PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (364229)	3/1/2003 4:52:24 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) of 769670

Your "argument" is easily refuted. Yes, in the case of Child #1, the parent is not REQUIRED to be a good Samaritan to donate marrow. The reason is that the parent did not CAUSE the state of "life versus death" dependency. The state of dependency was caused by the child becoming sick with cancer. The case of Child #2 is totally different! The state of "life versus death" dependency WAS ENTIRELY CAUSED BY THE PARENT'S OWN ACTION. Consider the following analogy: Person A is viciously attacked by someone. Person A has an extremely rare blood type. Person A is in dire condition and will require a series of operations and blood donations over the next nine months in order to survive. Person B is the only other known person who is a viable blood donor for Person A. The blood donations required to save Person A would be inconvenient for Person B, but they would not endanger the life of Person B. The police wake up person B in the middle of the night to ask for help in this situation. Should Person B be required to donate blood? Now, let's change the situation slightly... Assume Person B was the person who actually assaulted Person A. Does this change your answer to the previous question?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next