Mandatory Organ & Tissue Donations

OK, let's get started:First, since Pro did not specify who had the burden of proof, he has the burden of proof. However, he seems to have made the mistake of completely failing to even give, much less support, any of his contentions directly. He needs to at least make reference to his own contentions. If he supported them in rebuttals, he needs to reference that.Anyways, on to the rebuttals and supports of my argumentThe law says so?"The law says so" was not actually the defense of my contention. Instead, I simply stated the fact that food being provided to the child was law, while giving your body is not. That is a "body vs possessions" argument. Giving something you own to your child is way different than being forced to give that child a part of your body. That is what I was stating.Saving Someone From a Burning Building Is DangerousThis was simply an illustration showing the difference between active and passive. That part was not a contention. I encourage my opponent to differentiate between illustrations and contentions and to discuss the contentions rather than the illustrations.Personal ArgumentYou are taking an extremely radical approach to things. An extremely radical approach usually warrants the advocate of such an approach to actually follow his convictions. (i.e. Abraham Lincoln did not own slaves.) You have also not said that you are playing devils advocate. I figured that if you were going to argue for something you didn't believe in, you would make that clear. I have argued that Mormonism is true, but I am not Mormon. I made it very clear that I was not Mormon.Religious Freedom"The law and not the first amendment determined that soldiers of "conscience"... " Wait... the law says so? Eh? (Sorry, just my Canadian coming out.) Also, are you saying that present law is above the Constitution. That is a dangerous place to be.Anyways, here is the vow a new US citizen must take in order to become a citizen:"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."The ideas specified here are as follows: Support the Constitution; Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen; Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; orB. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; orC. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. So, if you want to be part of the US of A, you must promise to protect the US by taking up arms. However, the US Constitution gives freedom of religion, so they made a clause letting some against religious people off the hook from fighting.However, in regards to my opponent's taxes argument, the oath requires the support of the Constitution. The Constitution says " The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."Taxes are in the Constitution! However, because some people might claim that taxes are against their religion just to get out of paying taxes, the US decided that that amendment to the Constitution trumps the first amendment in that instance. I challenge my opponent to find a single organized religion that is against taxes.Furthermore, this is not a religious debate. My opponent is not religious, so he automatically denies that any religion is true. However, who is to say they are wrong in this context? This is a debate on organ donation, not religion. I do not think I have enough characters nor time to give a response to the last two rebuttals.Summary:1. It is not about "the law says so," but "possessions vs. body."2. Burning building was simply an illustration for my passive vs active contention.3. Radical statements require radical allegiance or a statement that you do not actually agree with them.4. Actual not imaginary religions and ideologies are being discussed here, so the "taxes" idea is debunked.5. When the Constitution goes up against the Constitution, it is up to the courts to keep people from using that to manipulate the system.Sources:Logichttp://www.uscis.gov...http://www.law.cornell.edu...And for the fun of it, who can forget poor John Locke on the TV show LOST. I know that is how I would feel if someone stole my kidney. (i.e. the government). http://www.youtube.com...