Eurpean socialized medicine - harvesting your organs without your explicit permission

Discussion in 'Politics' started by wilburbear, Nov 1, 2009.

  1. TGregg


    From each according to his ability to each according to their need.

    If somebody needs a kidney, WTF should any "rich" @#!& be allowed to keep two? If you are such a winner in life's lottery as to have both your lungs, shouldn't the playing field be leveled - shouldn't the poor guy with failed lungs get one? Who are you to say no?

    Why should blind guys not have any eyesight while people walk around with not one but two good eyes? That's obviously unfair and a wrong that needs correction by the government.

    I'm serious. This is a very fair application of the things the left believe. It's even more honest than income redistribution. When it comes to money, you frequently have people who are contributing more making more money than those who lay about doing nothing. And the left wants to take money from the working man and give it to the slothful.

    But take the case of some guy who loses his eyesight through no fault of his own. Without question it is not "fair" that he has no vision while other people have two good eyes - and they have them through no special effort on their part. If you buy into the liberal viewpoint, forced organ transplants have a more compelling case *by far* than mere income redistribution.