The Instigator
JacobAnderson
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
subgenius
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

The Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal

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 2 votes the winner is...
subgenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 863 times Debate No: 49581
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

JacobAnderson

Con

Round Layouts:
1- Acceptance, No arguments
2- Opening Statements, No rebuttals
3/4- Rebuttals
5- Summary of Debate/ Conclusion, No new arguments

By sale of human organs, I mean:
- If a human needs an organ, they must purchase it.
- Anyone can sell human organs.

subgenius

Pro

I accept with the condition that you are excluding auto-transplants and allow for the donor system to usurp the notion that all organs must be purchased (regardless of transplant procedure costs).
Debate Round No. 1
JacobAnderson

Con

Before I start, to reply to your statement, auto-transplants are defined as the transplantation of organs, tissues or even proteins from one part of the body to another in the same individual. This being said, they would not need to purchase an organ they have that will be moved to another part in their body. To say so would, to me, be equivalent to saying whenever someone decides to relocate furniture or a television set, or they need to move it due to special circumstances, they must purchase a new one though they have one and want/need to move it.

However, I have lost interest in the debate and I apologize for doing so. I realize that there is really nothing to argue in your case, though I knew that. I set this debate up for someone I was to supposed debate under the same conditions with. I entered a similar debate someone started with these conditions, I was Con. I was just trying to follow up with my own request of starting a similar debate.
subgenius

Pro

i accept your concession and note that the victory and points should be awarded to me.
thank you
Debate Round No. 2
JacobAnderson

Con

Okay, you can have the victory if it means anything to you.
subgenius

Pro

its meaning is irrelevant, but given the circumstance, that conclusion is appropriate.
Debate Round No. 3
subgenius

Pro

thank you
Debate Round No. 4
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by subgenius 3 years ago
subgenius
it is legal in Iran...did you have a specific jurisdiction in mind?...so "should be" may be grammatically misleading....
Posted by vekoma123 3 years ago
vekoma123
Damn, it's like Repo! The Genetic Opera all over again.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Look, you can justify it however you want, but it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to give your opponent additional burdens and give yourself a stronger case. You're placing all of the burdens on Pro and giving them next to no wiggle room in which to function. Hell, you're practically forcing an enlargement of the illegal drug market that's actually protected by this kind of system. Sure, someone might take this debate, but it's hardly a debate if Con is setting all of the arguments up for his own victory.
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
These were the stipulations put on me in another debate I entered that never took off. I am taking the same stance.
Also, in my stipulations, I said that anyone who needs them should purchase them. This includes physicians and hospitals who need them as extras so a patient won't have to wait as long. There can then be another sale between physician and patient whether they choose this or not.
The whole insurance thing, yes, this is true, but you have to look into the people that don't have health insurance but still need organs. Also, health insurance is another way of purchasing the required treatments, so it falls under the purchase/sale. I realize it's a burden, bit I figure if someone started a similar debate under pro, someone can enter this debate under pro
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Well, I was going to accept because I think this is an interesting issue, but then I saw your stipulations on what you mean by the sale of human organs. I disagree on both fronts.

I don't see how the system of donation goes completely out the window in the presence of a system for sale. Stipulating that "if a human needs and organ, they must purchase it" ignores this, not to mention ignoring the fact that health insurance normally purchases organ transplants, which wouldn't be negated in the presence of this system. Why couldn't hospitals be the purchasers? Or individual physicians?

But I could argue that within the context of the round. It's the latter point I'm really having a hard time with. "Anyone can sell human organs." So now it's an unregulated system where anyone can carve up any individual and sell their organs? This essentially states that it doesn't have to be the person with the organs themselves who comes to a given hospital to sell those organs. Seems like you're forcing a heavy burden on Pro with this one.

I really don't get why you feel the need to make these two caveats. The debate can be had on the general issue of selling organs in a regulated market where people make choices for their own bodies. That debate provides pretty equal ground to both sides.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
JacobAndersonsubgeniusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by WheezySquash8 3 years ago
WheezySquash8
JacobAndersonsubgeniusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con said that Pro can win. Also Pro had better conduct.