The Instigator
ishallannoyyo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
frozen_eclipse
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Organ Donation Should Be Made Mandatory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
frozen_eclipse
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 29,214 times Debate No: 24841
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

ishallannoyyo

Pro

Hi, I debate this topic before with another DDO member, but he unfortunately had to forfeit every round due to time constraints. Thus, I would like to debate this topic again.

Definitions:
Organ Donation - giving up any part of your body for scientific research or to another human for a transplant (this will be specified in their will which organ, any preferences with the organ etc.)
Mandatory - this must occur upon death

R1 is acceptance.
R2 are arguments and refutations
R3 are refutations
R4 are refutations
R5 are conclusions

I look forward to having a fruitful and entertaining debate with my opponent!
frozen_eclipse

Con

I am very pleased to be debating the instigator. I have'nt been on this site in like 8 months so this will be a good refresher. Since this round is only the acceptance round i will leave my questions for next round. I understand that my opponent wants this to happen upon death witch will develop into a flaw but i will get to that later, but i will post the definition below.

Mandatory-
1. authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory
2. Law . permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified
3. Required or commanded by authority; obligatory:

Sources

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ishallannoyyo

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate challenge. However, I do not accept the changes in definition made by my opponent to the term "mandatory". This is because this MUST occur upon death. This resolution could not be accepted if the person was still living as it can be considered murder, therefore to keep the debate fair the person must be dead before donating their organs.

I will be bringing forth 3 contentions arguing for why organ donation should be made mandatory.

1. Saves Lives
2. Increases Scientific Knowledge
3. Curbs illegal activity

First of all, before I even proceed on to my contentions, I would like to counter some of the arguments that I have no doubt my opponent will raise. Firstly, the point that the body is your own body, nobody else. However, after death is your body still yours? Why waste an organ that you won't need when you can save some body's life? Would you rather leave a kidney in an 83 year old man, or save the life of a 7 year old boy?

Furthermore, I have no doubt that my opponent will raise the point of religious tolerance, and how religions such as Hinduism do not allow the body to be tampered before cremation. However, with the prospect of saving lives and organ donation technology, almost every religion has made allowances for organ donation as they recognize the value of saving lives [2].

I will now proceed on to my first contention, it SAVES LIVES.

1. SAVES LIVES
A new nickname has appeared amongst the medical community. The nickname is for motorcycles. The new name for motorcycles are "Organ Cycles". Why? Because of how dangerous driving a motorcycle can be. The increased risk of car crashes increases the chance that the drivers will donate their organs to those on wait lists. Horrifyingly, people do listen to the radio hoping to hear the news of a car crash. Currently, in the United States, 114 827 people are on a wait list, waiting for an organ. Everyday, 18 people die waiting for an organ. Furthermore, just donating 1 organ can save 8 lives.[1] Organs can survive for a very long time after death, allowing for time for the organ to be transported and the person receiving the organ to be contacted.

Heart/Lungs: Can be preserved for up to 4 - 6 hours after death
Pancreas: Can be preserved for up to 12 hours after death
Liver: Can be preserved for up to 24 hours after death
Kidneys: Can be preserved for up to 48 - 72 hours after death
Corneas: Can be preserved for up to 5 - 7 days after death
Heart Valves, Skin, Bones: Can be preserved for up to 3 - 10 years after death [2]

After death, the organs can be removed and prepared for transplant to another human being. Making organ donation mandatory could prevent 18 people from dying each day. Organ donations can also be used for scientific purposes, which I shall now move on to in my second contention.

2.SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Donating organs (or whole body donations) furthers scientific research as more test subjects are available for testing. This is also an alternative for someone who donates a diseased organ. This will undoubtedly save more lives in the future as cures could possibly be found from conducting tests on these diseased organs. Donated organs have resulted in an increase of understanding and research for these disease:
Heart Disease
Diabetes
HIV
Spinal Injuries
Joint Replacements
Cancer Research
Osteoporosis
Colon and Liver Treatments
Breast Cancer
Reproductive Advancements
Advanced Drug Delivery
Paramedic Training
Alzheimer's Research
Cochlear Implant Development [3]

This increased knowledge will lead to a change in future health care, making it more efficient and effective.

3. CURBS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY
In the current desperation of those who are impoverished, one of the options is to donate one of their kidneys on the black market. In Bangladesh, those who donate a kidney on the black market receives around $1500 [4]. Furthermore, in American these organs can be taken by force when the body is waiting for cremation. Organs and tissue is taken from these bodies and donated to hospitals and research facilities around the country. When these tissues are donated, tissues that have diseases are often passed off as "healthy" with forged papers. Illegal tissue from a single cadaver has reached 90 tissue transplant recipients. Clearly, the black market organ donation is very dangerous to the health of those who need organs.

So, what have we learned today? Organ donation saves lives and has been associated with advanced research and knowledge in the field of medicine. Furthermore, mandatory organ donation curbs the need for black market organ donations. For these reasons, Vote Con.

Sources:
http://www.organdonor.gov......
http://www.donatelifeillinois.org......
http://www.sciencecare.com......
http://www.abovetopsecret.com......
frozen_eclipse

Con

I will offer counter arguments and point out the flaws in pros case. I will show that what pro is proposing may have good intentions but has too many flaws to be implemented.

First I need to point out that I am not changing my opponents definition of mandatory. He offered no definition of the word but instead put a proposal where a definition was due. Since there needs to be a definition to change in the first place no definition was changed but I did offer a definition because pro failed to do so.

I will underline my opponents flawed statements. I will also bold my contentions.


This is because this MUST occur upon death.


Ethical Issues

Here lies a big problem. What if at the exact time this is made mandatory someone gave an organ already. Either

A. We would have to make organ donation while living illegal. What if your daughter was dying and needed a transplant from a member of the family being mom or dad? This mandate would make this illegal because the people are alive at the time of intent of the organ donation. Thus your daughter has to die because of this mandate.

B. We would have to prosecute the person for not giving up the organ or not having the organ at the time of death. SO I ask you, how do we penalize dead people?

Another reason why this resolution fails is simply because no human is obligated to help another. Maybe socially is a debatable topic but currently legally no one is obligated to help by sacrificing there own flesh. Unless pro proves why I should have a legal obligation to keep my organs until death and give my organs upon death and not maybe possibly save my organs in case my family member needs a transplant then there should be no legal obligation to make organ donation upon death mandatory.

If the person was still living as it can be considered murder

This statement is absolutely illogical. If this mandate was passed that would mean all organ donors who give organs before death are all murderers. Why should living donors be considered murderers when in reality they are life savers?
If a person donates while still being alive then it should be by surgery and should not be considering murder. Also since pro believes surgery is murder then I guess what he is promoting is that all surgeons are murderers. I think not. This is a large portion of the many flaws of this mandate. Rejection of this mandate is justified.


However, after death is your body still yours?

No one knows. People who believe in religion believe many different things and some believe that if there body is disturbed after death then they are cursed or damned forever. I ask pro does he want to be responsible for that. Maybe this isn't true and thats not actually what happens. It doesn't matter. When it comes to religion once the rain believes something then that belief becomes reality in the subjects mind. So that religious person is going to live their entire life knowing that there going to be damned forever because someone is forcing their bodies to be disturbed. This is what pros case is promoting people.


Why waste an organ that you won't need when you can save some body's life?

Simple. I'm not obligated to nor do I owe anyone my organs, my blood, my skin or any other part of my body. Organ donation has the word donation in it. To donate is to give of ones own free will. This mandate would make the phrase a contradiction.


However, with the prospect of saving lives and organ donation technology, almost every religion has made allowances for organ donation as they recognize the value of saving lives.

If I can provide at least one religion that doesn't allow organ donations because of religious beliefs then this point fails. Jehovah's Witnesses don't give blood nor do they give organs. They will let their children die to follow the words of the bible where it says you must abstain from blood. That includes sharing blood transfusions and organs as well. I was one so I no this very well. Also even if there is evidence of people of a religion ignoring their negative views on organ donations that doesn't mean that all people of that relation is going to do he same thing. What my opponent is presuming here is the bandwagon fallacy.


1. SAVES LIVES

I'm not really going to comment on this contention too much because 1. If this is true and we pass this mandate, then using the same logic then we should give our houses that we worked all our lives for to the government to give to the homeless? NO! What will stop the government from forcing the people to give away their car to the sate and never selling them until death just because it will help those without cars get cars? NO!

2. Transplant success rates vary from 50%-90%.......http://www.faqs.org...

So even if everyone is forced o give up their organs upon death there is no way that here is going to be a guarantee that its going to save 18 lives a day because with organ transplants re not always successful so no this mandate will not guarantee that 18 people will be saved a day.


2.SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Problems

1. Why is pro now suggesting that we donate our whole bodies after death? This is not in accordance to the resolution.
2. What if I want to be cremated after death.
3. It would not further scientific research. Maybe centuries ago there may have been body donation shortages but today there really isn't......More than 17,500 people donate their bodies to science each year. .......http://www.sciencebuzz.org...

So why force people to give their bodies up when we don't really need anymore.
4. This would cause overstocking and bodies and organs would get wasted because there is too many.
5. Most people who donate their bodies to science are paid for it. Because of overstock people would not get paid for donations anymore.
6. Again I'm not obligated to do this legally or ethicaly


3. CURBS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY

The only reason this would happen is because your making an illegal action now actually legal. This isn't really a valid contention. Also pro said this,

When these tissues are donated, tissues that have diseases are often passed off as "healthy" with forged papers.

Wouldn't a mass supply of organs make people not want to check these organs and do the same thing? Also this happens in doctors offices as well my friend. his phenomenon is not exclusive to the black market. The only thing that's going to happen here is that the black market would be called the white market after this mandate would be passed. But those illegal actions would now be considered legal.

One last thing. These body donations how would we know our bodies would got to scientific research and not some pervert who wants to violate dead bodies?


SO I believe that I have pointed out the many flaws of this mandate. There proves to be too many problems for this mandate to actually be made a law. For these reasons a con vote proves to be a logical response to this debate. I also want to mention that i beleive it is obvious that pro has the BOP and dont quite think that burden has been proven.


Debate Round No. 2
ishallannoyyo

Pro

I thank my opponent for his comments. I would like to refute the refutations brought forth by my opponent.
A. My opponent is making baseless assumptions. Just because organ donation is mandatory upon death doesn’t mean you can’t donate an organ while living. People can donate organs and still live. This resolution isn’t making organ donation only available upon death, it means that people must donate an organ when they die, but that doesn’t mean they can’t donate an organ beforehand.
B. Upon death, bodies are sent to the morgue or hospitals. Organs can be removed there, thus we wouldn’t need to prosecute them as the organ would be removed before being placed in the ground.

Of course no human is obligated to help another, but saving another person’s life is the right thing to do. I ask you, if you had the chance to save someone’s life, would you?

After several days after death, you can’t save your organs in case your family member needs a transplant. The organs would die as I showed in R1. Furthermore, we can’t put you in the ground until the organs are removed because of possible deterioration of the organs in the ground e.g. quickened decomposition.

What I meant by my statement “If a person was still living as it can be considered murder” is that if we forcibly removed multiple organs from a person who was still living it COULD be considered murder. Living donors are not considered murderers, as they are life savers, just like non-living donors. My opponent is twisting my words and making baseless assumptions.

As I mentioned regarding religion, many religions have accepted organ donation after death. For example: Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islamism, and Buddhism. Judaism actually only allows organ donation after death. [1] Jehovah’s witnesses are actually allowed to accept organ donation and donate their organ, unlike what my opponent would have you believe. Jehovah’s witnesses viewed organ donation as cannibalism, but: “Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. …Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs” [2]

As I said above, saving a life is the right thing to do. Ethically, you are obliged to.

The government won’t force us to give away our houses because our houses we need. Our family may need. Our organs after death we don’t need. It cannot be denied though that organ donation saves lives. On side Proposition, we say that a 50% - 90% success is already an extremely high rate and every life that is saved is worth it. Even if it was only 50%, we would save 9 lives a day. 9 human beings.

With science, I am not suggesting that we donate our whole bodies. How much you donate is up to the person as I specified in R1. We don’t need to donate our entire body after death, donating a single organ can still further scientific research. You can donate a couple organs and then be cremated. Donating your organs will greatly increase scientific research because each person is different. Diseases will affect each person differently. New diseases and new illnesses are discovered frequently.

Organ donation doesn’t have to be for science only, it can also be to SAVE LIVES. We need more organs, as shown as there is a wait list for organs.

It curbs illegal activity because there is no longer that need to buy illegal organs, there is no need for that anymore as there would be enough organs. This remains a valid contention. Of course this happens in doctor’s offices, but does every doctor’s office have the capability of removing organs with a full surgical room, surgical team, and equipment? We aren’t just going to let anyone remove the organs, we will have licensed doctor in hospitals removing the organs. I am not suggesting that we would make this legal, we are just removing the need for that black market. These donations would go to science or organ donation as the organs are removed in a hospital, not in someone’s garage.

CONCLUSION
My opponent has failed to point out any flaws in my mandate. The BOP I feel I have proven. There are so many benefits of this mandate. For these reasons, Vote Pro.
Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://4jehovah.org...




frozen_eclipse

Con

This is turning out to be a fun debate. I shall continue refutation and summarize the debate next round.


Of course no human is obligated to help another, but saving another person’s life is the right thing to do. I ask you, if you had the chance to save someone’s life, would you?

Only if I was able to and had the proper training. Yes it may be accepted socially as being the right thing to do but one must asses if they are capable of saving ones life. For example I personally am allergic to sunlight(seriously). If it was summer time with the sun beaming and I had to cut a opening into the victims throat so they can breathe, since I would be having a allergic reaction while trying to save the patient I put the patient more at risk of injury because I would not be able to stabily cut the opening without damaging him more because I would not be able to keep focus. So in this situation I would stay in the shade like a good little half vampire and call 911. (lol) So what I'm trying to say here is that though it may be as my opponent suggests, "the right thing to do" to donate our organs upon death there are circumstances upon with the mandate would no be the right thing to do.


as they are life savers, just like non-living donors. My opponent is twisting my words and making baseless assumptions.

I'm not twisting any words my friend I'm am simply using the same line of logic the sentence presented to make a conclusion. But you have cleared up the confusion now and I'm so glad that's not what you meant.


As I mentioned regarding religion, many religions have accepted organ donation after death.

Once again The Bandwagon Fallacy. Just because some religions may approve of donations doesn't mean that all accept it.

[1] Jehovah’s witnesses are actually allowed to accept organ donation and donate their organ, unlike what my opponent would have you believe.

My opponent is right about one thing. It is a individual decision. and when there is a individual decision different individuals are going to say yes and a no witch obviously indicates that some don't accept it. Some witnesses believe that bodily salts and proteins and skin are considered blood as well as organs. So to do a organ transplant is to transplant blood with is a big no-no in the bible. Some believe this and some don't its based on personal decision. Those who do believe this will not accept donations or donate. Some also still accept the old beliefs that donation is cannibalism..............http://www.medscape.com...

This mandate would obviously contradict our right to practice and maintain our religious beliefs.

Also there are other religions who are against the practice of organ donation. I believe this religion is called Veda-vijnana This is forbidden against the Vedas, sutras, Theory of karma siddanta. This basically says that one has to see the person there transplanting to. Also for intent of the donation and you cant waste or throw away the organ if it doesn't work. If that is done then there afterlife may be disturbed or deformed or cursed something similar to that description. http://veda-vijnana.blogspot.in...

Also there is Shinto. In Shinto it is believed the surgery involved in removing organs damages the body and is dangerous and the body will be impure. http://www.livestrong.com...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...


As I said above, saving a life is the right thing to do. Ethically, you are obliged to.

I am not obligated to save a life if there is something stoping me from saving someone's life like a religious contradiction or not being trained to save a life. A law is pretty much a obligation. A mandate is a law. Since my opponent cannot successfully prove why we should have a obligation to donate our organs after death then it is logical to conclude that a mandate isn't logical to issue in this situation. Those with religious contradiction to the donation case definitely shouldn't be obligated to donate upon death .

Ethically, you are obliged to.

Not when it contradicts our constitutional rights to practice our religion. In this case it ethically fails.



we say that a 50% - 90% success is already an extremely high rate and every life that is saved is worth it. Even if it was only 50%, we would save 9 lives a day. 9 human beings.

It doesn't matter how much math one does to come up with a figure here. Since there is no flat rate but instead a variable rate no absolute equation can be made to figure out how many lives we could save a day. At best we can come up with an average.


With science, I am not suggesting that we donate our whole bodies.

2.SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
We don’t need to donate our entire body after death

Donating organs (or whole body donations)

You did indeed say that sir. I flag a contradiction sir smells like your trying to change your case around. Also you said earlier that some of these bodies would go to scientific research. How so when there is such a huge need for medical donations?

We need more organs, as shown as there is a wait list for organs

I understand that there is a list but as I and the audience can clearly see mandating donations upon death hold too many flaws to actually be mandated. Witch is why this resolution fails.


It curbs illegal activity because there is no longer that need to buy illegal organs,

Of coarse if you make something previously illegal legal then obviously its legal. But if you think this is going to reduce crime your mistaken. There will still be a black market be it legal or not because perverts and freaks are going to want to collect organs and etc.... I'm sure no one sells human livers to people unless they medically need it. These other people don't need it medically. Thus we still have the black market. Also pros sources for the black market sales is not a valid source since there is no information on that link showing such. So I ask pro to prove people are actually buying organ donations for medical purposes from the black market. Unless he can provide the evidence as far as this debate goes we cannot believe such.

The government won’t force us to give away our houses because our houses we need. Our family may need. Our organs after death we don’t need.

How not. If we pass a mandate like this then that sends a message that the government could have the potential to do these things because there based on the same logic. Also as I've been saying some religions need there organs after death.

I am not suggesting that we would make this legal, we are just removing the need for that black market.

Um your resolution is, Organ Donation Should Be Made Mandatory. A mandate is a law. CONTRADICTION!!!! your pretty much defeating your own resolution.
..................................................
Mandatory organ donation upon death is flawed and we cannot allow this to happen for ethical and religious reasons. Some religions are against organ donation upon death. Should we just ignore constitutional and UN rights regarding religious rights and pass the mandate anyway? Should we let this pass and eliminate donors getting paid for there donations because donor centres will not want to pay for it anymore? We are not obligated to donate or organs. So we shouldn't be forced to do so. Passing this mandate would give the government to much power and would open the gate for even more outrageous mandates like forcing the people to give up there homes upon death to the needy. For these reasons this mandate should not be made official.
Debate Round No. 3
ishallannoyyo

Pro

I thank my opponent for his comments, I would like to take this time to refute some of the arguments brought forth by my opponent.

On regards to saving another person’s life, my opponent brings up a situation where he is having an allergic reaction while trying to save someone. He says that he would call 911. That is effectively helping out in a genuine manner by getting the person medical attention. Just because you don’t have the training doesn’t mean you can’t do basic things to help like calling 911. In this case, donating an organ that you won’t even use to try to save someone’s life is clearly the ethically and morally correct choice.

With regards to religion, as I stated in R2 the Bible doesn’t say that organ donation is “a big no-no.” Technically, people wouldn’t suffer eternal damnation because of an organ donation. Though they may believe that it is cannibalism, they wouldn’t suffer any religious punishment from God because the Bible doesn’t specify. This isn’t the bandwagon fallacy as every religion doesn’t SPECIFICALLY FORBID ANY FORM OF ORGAN DONATION [1]. Organ donation may be discouraged, but not forbidden.

Of course you are not obligated if something is stopping you, but nothing is stopping you from donating its organs as I have shown with religion. Thus, this mandate should still stand.

It doesn’t matter if the average is 1%, every person saved is worth it.
As I said in R1 “Donating organs (OR whole body donations). The key word in that sentence is OR. Even though there is a huge need for medical donations, we cannot put a diseased or sick organ into a person. As I said in R1, those organs can go to science.

My opponent fails to understand what I mean in my third point. I will specify. We aren’t making the illegal removal of organs to be sold on the black market legal. Furthermore, I have provided a source as I showed in R1 with a fake skin donation reaching hundreds of people. The black market will NOT exist because people are no longer motivated to buy organs. Why buy one from a shady dealer when you can get one from a trained professional? We are NOT MAKING THE CURRENT ACTIVITY ON THE BLACK MARKET LEGAL.

The government can’t force us to give up our houses because according to the Constitution no person should be deprived of property without due process of law.” This mandate doesn’t conflict with the right to practice religion because as I stated above no religion forbids organ donation.
Organ donation upon death is not flawed as I have shown above. Vote Pro.

SOURCES
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
frozen_eclipse

Con

In regards to the 911 situation I think pro is missing the point. What I am saying is there are circumstances in witch organ donation is morally wrong. Also I am saying that there are factors in the equation that cancel out with the awnser. For example some Jehovah's witnesses,Veda vijina, and the Shinto morally cannot do or do not accept the practice of organ donation upon death. So since there are grey areas in the implementation or lack thereof of this mandate this mandate cannot legally pass.


With regards to religion, as I stated in R2 the Bible doesn’t say that organ donation is “a big no-no.” ...etc.....

First off all this debate is not exclusively platformed on just the bible but upon all religious instruments of doctrine. Also yes according to these peoples religious doctrines they will suffer damnation or some type of bad luck or curse in all the mentioned religions that I have provided. With Jehovah's witnesses it is a sin punishable by death because the bible says sin is punishable by death.http://www.blurtit.com...

In Veda vijnana if the organs are wasted or not used in accordance with the donors wishes then it will negatively affect them in the afterlife. In Shinto if the body is disturbed after death the body's purity is compromised and that could lead to curses and plagues to the family and disturbs the afterlife. So yes this mandate does contradict religious beliefs. Also just because something isn't put in the doctrine word for word doesn't mean there is no direction for it. Religions use common sense, precedent and logic to come to these logical conclusions. Obviously if the religion has doctrine saying the transfusion of blood is a sin and if the religion believes that organs are considered blood as well then it is logical to conclude that organ donation is morally wrong because of the transfusion of blood. So as we can see here religions have brains and have figured out that there doctrines are precedents of logic for future actions with that being said they can decide what is forbidden and what's not forbidden according to their own religion.

Also I didn't call pro out on the bandwagon fallacy because some religions are contentious toward organ donation but because he used the logic of, "since some do it then all do it" as we see this is a fallacious statement. Just because majority may do something doesn't mean that the entire population will copy the majority. Minorities exist because they differ from majority. This is what we call the bandwagon fallacy my friends.


Of course you are not obligated if something is stopping you, but nothing is stopping you from donating its organs as I have shown with religion. Thus, this mandate should still stand.

OK this statement is very fallacious. I have proven that religion is something that will stop one from organ donation so how can you conclude that nothing will stop someone from donating. Is not religion a something?

We aren’t making the illegal removal of organs to be sold on the black market legal. etc....

Umm removing organs from religious persons who reject the practice by there own religion is against the law because it contradicts the 1st amendment sir. This action is impeding upon a persons right to excersice the practice of there own religion witch is a federal crime and a violation of the free excersice clause of the first amendment. An article from Cornell law will help me to assert this,

"The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause. The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.” The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.".............http://www.law.cornell.edu...

I believe I have proven my point. Now here's my last point on this black market section. The black market will still exist regardless of this failing mandate. There are weirdo's in this world who will want body parts for non-medical and non-educational purposes. The people who want organs other than to donate,to further scientific research and save lives will be contradicting pros purpose for this mandate. I would hope pro would have the common sense for the distribution of these organs to be conditional upon the contentions he mentioned because if not he would be introducing a self defeating contention. So where are these weirdo's going to get these organs from. Simple the black market. Why? because they cant get the organs anywhere else.


The government can’t force us to give up our houses because according to the Constitution no person should be deprived of property without due process of law.” This mandate doesn’t conflict with the right to practice religion because as I stated above no religion forbids organ donation.

Due process-

A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.......http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

1.if it is reasonable to force people to give up there organs without consent then it sets a precedent to do other crazy thing like I mentioned above with houses. I believe you are proving my case for me. Since it is unfair to take a persons organs without consent then the due process itself defeats your case entirely because you yourself admit that we are not obligated to help another. So with that being said there is no ethical ground to force people to give up there organs even if upon death the organs are still theirs......

Of course no human is obligated to help another, but saving another person’s life is the right thing to do. I ask you, if you had the chance to save someone’s life, would you?

2. If your using the logic of the word unreasonable then according to due process of the law forcing people to give up organs while ignoring there religious beliefs is unreasonable and unconstitutional. Thus your mandate is contradictory.


After several days after death, you can’t save your organs in case your family member needs a transplant.

So what if its seven days. id rather have my organs for those seven days because in seven days seven family members may have organ failure and need a transplant. This mandate would take these organs before I had a chance to donate. So I have to ask who has priority here family members or strangers?

So I have pointed out so many contradictions in this entire debate that I don't even remember the number of how many I have pointed out. There are multiple flaws in logic. multiple contradictions legally. Most importantly there are legal flaws. So I ask the audience why should we make a mandate legal when it doesn't make sense logically in implementation and it contradicts legality and the constitution?
Debate Round No. 4
ishallannoyyo

Pro

I thank my opponent for his comments.
Regarding religion, as I have shown in R3, no religion forbids donation. In Veda Vijnana, the organ can be used in accordance with the donors wishes. With Jehovah's witnesses, the bible doesn't say that the sin is punishable by death and is interpreted differently by different people, as I demonstrated in before rounds. NO religion says that it is a sin and you will burn for it, yet religions just discourage it. I have already addressed the "bandwagon fallacy".

Religion will not stop you from donating an organ, NO RELIGION express forbids donation of organs, as I showed in above rounds. The black market will not make any money because my opponent has provided no source for how many wierdo's there are. Most people go to the black market because they NEED an organ, this mandate would greatly curb that activity.

As I have said, after death your body isn't yours any more, it isn't your property as I stated in R2. My opponent has made no refutation to this statement, SO DUE PROCESS DOESN'T EFFECT ORGANS AFTER DEATH.
Regarding family members, if they needed an organ donation in 7 days with this mandate they would without a doubt receive an organ. With the priority of strangers or family members, other strangers are giving their organs to your family, the least you can do is return that favour.

My opponent has failed to point out any contradictions. The legal flaws I have all addressed already. I have shown how this would save lives (which is the ethically correct thing to do), it would benefit science, and it would curb illegal activity. I would remind my opponent not to post any new arguments in the following round as I cannot refute them, and if new arguments are posted then it would count as forfeiture for my opponent as it would be unfair. I thank my opponent for a stimulating debate, and I urge voters to Vote PRO.
frozen_eclipse

Con

Pro has given us a couple reasons why organ donation should be mandatory upon death. The reasons alone are not enough to pass this mandate because there are constitutional, ethical, and religious contradictions with its implementations.

Pro gave this statement as the purpose of this debate, "I am not suggesting that we would make this legal, we are just removing the need for that black market." This right here should automatically defeat this resolution. It seems pro fails to realize a mandate is a law. He also fails to realize making organ donation mandatory upon death will not eliminate the black market because there are many things on the black market other than organs.

As we can see this mandate may have good intentions behind it. I'm sure most of the bills that gets sent to congress usually have good intentions as well. The reason not every bill passes is simply because there is implementation and possibly constitutional issues with the bill Witch is exactly the case here. There are huge ethical issues with this mandate.

What if at the time of this mandate is made legal someone has already given a organ? Are we going to penalize them? We would have to because this mandate is a law. If we don't have the organ upon death would that mean I would have to be penalized?
How would we prosecute the already dead? What's the use of having a law in witch you cannot punish the offenders? The fact that we cant legally punish the dead defeats the purpose of making this law a mandate in the first place.

Pros first contention says we should do this in order to save lives. But here comes the ethical issue. Pro openly admits that we are not obligated to save lives. Though he has flipped flopped his comments throughout this debate he did indeed say this. So with that being said if we are not obligated to give up something in order to save a life in witch we are also not obligated to do why should we be forced to do this? Also my opponent provided a source saying that after death organs last about seven days. What if after your dead within those seven days your daughter has an accident and needs a donor whom exactly matches her. That person would be those closest to her like her parents. What if that child only had her dad in her life and had no one else to do the donation? If the government automatically takes our organs we wont have them to give to our dieing family members. So this begs the question of whom has priority here? Strangers or family?

Another Huge reason why we cannot pass this mandate is due to adherence to religious tolerance. As I have provided earlier there are religions who for the sake of their religious beliefs cannot and or will not want to donate their organs upon death. My opponent claims all religions are starting to make exceptions to donate organs. He is trying to say that since some are doing it then all must be doing it. This is the fallacy of the bandwagon. Just because a majority may do something doesn't mean their isn't a minority that oppose it. Pros statement is very untrue. I made this statement earlier, " If I can can find at least one religion who is against organ donation then this mandate fails." I found not only one but atleast three whom oppose the practice of organ donation. Veda Vijnana, The Shinto, And some Jehovah's witnesses. In the case of America we respect religious beliefs and we let people adhere to their beliefs. The reason America was founded was based upon the prospect of religious freedom. Nothing has changed. We still adhere to these principles.


Pros second contention wishes to make organ donation mandatory because It could possibly further scientific research. This also begs the question of when 17,500 people donate their bodies to science every year and if 114,827 people are on organ donor waiting lists then why should we donate those organs to science when the dieing need them more? Even if this bill was passed I'm sure there would still be people on the waiting list and their would still be some kind of organ shortage. This mandate would not fix the problem entirely.

If we use this logic of because we need to save lives then we must force every one to give up their organs upon death. Then what's stopping the government from using the same logic to conclude that we have to give up our houses or our money or clothes after death with the government being priority over family members? Nothing. This mandate could be the roots of a large government power tree that will keeping sucking the nutrients of the ground dry until we have nothing more to give. Also if we did pass this people wouldn't get paid anymore to donate their bodies because they would already have lots of bodies so there would be no demand. There for donation of bodies would not get paid anymore.

Another point of pro was he came to the conclusion that after death your body isn't yours. He fails to offer any logical reasons why upon death we still arnt who we are and no proof that his assertion is a fact. The facts here is that Humans control their bodies and are their bodies forever conscious or not. When we die we are still human. Even when dead we still have rights. The right to practice religion is still respected when people are dead. With that being it would be disrespectful and illegal for the state to hinder or impede upon any religious affairs. Forcing people to give up their organs whom are religiously against the practice isn't an ethical thing to do. We ought to respect peoples wishes upon death. He also brings up the point of why allow others to die when we could save them by giving them our organs? Simple because we are not obligated to save lives or to sacrifice our flesh for others. We are not obligated to help other whatsoever especially not upon death. To donate is to give upon ones own free will. Making donation a mandated act would contract the words donations purpose. I am not obligated legally or ethically to donate my organs so why should I be forced to?

pro also says that this would curb illegal activity but eliminating the black market. What does the black market do the collect and sale hard to get items or items retrieved in illegal ways. I don't believe this contention is even valid because obviously if you make a practice witch was illegal now legal then obviously its not and illegal activity. My opponent also fails to realize that the black market will still exist regardless of this mandate due to the simple fact that we are not going to sell organs who need to be given to dieing victims to weirdos who want to use them for weird purposes or sexual fetishes. There are going to be instances where people are going to want organs for reasons other than what is considered a good reason. My opponent didn't object when I said there would be a check on those who wish to buy of what there intent is. So since he didn't comment on that it hold to be true because silence equals concurrence. So with that being said the legal organ sellers are not going to give out organs to people for other than life saving purposes. So where are these weirdos going to get there organs? Simple the black market.

This mandate cannot be passed. It violates our first amendment rights and the free excersise clause. If we apply this mandate then we are ignoring Americans legal right to practice and act in accordance to their religion. In congress if anything contradicts the constitution it is a automatic fail because the constitution is the supreme law of the land. So obviously as we see this mandate cannot be made official because this mandate forces those who have religious reasons to not give up organs upon death to do it any way because the government wants them too.

Pro also brung up the Due Process. We are deprived of liberty when the government forces us to do something against our religious beliefs. We all can clearly see that this mandate is too flawed to be a lawl. So voters a con vote is a very justified response to this interesting debate.




Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 2 years ago
ishallannoyyo
That was, good debate man!
Posted by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
frozen_eclipse
This was fun!!!
Posted by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
frozen_eclipse
lol....nice try my rival...lol.....but your tactcs wont work on this guy( rips of shirt and becomes superman)
Posted by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
frozen_eclipse
right to practice religion
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Unconstitutional much?
Posted by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
frozen_eclipse
im sorry but i put alot of effort into this and i dont want all my work to go to waste. But i will finish my arguments with haste to try to accomidate you.......and if you would like to debate something else fterwards that will be fine with me.....have fun!
Posted by ishallannoyyo 2 years ago
ishallannoyyo
I'm going on vacation in 1 day for a couple weeks, can we like both forfeit and maintain a tie?

Sorry for the inconveniance.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
frozen_eclipse
Oh im so going to lawyer the ...... out of this. lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
ishallannoyyofrozen_eclipseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Its irrelevant if it saves lives. Con showed it deprived us of liberty and constitutional freedoms. No matter the points pro brings up con wins as our liberty and rights trump all. Con in the end showed it was 1) unethical, 2) unconstitutional, and 3) liberty depriving. Together this outweighs all of Pros argunments regardless as their truthfulness. Con wins.