Helmet - No comment needed.

[wyliec]

There are provisions in law and medicine, if properly executed, will excuse the medical community from performing heroic actions to save a life. If H.D. wants that to be his wish, then he needs to execute the proper documents. But even then, he cannot prevent medical practitioners from doing initial treatment. Think EMTs. What you call a 'gift' is not a gift. It is an obligation based on compassion, one of the tenets of the deepest traditions upon which this nation was founded.

There are states that if a proper DNR form is filled out would stop even an EMT from performing some life saving services. Of course, it has to be ready accessible to the EMT/medical professional or the person should be wearing a DNR medallion.

I agree compassion trumps choice in your book and mine. However, the reverendg does not have to think that way; he may, I don't know. But, if you go back through the posts, there are those with very little compassion, if any.

 

[reverendg]

You make an interesting argument, but I think it suffers a flaw. Compassion trumps choice. In the parable of the Good Samaritan the priests who walked past the wounded man made a choice. The Samaritan practiced compassion. Which action did Christ honor? He praised compassion over free choice. Many, if not most, Republicans and Conservatives argue that this country was founded on Christian principles. They also argue personal responsibility. If H.D. is severely injured while riding without a helmet, Christian principle demands he be attended to, regardless of any stipulation on paper in his pocket. Thus, he cannot escape having placed a burden on society. The personal responsibility aspect says he should willingly own up to the consequences of his choice.

There are provisions in law and medicine, if properly executed, will excuse the medical community from performing heroic actions to save a life. If H.D. wants that to be his wish, then he needs to execute the proper documents. But even then, he cannot prevent medical practitioners from doing initial treatment. Think EMTs. What you call a 'gift' is not a gift. It is an obligation based on compassion, one of the tenets of the deepest traditions upon which this nation was founded.

Compassion trumps choice? Your analogy above seems seriously flawed. The priest, the Levite and the Samaritan all exercised choice. The Samaritan's choice was to help, no matter what the hurt person would feel towards the Samaritan himself, and without regard to how much money or trouble it was to the Samaritan. The Samaritan was compassionate, not worried about his reputation, or the cost, or potential repercussions from doing the right thing. The priest and Levite were worried about being inconvenienced or getting dirty (unclean), or other potential pitfalls of helping out. The Priest and Levite worried about how helping might affect them personally, the Samaritan worried about what would happen to the roadside victim if he was not helped.
You have completely gutted the Samaritan story.
If Christ valued compassion over choice, he would have overturned free will while He was upon the cross. Without choice, there is no real compassion.
Many nations have exercised forced compassion, they call it socialism, communism, tyranny, or a few other choice words.

You are trying to make the outcast in the Samaritan story the one who received help, quite contrary to the parable. In the parable the outcast offered help, when the others would not. It would be more correct to offer this analogy:
Joe Spyderguy is on his way home from SpyderFest when a car crosses the center lane, forcing him into the ditch. He lies there, bleeding and injured. An MSF instructor who is also a farkle vendor soon rides by, but upon seeing the wreckage, lifts his coffee mug and pretends he didn't see it, passing on by. Soon another vendor happens by, but seeing the wreckage he pretends to be searching for a radio station, and rides on by as well. H.D. Scutertrash, motoring on by on his worn and wobbly, rusty, hardtail springer, sees the wreck and stops. He digs his cell phone from his leather saddlebag, and calls 911. Digging out his last clean t-shirt, he tears it up and pressure dresses the bleeding wounds until the ambulance can arrive, drawing on his service as a medic in the Army. He sticks around until Joe is loaded on an ambulance, and rides off to meet the ambulance at the hospital.

That is analogous to the parable of the Samaritan. Good, and compassionate, even though he knows he is looked down upon, even despised, by the one he is helping. You cannot deprive someone of their freedom of choice because of a possible slight financial burden upon you or others. Especially a financial burden that the person did not ask you to undertake. If that were so, the stock market would be outlawed.

Christ would inspire others to do the right thing, not bully them into it. Compassion is not "I care about you, that is why I force my ways upon you". Compassion is "I care about you. I will help you no matter what. I wish you would consider what I have said, it is in your best interest, but I care about you no matter what."

Your ideology of being able to control other people's actions because of some "possible" financial or other burden upon you would do you well if you were seeking a job working for former mayor Bloomberg. You can work on the size of soda cups, the type of oils for frying foods, how much sugar and caloric intake we should be allowed legally every day, how much computer and television time we have before our brains turn to mush, and all sorts of other ways to take away people's freedom. Your ideas seem more aligned with the priest and Levite than the Samaritan, about what is in it for you. You have the right to feel that way about your own actions, but not about the actions of others.

 

[DrewNJ]

I applaud all of you guys for having the conversation, expressing your beliefs, but being able to do so like mature adults! Nice work guys, and great info for everyone to digest.

Sent from my Venue 8 3830 using Tapatalk

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

You cannot deprive someone of their freedom of choice because of a possible slight financial burden upon you or others. Especially a financial burden that the person did not ask you to undertake.

There is no absolute freedom of choice. Realities of life constrain it. Just because a person has medical insurance she is not free to get a facelift and have it paid for by the insurance company, because they won't pay for such medical treatments. If she is not sufficiently well off financially to pay for it herself, then realistically she does not have that freedom of choice available to her. Insurance companies limit patients' freedom of choice all the time, the types of treatment they can have, the doctors they can visit, the drugs they can buy, and so on. If they don't have the money to pay for those services out of pocket, then there is only restricted choices available to exercise. Our laws control where you can drive. You are not free to drive across your neighbor's field just because you can save 3 miles on your trip to town by doing so. That's all part of having a civilized society.

Individual rights, if taken to the extreme, end up in anarchy. Community rights, if taken to an extreme, end up in pure communism. Neither of us wants either, nor do most of the populace of this country. Obviously that means that our society is somewhere in between the two extremes, absolute and total individual right to choose, and absolute and total control by the majority. I haven't figured out where we put dictatorships. They are an anomaly somewhere along the spectrum, but I suppose historically at the communist end.

So what you and I are debating is where is the best area of the spectrum for our society. We have many contradictions in our societal positions. Those on the right who argue the loudest for individual rights in such aspects as wearing helmets and carrying weapons, also argue the loudest against gay marriages and abortions. In that case they want to impose the strictest of limits on individual right to choose. Those on the left who argue the loudest in favor of abortion and gay rights, often argue the loudest against one's right to have prayers in public, or place Biblical monuments on public property.

What many people fail to acknowledge is that as our country becomes more and more populated there is less and less physical room for everyone to exercise his or her own full spectrum of individual rights. I'm not sure but Buckskin Bill might well have been the last totally free individual in this country. But even he depended on the greater society for many of his needs, like salt and flour.

There is no such thing as absolute individual right to choose as long as a person is a member of a group. Never has been, never will be. None of us chose to be born. None of us chose our birth parents. Most adoptees didn't choose their adoptive parents. We didn't choose the economic strata we started out in. But at the onset of adulthood most of us did have the choice of how to modify that situation, although most of us had no choice but to address that situation as we chose to leave home, or were booted out, or had parents die before we struck out on our own. Many of us have no choice but to deal with medical limitations, although we usually have a choice as to how to deal with it.

A child born with spina bifada did not make a choice to be afflicted with it, even though it imposes significant financial costs on someone. A person who suffers increased injuries because he chose not to wear a helmet, did make a decision to possibly impose financial costs on others if something bad were to happen to him.

You do cause me to think. I will grant you that.

 

[MRH]

Your logic is faulty. Many more people also are injured from falls at home than from driving off a cliff, yet those who actually drive off of a cliff are almost certain to be injured, and at home you are relatively safe. There are simply many, many more people at home at any given time to fall than those riding motorcycles.

The proper comparison here would be how many people injure themselves per waking hour at home as compared to injuries per hour spent on a motorcycle.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/falls/adultfalls.html

Based on these statistics, we are more likely to suffer TBI (traumatic brain injury) from falls in our homes, and far more likely to succumb to those injuries, than on a motorcycle. By this, we can suggest that our government require everyone to put on a helmet as soon as we walk through the door, or would we be better off being homeless. We need to take our well-being away from the beaurocrats, as well as the self-proclaimed, "we must save the whole world from ourselves" do-gooders.

Doc

 

[crazyspyder]

love my state

I'm a simple minded guy and this I know for a FACT ; The law here in Texas states and has given me a choice to ride with out a helmet. I am a law abiding citizen, so until that changes -I do have a choice!....pretty simple!:chat:

 

[Bob Denman]

As long as we can agree that along with "Choice"; comes repsonsibilities, and consequences... :thumbup: