I don't disagree with you in the general case, but remember that some people can not donate for medical reasons, or because of significant social pressure. While it is easy for us to say "fuck your family / church / other peer group, they are a silly bunch of idiots / misinformeds / fundies who you are better off without anyway" on the social pressure front it really isn't that easy for people in such a situation. Anything that stigmatizes someone in that position will push them further into the hold of the errant peer group as they'll feel less welcome outside of it.
> Organ donation costs me nothing.
I'm told that the key problem, in this country anyway, is not people who don't want to donate but people who either never state a preference or do so and never explain their wishes to their family (who can and too often do override a donors instructions). Why is hasn't been legislated that the family can't override a person's decision to donate I'm not sure (though I suspect it has something to do with lobbying from certain religious groups).
We are all well within our rights not to donate organs.
Demand to control your organs and what they are used for.
You would not think that is you or someone you cared about needed a new organ.
> how do you prevent your liver from going to an alchoholic who likes to fuck children?
Er, I think the 1 in x00,000 chance of my organs helping someone like that is a risk worth taking for the much much higher chance they will help decent people.
There is nothing that I can do to stop my organs being donated to people who say dickish things on the Internet like you just have either - and if there were processes available by which I could express a preference there are a lot of people who would jump the queue in front of you should you be needing and otherwise next in line at the time.
You could use exactly the same ludicrous argument to "defend" never giving anything to any charity or other cause.
I'd imagine that particular combination is reasonably rare, and most donation organizations require alcoholics to demonstrate abstinence from alcohol for 6+ months to be eligible.
I was personally more concerned with the child-rapist part.
I didn't see many folks on HN complaining that Facebook/Google/etc. shouldn't take an advocacy position on SOPA, so it strikes me as odd how controversial Facebook taking one on organ donation is.
That's because Facebook and Google had legitimate business interests involved in SOPA. Unless Facebook is getting into the organ donation business, I don't see how your example is relevant.
""The company announced a plan on Tuesday morning to encourage everyone on Facebook to start advertising their donor status on their pages, along with their birth dates and schools""
When facebook has 'a plan' to get you to share this, it gets to a level above simply putting your religious views et al on your FB page.
Well, you are, if you ask me. Not donating is tremendously selfish, I'd say.
> edit: for example, why doesn't he do some social engineering to help all the starving children in third world countries?
Organ donation costs me nothing. It is an act that has zero downside to me. Donating food has at least some downside, as it deprives me of something (money or food) I would have had.