Although many would probably cite religion to be their reason for not being an organ donor, I must say I believe that to be a weak excuse when the said religious person could be saving a life or multiple lives if they were to donate their organs.
The model for this assignment was to listen carefully to each claim as it was made, provide the exact language of the claim, and critique each claim. It’s not necessary to argue with the text or take issue with the personality of the speaker. Critical reading’s only subject is the text of the source.
A less wordy version: Certainly many religious people donate their organs; it seems odd, then to use religion to object to donation.
I am not saying that these people should not follow their respective religions, but you would think their religious beliefs would call for them to save lives rather than selfishly keep what they will not need anymore.
A Briefer Version: The impulse to save lives seems compatible with religious belief.
Komal Adris argues in favor for the religious side of not donating your organs and makes multiple claims to try and prove her side of organ donation to not be compulsory.
Actually, I don’t think she does. She says some people are against “breaking bones,” but she cites other biblical verses in favor of saving lives.
At about 43 seconds into the video, until 1minute and 5 seconds, Adris claims that “on the one hand you must not break the bones of the dead, on the other you have a very strong verse from the Quran that says, ‘saving a life is like saving the whole of humanity’.”
Yet directly after saying this part that saving a life is almost the equivalence to saving all of humanity, according to the religious text of Islam, she then goes on to say, “I would not support a compulsory system.”
That may sound contradictory to you, Dan, but it isn’t. The point of this assignment is to carefully examine the individual claims. There are several questions here, including “Is donation good?” Yes, it is. “Should donation be mandatory?” No, she says. “Would it be good to donate half your income to charity?” Of course. “Should it be mandatory?”
This almost made me angry upon hearing her say this when her own religious book stated that a chance to save a life is of such high importance, yet she does not agree that organ donation should be compulsory.
A Briefer Version: After citing the Koran to support the rightness of donation, Adris infuriated me by rejecting compulsory donations.
She is also just using one part of the verse from the Quran to argue against the other, when that most likely was not the intention of the writing (although I really can not truly argue that because I have no background knowledge in the teachings of the Quran).
A Briefer Version: It seems unreasonable that the Koran could equally support both positions.
I found her claims to be very selfish and sort of self-centered.
You’re more than entitled to your finding, but it’s no part of a critical reading, Dan.