be used for medical purposes after death, and they are still free to opt-out unless you're retarded.
And you think this reach of your government will just not end up eliminating said opt-out eventually.

Why shouldn't your government have mandatory sessions of ass rape every tuesday for every citizen unless said citizen opts out? I mean, they do have the option to opt out.

>supports UKIP
>is fine with the government having an over-reach of power such that they can even say what happens with your body after you die
HOW

That isnt even true. Organ "shelf life" on ice is a few days and it's dependent upon which organ it is. Furthermore this wouldnt be an issue if we scrapped the foreign aid budget and used this to cover NHS deficit and fix waiting times bullshit. The reason transplant recipients don't get them isn't because they have to wait, it's because the organs to receive DO NOT EXIST. 5-20 hours is plenty of itme for priority operation to take place.

It's inheritance tax, pay attention.

>And you think this reach of your government will just not end up eliminating said opt-out eventually.
The imaginary "well look in the future it wont be mandatory" argument that doesnt follow any line of logic. Why is this so? Do you have a single source which explains why?

>Why shouldn't your government have mandatory sessions of ass rape every tuesday for every citizen unless said citizen opts out? I mean, they do have the option to opt out.
Hot take, that's done on living people and not dead.

>HOW
UKIP supports funding the NHS more...? They arent full blown lolbergtardian party, you moron.

its eggy bread mate

you get a piece of bread,soak it in beaten egg,then fry it in a pan and flip it till its golden

Meh guess I'm opting out. I don't feel kinship with a country full of immigrants and would rather my organs rot.

oh the organ thing? yeah its rather ghoulish

Not even memeing but I tried one out as a joke and was surprised at how good it was.

Profaning the dead ought to be punishable by death, you dumb Outlanders.

>threads about general healthcare
>Brits defend the NHS since even after being gutted by the Tories it's still doing a good job

>Brit starts a thread about our system
>load of weird angry BTEC NEETs crawl out of the woodwork and pass on their loathing

Weird phenomena I see quite often

>Hot take, that's done on living people and not dead.
Why shouldn't your government have mandatory sessions of necrophilic ass rape on every recently departed unless they opt out before dying? I mean, they do have the option to opt out.

And remember, I'm saying this as a donation card carrier.

And I think that's the thing. I want to donate my organs. I believe it's a noble thing. But, say, my mom doesn't particularly wants to donate hers. She doesn't like the idea. But if the government decided that she has to donate her organs unless she opted out, that would come with the guilt trip of her opting out meaning she's a bad person or something. Which is fucking evil, specially when coming from a government.

>UKIP supports funding the NHS more...?
Because if you already have free health care, you can't just get rid of it like that. And if you have it and can't help it, you want it to run the best it can.

I also support more funding for my country's (free) national hospitals. But only because it already exists, and it's way underfunded. On the other hand, I understand that allowing fiscal freedom on charity health care as long as they have full transparency would be the only smart way of having free healthcare, but we can't have that because the marxists have enroached themselves in both your country and mine, so having the best budget we can on our free health care systems is the next best ting.

>Why shouldn't your government have mandatory sessions of necrophilic ass rape on every recently departed unless they opt out before dying? I mean, they do have the option to opt out.
Isnt condoned by moral imperatives and their representatives which made my country successful in the past, the ones which leftists have a vested interest in obliterating from society.

>And remember, I'm saying this as a donation card carrier.
I don't care. It's not relevant to the discussion whatsoever beyond trying to score good boy points as a humanitarian.

>Because if you already have free health care, you can't just get rid of it like that. And if you have it and can't help it, you want it to run the best it can.
We finally agree on something. Despite this, it used to be the common opinion that UKIP wanted to privatise the NHS, and their manifesto only became widespread in 2015 in my opinion.

I ripped up my organ donor card after the refugee crisis. The thought of my heart saving Ahmed so he can get more gibs killed me

How do Brits put up with this? The government is literally saying they have the power to desiccate your own dead body unless fill out a (((government form))) to explicitly tell them they don't. Good thing you binned all those knives so you can't fight back.

Why not? I don't want to be unfrozen if I'm going to be stuck with my shitty organs. If I can't have chainsaw hands and a nuclear reactor for a heart, leave me on ice.

I'd like to say no I wouldn't accept the donation, but until I find myself in that situation I can't really say.

Let's look at another angle then, how can you support state sponsored organ harvesting on a national scale? I strongly feel that organ donation should be a choice, not an obligation and this represents gross over reach by the state. Here's a question, who owns my organs after I 'donate' them? Are they owned by the NHS? What happens if we end up with an organ surplus which is entirely likely? Will we sell them to foreign countries? And what if they go to countries that don't believe in organ donation such as Israel or the middle east? How is THAT fair?

A lot of if, buts and maybes but the policy offers no clarity on these issues. I'm opting out.

>the government can mutilate your body after death

>It's not relevant to the discussion whatsoever
>carrying a donor card
>not relevant to a discussion about forced organ donations
It's relevant in that, I'm in favor of donating organs, unlike many anons who, for their own reasons that do make some sense, have stated they're against it. But I'm in favor of it.

What I'm not in favor of is, your government controlling what you do with your body to the point of saying what happens to your organs after you die. This shit is in the same category as allowing trannies into ladies' bathrooms.

Not really, not at all. "Controlling" - coercion is a thing and always will be. Invisible coercion is a thing and always will be.

What should be the important thing for lolbergtardians is that it isn't mandatory.

Corbyn wanted it, she is getting in there first. They are both socialist wankers, he is a Marxist and she is a working woman.