Organ Donation Should Be Made Mandatory

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 RESEARCHWe don’t need to donate our entire body after deathDonating 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 organsI 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.