Teen with Months to Live Denied Heart Over "History of Non-Compliance"

That's just you being selfish. you could say the reverse.
The truth is that kid has another 50 to 70 years in him. A 60 year old is getting to the age where she or he is going to face old people diseases. If a person didn't do something good in the last 60 years, I don't think the next 20 to 40 will help. Where as a kid has potential to be the next president or next great inventor.

reality though, whoever has the money gets first dibs.

 

you could also argue an older person can really value a second chance where as a kid is usually not mature enough to see it that way. I don't think quantity of life should trump quality.
But I agree cash rules all in the end.

 

so let me get this straight. If I offered you a good quality of life for the next 5 years or another 60 years of life. you would pick the 5 years and die?

 

yeah I would. Length of life means nothing if it sucks. Death shouldn't be feared (even though I am in constant struggle with this concept) since it is in fact inevitable. Whether if you live for 10 more years or 1000 in the end we all return to the source.

 

I never said that the quality of those years were good or bad. In fact they could be better.

Life is a measure of accomplishments. The shorter shot of life the less chance of doing something good for humanity!

 

Well like I said before the older person is much more likely to actually appreciate that second chance.

Btw you did imply the shorter amount of time was a certain good five years while the 60 was uncertain.

 

That is an assumption. Let's be real you had 60 years and you didn't have that appreciation. got to move on to someone who might figure it out in 50 or 40.

 

Most kids don't its really that simple

 

They'll figure it out before 60. Where as this person couldn't and it is that simple.

 

But they deserve the chance. I think that's the point. The older person had a chance to live a pretty full life...a child deserves the same.

 

Thank you! I could not place this better myself.

 

Now we've entered a philisophical quandary because we are assuming all things are equal for both people. What if it were between a kid and a 40 year old army vet who just came back from a third tour in the middle east and only joined the army because they had no other opportunity where they grew up. This person has spent the last ten years of their lives in war zones and hasn't had much opportunity to experience anything but death and violence.
Or how about 38 year old former sex slave or even those girls who were locked in that guys house for more than a decade. Do they deserve the heart more than a five year old?
You see my point?

 

Says who? I really hate this idea of a person becoming disposable when they reach a certain age as if their lives have no meaning past a certain point or less meaning because they are older. Life is precious period and we all have a right to it whether we're 2 or 90

 

The army Vet chose to join the military.
All of these people got to see a certain age.

Give the kid that chance too.

 

You don't really understand poverty if you think people with no industry in their area choose the military.

 

I do see your point, but the reality is still that the 40 year old was able to experience life...a life he chose (regardless of his reasons why). The abused women also...while they had a crappy existence, I still would never chose them to get the organ over a child. It goes back to the same premise of that thread about the ship sinking and whether or not women/children should go first...I believe you were pushing people out of the way to get on that life boat lol. Most people would let the kids go first...give them a chance to become something great.

Bottom line, right here. :smt023

 

Of course they are, bottom line is once you've lived past a certain point your life is less worthy of being saved over that of a younger person.
Dress it up how you want but the idea is older people had their chance and younger people deserve one too but again its all based on the conditions being identical.
Arch bases it on potential like being the next great inventor or president both of which are meaningless at this point imo. We need more older people inspiring us then just young ones because we hold youth to a different standard based on it.

 

Life is precious and we should all get the chance to see 90. It is living that long that one gain's the knowledge of how precious it is and wanting others to see it too.

You can see it all the time when a parent's child is in a life threatening incident, that parent will toss their life away just so that the child can live. I think it is that appreciation of life that forces a parent to make such a sacrifice.

 

What choice do people have in those circumstances? What choice did Amanda Berry have?

Anyway this sums up feelings on the whole thing

[YOUTUBE]f0p2Bw0Xp1s[/YOUTUBE]