Deceased donor organ donation ought to be opt-out

On my rebuttal one:Actually, I have not specified that the corpse has a moral right/value. I have said in round one that the corpse lacks moral value. It can still gain some legal protection due to indirect effects of its disposal on the living. Including the fact that the living might feel some discomfort at what happens after death. This can justify some legal protection of corpses even in the absense of moral value, but since there is no inherent moral value associated with the corpse the protection must be weaker than which a person receives.Regarding a willing donor overriding the will of his next of kin, there is nothing that actually makes it impossible to keep a registry of explicit consent even if consent is assumed. It would be perfect for handling the situation Con describes.On my rebuttal two:The existence of God(s) is a statement for which the burden of proof rests on those who state it. And usually God is defined in ways that are both contradictory and unprovable. The same could be said of objective morality. There is no moral law that can be discovered floating around in space or discovered by colliding particles in accelerators or any other experimental methods. We have only preferences that may conflict and thus we need a consistent system of conflict resolution. We can put some formal demands on the system but we cannot prove what moral values to use. Utilitarianism depends on choosing a common goal in the form of some utility function composed of actual consequences, but it need not be objectively true. It legitimacy is based on using moral values that are as universal as possible, then taking every actors interests into equal consideration. Morality arises out of practical needs. No otherworldly moral authority can be proven to exist, and neither there is any need for it to exist for us to specify moral codes, thus parsimony suggests we reject it.On my rebuttal three:Prevention is not mutually exusive with cure. I'm also not sure why the assertion that the cause of illness is relevant to the moral worth of its treatment would be more natural than my assertion. Seems like it is just there to punish those who made bad choices.On my rebuttal four:Indeed it is mostly the same, you are right. But to equate assumed consent with duty is simply not correct.On my rebuttal five:Age of consent is a legal construction we can modify at will to eliminate the issue you raise, if it would be considered a grave problem. We could create a period efore the age of consent is reached where consent applying after the 18th birthday is to be filed for certain important issues.Anyway, my statistical argument still applies. We do not reject law enforcement because it might kill innocents, at least not if proper precautions have been taken to avoid it. This is because of the utility of law enforcement, or because it is needed to uphold rights. But in upholding rights, it will sometimes infringe rights. Of course transplantation is not required to uphold negative rights, that is a difference. But rejecting a system drastically increasing the availability of organs for a very uncommon violation of the rights of a corpse is to put an unreasonably high pricetag on rights of corpses as compared to utility or positive rights to life.On my rebuttal six:Testing is not required for filing the consent form in all countries, it surprises me that it is so in any country. Testing would have to be done repeadly over the donors life in order for such a system to work and seems a lot more expensive than only testing potential donors while in intensive treatment who seem to match with some recipient in the national or transnational database used. Being a suitable donor is not all that unusual, perfect health is not required, just absence of disease and a proper functioning of the organ in question.