only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants
Debate Rounds (3)
According to this reasoning, only non-virgins should be allowed to have sex (hence eventually no one would and our species would die out).
Not only that, but only people who sell ice cream should be entitled to purchase ice cream.
In actual fact only artists should be entitled to visit a gallery and only musicians should be able to hear the latest hits.
This is an entirely impractical and unfeasible principle for a society to be based on and thus is negated on grounds of impossibility.
for example, virginity is something that is designed to be lost. it has nothing to do with a reciprocal nature. if a person doesnt want to be a donor, why should they get organs when they need em? the better analogy is a free loader analogy. wanting something free without putting up anything in return.
almost like a business transaaction. which also negates your idea of selling something without being a seller.
No one is wanting anything free here. This is a member of society who gives to the society either be being educated for a job in the future or currently by filling their role in their profession. They give back to society by working within it.
Aside from this, the person undergoing the transplant pays for it in USA and only gets it free if they are a resident or a taxpayer in nations where health care is subsidized. So there is absolutely no 'free' pass for the recipient.
As for the donor, they are willing to give up their organ to allow a genetically defective individual who clearly is prone to heart disease or liver failure or whatever they got (even how prone one is to succumb to alcohol or cigarette addiction is considered genetic). So in actual fact they are cursing a nation by not allowing this genetically defective person to die who may live on to have children and overall reduce the genetic efficiency of the nation. They do it purely selfishly to feel 'morally superior' or more guilt free and usually are people who are psychologically prone to irrational angst and regret. They probably donate blood too just to feel better about themselves.
Aside from that issue, is the problem with your basis of morality.
If you only allow people who give to charity to receive from it, you'd be cursing all the poor people who probably would never be willing to give to charity. According to you, we should force all recipients of charity to sign a document of consent saying that when they die a certain percentage of their income must go to the government to give to charities as they please.
This is completely unfair because that small percentage will completely ruin what little money they had left to give to their relatives and/or friends via their will.
if we required people be donors, more people would sign up, and there'd be more organs for people. this would be overall better for that reason.
plus it again is just fairer. i dont mean to make it sound like tit for tat or an eye for an eye... but when it comes down to who should get dibs, why should someone who wasn't a donor get dibs? someone who is a donor is suppose to die? how is that at all fair?
cause it is free rider within the meaning of the situation. sure they pay taxes, but it doesn't have anything to do with organ donating. in a system where we donate organs, they aren't contributing at all. that is free rider.
You say that if we required more people to be donor, more people would 'sign up'. This is actually false because if being a donor was mandatory, no one would sign up at all, they'd only 'sign off' if they had good reason to.
You say that there being more organs for people is a good thing. This debate is not even about that, it's about violating someone's right to survive by profiting off of the people consenting to have their organs taken then being forced, tot give their own organs away at death without their consent. It is not fair at all and, as I earlier stated, it allows genetically weak people prone to organ failures to reproduce which is overall worse for the people of a nation. This would only double up that amount of people and make a larger proportion of people genetically defective over a period of time.
You ask why someone isn't a donor should get dibs, the answer is simple. When someone agrees to be a donor, there is nowhere in the contract that states that the recipient must themselves be a donor. They sign their consent off knowing full well that his is the case.
We are not in a system where we donate organs, we are in an economy where some people opt to donate organs. That is all. If you are contributing to the economy somehow, whether now or in the future, you have fulfilled your role in the system.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither gave reason to award or negate points from one or the other. S&G - Con. Pro failed to use capitalization throughout the debate. Arguments - Con. Pro argued an eye for an eye case based on fairness. Con showed that the system already in place is already fair because it is a paid transaction. Con also challenged Pro on the moral implications and the potential damages that can be caused in the future from the practice proposed by Pro. Pro was unable to provide adequate rebuttals to this, and instead just kept re-iterating the fairness point. Since Pro failed to overcome the challenges presented by Con, I award Con argument points. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.