ioana

k, here are some questions a few people have asked me about this topic, i really have no idea what the answers could be.... would people who have an unheathy lifestyle and have been given an organ be more likely to carry on an unhealthy lifestyle? even if they do does it matter? shouln't it be survival of the fittest, i.e weeding out those who are unhealthy? and if you don't prioritise on healthy lifestyle, how do you judge who recieves an organ? someone pointed out age, but are there any other methods?

so those who have an unhealthy lifestyle aren't to be blamed?

hey, i'm in the same debating team as twilight and in case anyone was wondering if we won the debate or not, which probably isn't the case lol, yep we won!!! we basically used the arguments that the detainees lack of meeting the criteria needed for P.O.W status shows that they are dangerous people and any measures that were any more lenient would be risky, that by forfeiting the human rights of others they forfeited thier own, that one terrorist was worth the thousands of lives that they would endanger, and that gitmo, by working as a deterent, by containing dangerous people (i.e working as a preventative detention), by extracting information from detainees, by sending a message to terrorists, by sending a message to the world preventing vigilantism and by rehabilitating detainnes, prevents terrorism. i'm not sure if they were the best arguments to go with but they worked. the negating team went with human rights and the guantanamo bay by creating a bad image for the U.S increased terrorism. the hardest bit was trying to prove that people in guantanamo bay deserve to be there since there is no trial (although there is a screening process). thanks for everyone's help!!!!!