RM> The benefit to the living is obvious, I agree wholeheartedly.
RM> But asking me for her organs 10 seconds after she dies?

RS> The problem is often that they choose to use life support on a kid
RS> thats clinically dead, to improve the usefulness of the donated organs
RS> too. That can produce more than a tad of severe brain fade in the
RS> parents at times too. Coz it looks like it aint actually dead at all.

RM> I don't think I'd have a problem there. The reason I'm
RM> uncertain is that I've never been that close to a sudden
RM> death, and I don't know how nutty it would make me.

The problem is apparently not so much the sudden death, its the fact
that the kid looks like its not dead, and they start cutting it up.

RM> It's easy to discuss coldly when we're not involved,

RS> And plenty can do it even when they are too.

RM> And plenty can't. Poor argument.

Crap. Plenty can, so THEY can discuss it.

RM> I offer as evidence your uncharacteristic lack
RM> of response to my recent abortion of a poem.

RS> Thats what caused his heart attack you fool. Its YOUR fault.

RM> Cool! Does this mean I could have a career as a remote assassin?

Looks like it, what with the Tasmanian fart claiming 10 heart
attacks, Theo dancing with death, Gaylyn running screaming back to
the US, your pomes do appear to the email equivalent of letterbombs.

RM> er.. are you sure you have your arguments straight?
RM> If you allow immediate automatic resumation of
RM> organs on death, why waste all that meat as well?

RS> You arent allowed eat your dog either.

RM> I thought the law applied to what food I offer other people.

Nope. We get a few cases of it around here, the wogs are into making salami
in their backyards, you aint allowed to even if its just for yourself.

RM> What I eat (short of human flesh and
RM> restricted drugs) is my own business.

Fraid its not quite that simple.
@EOT:

---