The U.S. federal government should permit the sale of human organs.

I'll defend mine, and then move on to my opponent's.I. We have a right to sell our organs.My opponent is misinterpreting this; of course it is currently illegal to sell organs, but humans have a natural right to do so. We already are commoditized; you already see in Hollywood, for example, that some actors are payed more than others for a role. I apologize for missing my opponent's framework; however, my opponent's framework is false. The government has no part in moral roles. For some reason, my sources did not link correctly; here is my source to the gallup poll again, but if it doesn't work it can be found by googling "government should not be involved in moral issues gallup". http://www.gallup.com...This isn't just a poll, as also I have shown our founding fathers intended it to be this way. Rights are not something that a society determines. The United States is about protecting the rights of the minority against the will of the minority. For example, during World War 2 the Supreme Court ruled against a law that tried to prevent anti-government press even though the majority of the people agreed with the law. It IS ad populum fallacy. Also, the number of supporters is probably on the rise. Obviously we need to protect our rights, and every human has a right to do what they want with their body, provided it does not hurt others. Your kidney organization quote is also irrelevent because it comes from a highly biased source and there is no evidence of a slippery slope actually happening if an organ trade was legalized. We also must note that a very small percentage of people would be selling their organs. II. Fixing the ineffective system can be DONE by implementing an organ trade. Your first quote cited 2,700 wasted kidneys- assuming that all of them were not wasted, you've still barely made a dent in the amount of people who need a transplant. For your second counterplan, you must take into account that often times there are errors in a system and someone's organs will be donated who didn't want them to be. Also, you fail to present a figure of how many people would agree to this, and this plan would utilize taxpayer money rather than patient money. As for your third counterplan, money to pay for prisons would go up even higher, and prisoners have a right to keep their organs. You state that there are thousands of prisoners who don't need kindeys; well, technically, most people on earth would be able to donate a kidney, and we could force them to donate, but that doesn't make it right; that is tyranny and a violation of rights. In essence there isn't anything really "wrong" about an organ plan, other than controversial moral values- if people are truly worried about abusing the poor (even though it doesn't abuse the poor) then the organ trade could limit the selling of organs to the middle and upper classes. It would still be an organ trade. III. I apologize for the poll being broken; you can see the link above. Also, the evidence states and I stated that the number of people who think the government should not promote in moral values is rising. Obviously, the poll wasn't as broad as the blantantly immoral issues like theft and moral, but was probably rather about the issues of morality that don't harm the pockets and bodies of Americans. Your framework is invalid because, as I have quoted some of our founding fathers, the government is NOT supposed to be involved in ethical issues like this.Now onto my opponent's case.Commodification-My opponent has argued that I have dropped some of his cards- however, in arguing his other cards I have argued these cards. The Scheper-Hughes card, about markets reducing people to commodities, was argued when I discussed how people are already commodified. In contrast, my opponent dropped MY quote in the first contention from Thomas Jefferson. Taking advantage of the Poor-I didn't drop anything here either. I didn't need to directly argue every single one of your cards because that would be redundant- in arguing some of them, I have effectively argued them all. My opponent also argues that the situation in the United States would be worse than in India, but this is not true. In "taking advantage" of the poor, we must look not at how rich the richest are, but how poor the poorest are- in America, our poor aren't poor enough to have advantage taken of them, and if we are truly worreid about this, we can avoid any remotely possible problems by making the organ trade closed to the poor (I am not necesarily saying we SHOULD do this, because the poor isn't having advantage taken of them.)C2As I have stated, donating an organ is not altrustic. It is done in the same way our economy works, which is selfishness- which is why an organ trade would make sense. Also this argument as a whole is irrelevent and not a reason why the government should stop the organ trade. Again, I did not drop these; arguing every single quote word by word exactly would be redundant, seeing his quotes are saying the same thing, so I refuted all of my opponent's quotes by showing how our economy works the same way organ donation does, and that this isn't a good reason for why the government should outlaw organ donation. My opponent still has not stated the relevence of this.CX answers-1. As I stated in my first contention, from Thomas Jefferson, "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?" The government goes into moral issues that could harm people or unjustly take people's money away from them.2. The major "uniqueness" of my case is the political philosophy- John Locke is correct in stating that human beings have fundamental rights. However this is not a policy debate, so uniqueness should not be any deal at all- we simply are looking at the facts rather than crazy gimmicks. (However I do fail to see your uniqueness..)3. There should be slight restrictions on which parts should be sold- for example, you shouldn't be allowed to sell organs that are necessary to life and cannot be given until you are dead until you are actually dead. That is, of course, getting into a whole new debate, so I won't go into the topic of assisted suicide much. 4. The wealthy don't "supress" the under class. There are inequal incomes, of course, but the wealthy aren't the rulers of the middle and lower classes. If you are really that worried about inequality, then that is bordering on communism. Your argument about an "evil and supressive" upper class is irrelevent, and starting to get into class warfare. However if you are so worried about this, I offer a plan to make all classes equal; there would be no remote supressive class under communism.CXIsn't experience commodified so that people with more experience are more likely to be paid more?If we switched to a communist system, how would your entire argument about the poor be correct?