Organ Donation Should Be Made Mandatory

Pro has given us a couple reasons why organ donation should be mandatory upon death. The reasons alone are not enough to pass this mandate because there are constitutional, ethical, and religious contradictions with its implementations. Pro gave this statement as the purpose of this debate, "I am not suggesting that we would make this legal, we are just removing the need for that black market. " This right here should automatically defeat this resolution. It seems pro fails to realize a mandate is a law. He also fails to realize making organ donation mandatory upon death will not eliminate the black market because there are many things on the black market other than organs. As we can see this mandate may have good intentions behind it. I'm sure most of the bills that gets sent to congress usually have good intentions as well. The reason not every bill passes is simply because there is implementation and possibly constitutional issues with the bill Witch is exactly the case here. There are huge ethical issues with this mandate. What if at the time of this mandate is made legal someone has already given a organ? Are we going to penalize them? We would have to because this mandate is a law. If we don't have the organ upon death would that mean I would have to be penalized? How would we prosecute the already dead? What's the use of having a law in witch you cannot punish the offenders? The fact that we cant legally punish the dead defeats the purpose of making this law a mandate in the first place. Pros first contention says we should do this in order to save lives. But here comes the ethical issue. Pro openly admits that we are not obligated to save lives. Though he has flipped flopped his comments throughout this debate he did indeed say this. So with that being said if we are not obligated to give up something in order to save a life in witch we are also not obligated to do why should we be forced to do this? Also my opponent provided a source saying that after death organs last about seven days. What if after your dead within those seven days your daughter has an accident and needs a donor whom exactly matches her. That person would be those closest to her like her parents. What if that child only had her dad in her life and had no one else to do the donation? If the government automatically takes our organs we wont have them to give to our dieing family members. So this begs the question of whom has priority here? Strangers or family? Another Huge reason why we cannot pass this mandate is due to adherence to religious tolerance. As I have provided earlier there are religions who for the sake of their religious beliefs cannot and or will not want to donate their organs upon death. My opponent claims all religions are starting to make exceptions to donate organs. He is trying to say that since some are doing it then all must be doing it. This is the fallacy of the bandwagon. Just because a majority may do something doesn't mean their isn't a minority that oppose it. Pros statement is very untrue. I made this statement earlier, " If I can can find at least one religion who is against organ donation then this mandate fails. " I found not only one but atleast three whom oppose the practice of organ donation. Veda Vijnana, The Shinto, And some Jehovah's witnesses. In the case of America we respect religious beliefs and we let people adhere to their beliefs. The reason America was founded was based upon the prospect of religious freedom. Nothing has changed. We still adhere to these principles. Pros second contention wishes to make organ donation mandatory because It could possibly further scientific research. This also begs the question of when 17,500 people donate their bodies to science every year and if 114,827 people are on organ donor waiting lists then why should we donate those organs to science when the dieing need them more? Even if this bill was passed I'm sure there would still be people on the waiting list and their would still be some kind of organ shortage. This mandate would not fix the problem entirely. If we use this logic of because we need to save lives then we must force every one to give up their organs upon death. Then what's stopping the government from using the same logic to conclude that we have to give up our houses or our money or clothes after death with the government being priority over family members? Nothing. This mandate could be the roots of a large government power tree that will keeping sucking the nutrients of the ground dry until we have nothing more to give. Also if we did pass this people wouldn't get paid anymore to donate their bodies because they would already have lots of bodies so there would be no demand. There for donation of bodies would not get paid anymore. Another point of pro was he came to the conclusion that after death your body isn't yours. He fails to offer any logical reasons why upon death we still arnt who we are and no proof that his assertion is a fact. The facts here is that Humans control their bodies and are their bodies forever conscious or not. When we die we are still human. Even when dead we still have rights. The right to practice religion is still respected when people are dead. With that being it would be disrespectful and illegal for the state to hinder or impede upon any religious affairs. Forcing people to give up their organs whom are religiously against the practice isn't an ethical thing to do. We ought to respect peoples wishes upon death. He also brings up the point of why allow others to die when we could save them by giving them our organs? Simple because we are not obligated to save lives or to sacrifice our flesh for others. We are not obligated to help other whatsoever especially not upon death. To donate is to give upon ones own free will. Making donation a mandated act would contract the words donations purpose. I am not obligated legally or ethically to donate my organs so why should I be forced to? pro also says that this would curb illegal activity but eliminating the black market. What does the black market do the collect and sale hard to get items or items retrieved in illegal ways. I don't believe this contention is even valid because obviously if you make a practice witch was illegal now legal then obviously its not and illegal activity. My opponent also fails to realize that the black market will still exist regardless of this mandate due to the simple fact that we are not going to sell organs who need to be given to dieing victims to weirdos who want to use them for weird purposes or sexual fetishes. There are going to be instances where people are going to want organs for reasons other than what is considered a good reason. My opponent didn't object when I said there would be a check on those who wish to buy of what there intent is. So since he didn't comment on that it hold to be true because silence equals concurrence. So with that being said the legal organ sellers are not going to give out organs to people for other than life saving purposes. So where are these weirdos going to get there organs? Simple the black market. This mandate cannot be passed. It violates our first amendment rights and the free excersise clause. If we apply this mandate then we are ignoring Americans legal right to practice and act in accordance to their religion. In congress if anything contradicts the constitution it is a automatic fail because the constitution is the supreme law of the land. So obviously as we see this mandate cannot be made official because this mandate forces those who have religious reasons to not give up organs upon death to do it any way because the government wants them too. Pro also brung up the Due Process. We are deprived of liberty when the government forces us to do something against our religious beliefs. We all can clearly see that this mandate is too flawed to be a lawl.