Organ Donation Should Be Made Mandatory

In regards to the 911 situation I think pro is missing the point. What I am saying is there are circumstances in witch organ donation is morally wrong. Also I am saying that there are factors in the equation that cancel out with the awnser. For example some Jehovah's witnesses,Veda vijina, and the Shinto morally cannot do or do not accept the practice of organ donation upon death. So since there are grey areas in the implementation or lack thereof of this mandate this mandate cannot legally pass.With regards to religion, as I stated in R2 the Bible doesn’t say that organ donation is “a big no-no.” ...etc.....First off all this debate is not exclusively platformed on just the bible but upon all religious instruments of doctrine. Also yes according to these peoples religious doctrines they will suffer damnation or some type of bad luck or curse in all the mentioned religions that I have provided. With Jehovah's witnesses it is a sin punishable by death because the bible says sin is punishable by death.http://www.blurtit.com...In Veda vijnana if the organs are wasted or not used in accordance with the donors wishes then it will negatively affect them in the afterlife. In Shinto if the body is disturbed after death the body's purity is compromised and that could lead to curses and plagues to the family and disturbs the afterlife. So yes this mandate does contradict religious beliefs. Also just because something isn't put in the doctrine word for word doesn't mean there is no direction for it. Religions use common sense, precedent and logic to come to these logical conclusions. Obviously if the religion has doctrine saying the transfusion of blood is a sin and if the religion believes that organs are considered blood as well then it is logical to conclude that organ donation is morally wrong because of the transfusion of blood. So as we can see here religions have brains and have figured out that there doctrines are precedents of logic for future actions with that being said they can decide what is forbidden and what's not forbidden according to their own religion.Also I didn't call pro out on the bandwagon fallacy because some religions are contentious toward organ donation but because he used the logic of, "since some do it then all do it" as we see this is a fallacious statement. Just because majority may do something doesn't mean that the entire population will copy the majority. Minorities exist because they differ from majority. This is what we call the bandwagon fallacy my friends.Of course you are not obligated if something is stopping you, but nothing is stopping you from donating its organs as I have shown with religion. Thus, this mandate should still stand. OK this statement is very fallacious. I have proven that religion is something that will stop one from organ donation so how can you conclude that nothing will stop someone from donating. Is not religion a something?We aren’t making the illegal removal of organs to be sold on the black market legal. etc....Umm removing organs from religious persons who reject the practice by there own religion is against the law because it contradicts the 1st amendment sir. This action is impeding upon a persons right to excersice the practice of there own religion witch is a federal crime and a violation of the free excersice clause of the first amendment. An article from Cornell law will help me to assert this,"The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause. The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.” The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.".............http://www.law.cornell.edu...I believe I have proven my point. Now here's my last point on this black market section. The black market will still exist regardless of this failing mandate. There are weirdo's in this world who will want body parts for non-medical and non-educational purposes. The people who want organs other than to donate,to further scientific research and save lives will be contradicting pros purpose for this mandate. I would hope pro would have the common sense for the distribution of these organs to be conditional upon the contentions he mentioned because if not he would be introducing a self defeating contention. So where are these weirdo's going to get these organs from. Simple the black market. Why? because they cant get the organs anywhere else.The government can’t force us to give up our houses because according to the Constitution no person should be deprived of property without due process of law.” This mandate doesn’t conflict with the right to practice religion because as I stated above no religion forbids organ donation.Due process- A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.......http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 1.if it is reasonable to force people to give up there organs without consent then it sets a precedent to do other crazy thing like I mentioned above with houses. I believe you are proving my case for me. Since it is unfair to take a persons organs without consent then the due process itself defeats your case entirely because you yourself admit that we are not obligated to help another. So with that being said there is no ethical ground to force people to give up there organs even if upon death the organs are still theirs...... Of course no human is obligated to help another, but saving another person’s life is the right thing to do. I ask you, if you had the chance to save someone’s life, would you? 2. If your using the logic of the word unreasonable then according to due process of the law forcing people to give up organs while ignoring there religious beliefs is unreasonable and unconstitutional. Thus your mandate is contradictory. After several days after death, you can’t save your organs in case your family member needs a transplant. So what if its seven days. id rather have my organs for those seven days because in seven days seven family members may have organ failure and need a transplant. This mandate would take these organs before I had a chance to donate. So I have to ask who has priority here family members or strangers? So I have pointed out so many contradictions in this entire debate that I don't even remember the number of how many I have pointed out. There are multiple flaws in logic. multiple contradictions legally. Most importantly there are legal flaws. So I ask the audience why should we make a mandate legal when it doesn't make sense logically in implementation and it contradicts legality and the constitution?