You mean when it theoretically saves a life?June 7 2009 at 3:09 PM
|Luke Parrish (Login lsparrish)|
Response to Actually
You act as if cryonicists are always trying to involuntarily save people by freezing them, whereas noncryonicists hardly ever destroy people by preventing them from being cryopreserved. In reality, it is the opposite. This case is just one of many examples.
In today's society, cryonics is way weaker, both politically and practically. It is hard to preserve someone properly. Our rights are constantly threatened. Mainstream deaths and information-destructive burials and cremations happen every day -- and often to people who are otherwise open to the idea of cryonics but have not quite gotten around to making arrangements.
Is it about civil rights? Absolutely. There is a basic civil right that says you get to say what happens to your body when you die, provided you provide the money and it's not hurting anyone. It is in the realm of religion, and thus protected by the first amendment.
And there is an even more basic, and inalienable, right that you have not to be killed by human action or inaction if you don't want to be.
| || |