Resolved: The US Government Should Legalize Financial Incentives For Organ Donation

== Rebuttal == Under the headline "A person can do what they choose with their own body," Con begins making his argument which has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument that a person can choose what to do with their own body. As such, I'm going to make a list of entirely dropped arguments to post at the conclusion of this round, so the audience can have a clear picture of my points that were never clearly addressed. Con begins, "The ban is placed because not all people are kind and just." Notice that not everybody being kind and just is not a reason whatsoever to keep the selling of organs illegal. Not everyone is kind and just, but you can still sell cars. You can sell all kinds of things. I don't see how this is relevant at all. Con continues, "Are you so selfish that the only thing you want is to make a million dollars, and stand by while the poor and disadvantaged are preyed upon?" This sentence literally makes no sense whatsoever. First, it's poor conduct for Con to call me selfish and to make assumptions about what I would do in any situation. I'm merely here to debate a particular side of a resolution. Second, it's not true that the poor would be "preyed upon" in any way and Con hasn't explained as such. It's true that poor people would probably not be able to afford organs, but it's no different than how poor people cannot afford to seek the best possible medical care and treatment while others can. Con writes, "We have evidence that the poor are the ones most likely to be exploited." The poor would not be exploited. Poor people could choose not to sell their organs and live just how they are now. Or, one could sell another's organs after they die, in which case the money could be used to help the poor family. In that way this HELPS the poor. I've explained this in the last round. Con responded, "True, some people will lose the chance of making a few thousand bucks, but this will prevent lives from being destroyed by organ traders." Con failed to explain how organ traders would destroy lives rather than save them. Again I'm not suggesting the impoverished should be solicited to sell their organs, but if that's what they freely choose (or choose to have happen upon their death) then that's their prerogative. There's a difference between coercion and force. People are free to make their own choices. Also, poor people have to deal a lot of crappy things. A rich person buys a McDonald's and does nothing but pays a poor person $8 an hour to flip burgers while the owner sips pina coladas by their pool. Isn't that "exploitation" according to my opponent's definition? Isn't that the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation for personal gain? The rich pays the poor bare minimum to do all the work just so the rich can make a higher profit. Of course that fits the definition perfectly. But would Con suggest that this practice be ended too? Or should he accept the fact that people are exploited constantly throughout our every day lives and thus particularly value freedom? Con writes, "Pro said value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for. However, it says in US News that most of these people get paid less than they actually wanted, and less than what the deal was." First, I'd appreciate a source. Second, if they don't get what they were supposed to get then that's a legal issue in which these people deserve legal protection and compensation for their loss in the trade. This is exactly why organ selling should be legal: because this is a valid market transaction and should be kept off the black market to ensure that the law can protect people's rights and uphold contracts and other agreements. Regarding sources, Con writes, "Pro said unable to find my source. You cannot find everything online!" Con can feel free to quote a non-online source, but he didn't properly cite anything so I am not able to double check or fact check his statistics. This is important because we have conflicting statistics. Since mine have been properly cited and readily available for the audience, mine should without a doubt be considered more than his. Con continues, "I'm saying that 92% DON'T want incentives, meaning that legalizing them will not do much to solve our crisis." First, there's still an 8% that would have their mind's changed and thus this would help regardless. Second, that is not at all what my statistics say, and again the audience is free to go back to R2 and check out my numbers and sources compared to Con's. He completely dropped (which I will mention later) all of my statistics from The Economist and other places indicating that financial incentives would absolutely encourage more organs being donated. Con writes, "If this occurred, organs will only go to the wealthiest, instead of going to those who were in line first." However Con never explained why this is wrong. In our society, most things are optional for the wealthy first. If Con has an issue with this then he has an issue with capitalism itself. Why is a first-come, first-serve basis necessarily more moral? Perhaps John is first on the list but is a convicted rapist. And perhaps Mary Sue is last but she's a children's volunteer. Also, there are lots of ways to get around poor people being glossed over, such as insurance, government health care, loans and payment plans or other options. In conclusion, Con writes "Because we cannot regulate markets properly, they could be dangerous for both the donor and the recipient." This is absurd. By that logic we shouldn't have a market for anything and our entire economy/society would collapse. Moreover what needs to be regulated? The only thing that needs to happen is that trade agreements and contracts are enforced, to ensure both people get what they want and expected to get out of the transaction. == Dropped Arguments == 1. A person has the right to do what they please with their own body. 2. Con dropped the point about how other surgeries such as plastic surgery or surrogate mothers are just as dangerous if not more-so than organ donation, negating his rebuttal for why plasma should be able to be sold but not kidneys. 3. Con never answered why we should be able to create life for money but not save life for money. 4. Con ignored the fact that my statistic destroyed his. He said transplants fail 60% of the time but is completely unable to provide a source for this; I provided a source stating otherwise (for example liver transplants only fail 1% of the time, and for kidney's it's far less). 5. I said those who were against these procedures or policies need not engage, just like pro-life people need not have abortions. If donating organs is more important to them, they can donate instead of sell. If people are willing to sell and people are willing to buy, a legal market should absolutely exist. 6. Con dropped my statistic from The Economist. Please extend. 7. Regarding humanitarian concern, I pointed out that those donating out of the goodness of their heart should not be upset that other people are donating for different reasons. Con dropped this contention. 8. Con dropped the argument that organ donation would increase if there were financial incentives. He can't just say "that's not true;" he has to provide arguments or evidence against my analysis and cited sources. 9. Con dropped the point about how donation and not regeneration is most practical or possible in many situations. 10. Con dropped the point about "automatic consent" and my subsequent criticisms. Please extend these and any other dropped arguments I may have missed.