Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

If you donate a Kidney to your wife, then get Divorced. can you take that back?

13

Posts

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    valiance wrote: »
    I apologize in advance for actually discussing the topic :P :
    I don't see how people are shitting on the guy who donated his kidney to save his wife's life? As far as I can see he is the put upon party here: he was the one who was cheated on, he's the one who can't see his kids, he's the one who gave up an organ for someone who betrayed him. Obviously this is only his side of the story, but if he's telling the truth his ex-wife is clearly a huge bitch (of course its not likely he's blameless in this). He's not asking for his organ back, that's legally, morally, and medically impossible; he's just lashing out legally/monetarily and I feel for him. That said, Medopine is completely right, the kidney was a gift and there's doesn't seem to be any way he is entitled to anything. Anyone actually know the relevant laws?

    I think we largely agree the woman is a bitch. But part of the story is that he allegedly donated the kidney to his wife because he thought it would win her heart and save his marriage. That's pretty fucked up and selfish, if true. You don't save someone's life as part of an implied quid pro quo.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    My problem with the thing is that to treat organs like regular commodity is very dangerous, I don't think he's doing this intentionally, but still the result is very wrong.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Honk wrote: »
    My problem with the thing is that to treat organs like regular commodity is very dangerous

    That's pretty much what I'm saying.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • SliverSliver Registered User
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    valiance wrote: »
    I apologize in advance for actually discussing the topic :P :
    I don't see how people are shitting on the guy who donated his kidney to save his wife's life? As far as I can see he is the put upon party here: he was the one who was cheated on, he's the one who can't see his kids, he's the one who gave up an organ for someone who betrayed him. Obviously this is only his side of the story, but if he's telling the truth his ex-wife is clearly a huge bitch (of course its not likely he's blameless in this). He's not asking for his organ back, that's legally, morally, and medically impossible; he's just lashing out legally/monetarily and I feel for him. That said, Medopine is completely right, the kidney was a gift and there's doesn't seem to be any way he is entitled to anything. Anyone actually know the relevant laws?

    I think we largely agree the woman is a bitch. But part of the story is that he allegedly donated the kidney to his wife because he thought it would win her heart and save his marriage. That's pretty fucked up and selfish, if true. You don't save someone's life as part of an implied quid pro quo.
    Yes. He totally should have just let her die.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    Possibly, but that extra supply would come largely from desperate people willing to place their health in jeopardy to get out of financial troubles, and that supply would go disproportionately to the wealthy. I'm not sure if we want to create a system in which the poor become organ harvesting plants for the wealthy.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2009
    what gets me is that this divorce has been going on since 2005 and now this happens. If I was the judge, I'd be having a scorpion pit built out back of the courthouse just for them.

    tmsig.jpg
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    Possibly, but that extra supply would come largely from desperate people willing to place their health in jeopardy to get out of financial troubles, and that supply would go disproportionately to the wealthy. I'm not sure if we want to create a system in which the poor become organ harvesting plants for the wealthy.

    Maybe pay people ahead of time for agreeing to donate organs when they die.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • Ain SophAin Soph Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Why are you some of you defending the woman? She's obviously a horrible person and is out to fuck him over. Just because every other woman on Earth is like that doesn't make it right.

    :whistle:
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    what gets me is that this divorce has been going on since 2005 and now this happens. If I was the judge, I'd be having a scorpion pit built out back of the courthouse just for them.

    Does Australia's justice system work differently than ours...?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Sliver wrote: »
    Yes. He totally should have just let her die.

    Shitty motives can still result in positive outcomes. Ideally, he should've saved her life because he loved her even if she didn't want to be with him any more. Barring that, saving her life because he's a selfish doof is the next best thing. Still makes him a selfish doof, though.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Honestly though, I am against any programs that call for the government to pay people for their organs. We need to reduce Government spending as it is.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/newsitemArchive.cfm?id=323

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    Possibly, but that extra supply would come largely from desperate people willing to place their health in jeopardy to get out of financial troubles, and that supply would go disproportionately to the wealthy. I'm not sure if we want to create a system in which the poor become organ harvesting plants for the wealthy.

    Maybe pay people ahead of time for agreeing to donate organs when they die.

    Don't people already offer themselves up as donors after death in considerable quantities? There are problems in that you pretty much need to be right there to collect the meaty bits at the time of death, or they go bad.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    Possibly, but that extra supply would come largely from desperate people willing to place their health in jeopardy to get out of financial troubles, and that supply would go disproportionately to the wealthy. I'm not sure if we want to create a system in which the poor become organ harvesting plants for the wealthy.

    Maybe pay people ahead of time for agreeing to donate organs when they die.

    Don't people already offer themselves up as donors after death in considerable quantities? There are problems in that you pretty much need to be right there to collect the meaty bits at the time of death, or they go bad.

    Well in that case it's a terrible idea. Scrap it.

    Let's just grow organs in vats.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    Possibly, but that extra supply would come largely from desperate people willing to place their health in jeopardy to get out of financial troubles, and that supply would go disproportionately to the wealthy. I'm not sure if we want to create a system in which the poor become organ harvesting plants for the wealthy.

    Maybe pay people ahead of time for agreeing to donate organs when they die.

    Don't people already offer themselves up as donors after death in considerable quantities? There are problems in that you pretty much need to be right there to collect the meaty bits at the time of death, or they go bad.

    Well in that case it's a terrible idea. Scrap it.

    Let's just grow organs in vats.

    And now we get to the part where embryonic stem cell research is the best means to do that, yet is a politically difficult thing to get done.

    Any other ideas I can shoot down? ;-)

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • SliverSliver Registered User
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    Yes. He totally should have just let her die.

    Shitty motives can still result in positive outcomes. Ideally, he should've saved her life because he loved her even if she didn't want to be with him any more. Barring that, saving her life because he's a selfish doof is the next best thing. Still makes him a selfish doof, though.

    I know. She goes and cheats on him, divorces him, and keeps him from seeing his three kids but boy did he have a lot of nerve giving her a kidney to try and keep the two of them together.

  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    Possibly, but that extra supply would come largely from desperate people willing to place their health in jeopardy to get out of financial troubles, and that supply would go disproportionately to the wealthy. I'm not sure if we want to create a system in which the poor become organ harvesting plants for the wealthy.

    Maybe pay people ahead of time for agreeing to donate organs when they die.

    There's absolutely zero functionally ways to make organ donations work with price tags. I was of the opinion that it might work, but after last year witnessing in first hand a panel of hepathologists and transplant specialist answer questions about this it became very clear that this is just not possible. Of the 400 people in that room there wasn't one person that wasn't convinced that it is impossible. It's just dangerous and can't be done.

    edit: oops idea shot down already.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    So would converting our opt-in system to an opt-out system and it wouldn't involve fucking over the poor.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2009
    Sliver wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    Yes. He totally should have just let her die.

    Shitty motives can still result in positive outcomes. Ideally, he should've saved her life because he loved her even if she didn't want to be with him any more. Barring that, saving her life because he's a selfish doof is the next best thing. Still makes him a selfish doof, though.

    I know. She goes and cheats on him, divorces him, and keeps him from seeing his three kids but boy did he have a lot of nerve giving her a kidney to try and keep the two of them together.

    I dare say there's more going on here.

    tmsig.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Sliver wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    Yes. He totally should have just let her die.

    Shitty motives can still result in positive outcomes. Ideally, he should've saved her life because he loved her even if she didn't want to be with him any more. Barring that, saving her life because he's a selfish doof is the next best thing. Still makes him a selfish doof, though.

    I know. She goes and cheats on him, divorces him, and keeps him from seeing his three kids but boy did he have a lot of nerve giving her a kidney to try and keep the two of them together.

    Her being a bitch is not incompatible with him being a manipulative wanker.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Douchebag marries cuntbucket, results in messy divorce.

    In other news, dog bites man.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    How many cunts does it take to fill a bucket, anyway?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    How many cunts does it take to fill a bucket, anyway?

    42

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    How many cunts does it take to fill a bucket, anyway?

    You really are the best* mod, Jeff.

    *
    Spoiler:

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    How many cunts does it take to fill a bucket, anyway?

    How many cunts would a cuntbucket bucket if a cuntbucket could bucket cunts?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • DukiDuki Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yeah, this sounds like "woman was a bitch, guy is trying to get even by stupid means" thing.

    And I don't think this is the fault of marriage, it's the fault of people being assholes. We don't whine about how much cars suck because some guy decided to use his to run down the guy he was pissed at.

    They mostly come out at night.

    Mostly.

    Lord that kid's delivery ruined that line.

    She says it all they mostly come out at nighmostly. No pause for dramatic effect.

    We should take her kidney's imo.

  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2009
    I'm all for this guy getting what he wants. If we set a precedent where organs have monetary value and, more specifically, what value a kidney is worth, then I can slam that down on the table of those pasta eating motherfuckers and demand a fair rate for my kidney.

    SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    How many cunts does it take to fill a bucket, anyway?

    You really are the best* mod, Jeff.

    *
    Spoiler:

    You heard the man. No more discussion of organ donors or the ethics of giving a kidney to your dying wife. More bad movie puns!



    Joking, joking.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • SliverSliver Registered User
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    Yes. He totally should have just let her die.

    Shitty motives can still result in positive outcomes. Ideally, he should've saved her life because he loved her even if she didn't want to be with him any more. Barring that, saving her life because he's a selfish doof is the next best thing. Still makes him a selfish doof, though.

    I know. She goes and cheats on him, divorces him, and keeps him from seeing his three kids but boy did he have a lot of nerve giving her a kidney to try and keep the two of them together.

    Her being a bitch is not incompatible with him being a manipulative wanker.


    It's one thing to save someone's life and get nothing for it. It's another to save someones life and they return the favor by fucking you in the ass. She didn't just divorce him. She cheated on him beforehand and is keeping him from his three children. If he'd let her die he'd have his three children and both his kidneys right now. The fact is his life would be better right now by any objective standard if he let her die.

    EDIT:
    The Cat wrote: »
    I dare say there's more going on here.
    That's absolutely right. It would be wrong to pass judgement on someone from an article with a few paragraphs in it.
    On the other hand everyone seems to be doing it anyways and I'm not going to miss the bandwagon.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    How many cunts does it take to fill a bucket, anyway?

    The same as the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop oddly enough.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Then it's a pretty good lesson on not being a douche bag.

    PSN: allenquid
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    How many cunts does it take to fill a bucket, anyway?

    The same as the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop oddly enough.

    One... two... three... *NOM*

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    So would converting our opt-in system to an opt-out system and it wouldn't involve fucking over the poor.

    Whoa whoa, no.


    Sure, anyone could opt out of such a thing (And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it would be a simple, straight forward process without a bunch of hoops to jump through), but I heartily oppose a program that attempts to get more organs through deceitful intentions. We are not the descendants of criminals.

    You must admit, it's a sinister thing, to start claiming a person's own organs by default.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    So would converting our opt-in system to an opt-out system and it wouldn't involve fucking over the poor.

    Whoa whoa, no.


    Sure, anyone could opt out of such a thing (And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it would be a simple, straight forward process without a bunch of hoops to jump through), but I heartily oppose a program that attempts to get more organs through deceitful intentions. We are not the descendants of criminals.

    You must admit, it's a sinister thing, to start claiming a person's own organs by default.
    O_o

    Why is it deceitful? It's not like anyone's saying congress should sneak a bill through then hide the notice in a locked basement with a cougar.

    PSN: allenquid
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    If we treated organs like commodities they would be in greater supply than we have now.

    So would converting our opt-in system to an opt-out system and it wouldn't involve fucking over the poor.

    Whoa whoa, no.


    Sure, anyone could opt out of such a thing (And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it would be a simple, straight forward process without a bunch of hoops to jump through), but I heartily oppose a program that attempts to get more organs through deceitful intentions. We are not the descendants of criminals.

    You must admit, it's a sinister thing, to start claiming a person's own organs by default.
    O_o

    Why is it deceitful? It's not like anyone's saying congress should sneak a bill through then hide the notice in a locked basement with a cougar.

    If a person wanted to give up their organs they would have become an organ donor.

    Feral's idea is designed to make you put an effort into actually keeping your organs from being given away, and thus discourages people from doing so, because we all know that every step you add to a process is just another opportunity for a person to be turned off to it.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    If a person wanted to give up their organs they would have become an organ donor.

    Feral's idea is designed to make you put an effort into actually keeping your organs from being given away, and thus discourages people from doing so, because we all know that every step you add to a process is just another opportunity for a person to be turned off to it.

    Actually, no, it's designed to ensure that society benefits from apathy rather than be harmed by it.

    Because if you're indifferent, then you're unlikely to fill out an organ donor card, yet there's no harm in using your organs after you die.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    If a person wanted to give up their organs they would have become an organ donor.

    Feral's idea is designed to make you put an effort into actually keeping your organs from being given away, and thus discourages people from doing so, because we all know that every step you add to a process is just another opportunity for a person to be turned off to it.

    Actually, no, it's designed to ensure that society benefits from apathy rather than be harmed by it.

    Because if you're indifferent, then you're unlikely to fill out an organ donor card, yet there's no harm in using your organs after you die.

    Not like this, sorry. It is just not ethical.

    It may sound good for someone who needs an organ, but obviously they are biased.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Not like this, sorry. It is just not ethical.

    And why not?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Not like this, sorry. It is just not ethical.

    And why not?

    Because organs belong to the people who made them, and they are the ones who should decide what to do with them, yes, even after they die. Taking them out of their bodies when they have not given any instruction as to how they want them to be handled is the equivalent of grave robbing.


    Feral you can lose your house, you can lose your car, you can lose your wife, but please don't lose your mind.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.