Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Ladies and gentlemen, I represent the side that would deny that a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.My RebuttalPro begins their argument supporting the notion that organ donation is not a legal concern, but a moral concern alone. This would mean that those who feel the need to do the moral 'duty' of donating organs should be entitled to do so whilst there should be not legality involved in the process. Thus, if someone died on their 18th birthday (or prior to it) it should be automatically assumed that this individual is not making the moral decision to donate their organs and since no law forcing them to do so should be in place (according to Pro's own argument), assumed consent would violate the very principles on which organ donation is based.As for the social welfare argument, this is not about presumed consent. Social welfare is the result of completely forced taxation. In addition, people on welfare are not people who would immediately die if refused it, they are people who would clutter the streets as hobos and amount to nothing as opposed to the contributing working people they can become from the benefits of welfare.Pro is absolutely correct that presumed consent would increase donation rates as the apathetic would be donating instead of letting the needy transplant recipient die. Nevertheless, I am going to explain why the 'donor' isn't exactly dead already (had the people who knew them known they never intended to give organs it would encourage them to keep the people in vegetable state in hopes of them suddenly waking up or a cure being found in time for whatever disease they may carry that would encourage them to wilfully die before it gets too bad for the sake of a transplant).The first contention that Pro offers is "Utilitarianism". Aside from the fact that is not a contention but one of many philosophical methods of determining right from wrong, a real Utilitarian would actually deny anyone ever donating organs at all.When people need a transplant it is either due to bad genetics [http://www.unckidneycenter.org...] directly causing the failure of the organ [http://www.webmd.com...] or bad genetics leading people to crave too much of bad things in the first place that they would end up in that situation[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]. Proneness to addiction is far more inherited than you may think. On the other hand, organ donors have to meet a series of criteria [http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu...] before being considered to be someone's donor to begin with. This means that while donors are usually healthy individuals who had a freak accident or disease beyond genetic control, the organ recipient is someone who is going to potentially pass on defective genes to children that will grow to have their organs fail too, so on and so forth. It is likely that if this person died there and then that whatever mating partner they may end up reproducing further with, will end up not only failing to produce disease-prone children but to have the time to produce offspring with someone of genetic proneness to good health (who themselves may have ended up childless if it wasn't for this absence of a person).The entire second contention is not actually a contention at all, it is a defense against a potential point that I could raise. The only thing I have to say against it is that under-18-year-olds may be assumed to be willing to give organs if presumed consent is taken to be the default position of any human being meaning opting out would only be possible after one hits 18 but before that they are assumed to give it away. Nonetheless, if this isn't the case then I merely nullify the second contention as irrelevant to the debate. It didn't prove anything in favor of Pro's case. I do, however, find a fundamental issue with how Pro jumps from mentioning that a just society must respect freedom to choose and then states that therefore presumed consent is a just society's automatic policy to take... If anything, the opposite would be the interpretation of a society based on choices. If someone doesn't choose to donate, why assume they would have done so if they'd had the chance? The concept of a just society revolving around choices is in fact in support of the Con side of this debate. Nevertheless, I do not advocate this and am merely nullifying the point.The third contention is absolutely ridiculous. It wouldn't prevent anyone, at all, from being ignorant of the system anymore than a system of non-assumed consent does. The ignorant ones would simply be presumed as having consented, that is the only, single change. There would be more donations thanks to ignorance, not due to the sudden reduction of it. This is totally fallacious in every sense is negated on grounds of being plain wrong.I conclude that Pro has failed to prove that a just society would presume the consent of organ donors.