Organ Donation Should Be Made Mandatory

I will offer counter arguments and point out the flaws in pros case. I will show that what pro is proposing may have good intentions but has too many flaws to be implemented.First I need to point out that I am not changing my opponents definition of mandatory. He offered no definition of the word but instead put a proposal where a definition was due. Since there needs to be a definition to change in the first place no definition was changed but I did offer a definition because pro failed to do so.I will underline my opponents flawed statements. I will also bold my contentions.This is because this MUST occur upon death.Ethical IssuesHere lies a big problem. What if at the exact time this is made mandatory someone gave an organ already. Either A. We would have to make organ donation while living illegal. What if your daughter was dying and needed a transplant from a member of the family being mom or dad? This mandate would make this illegal because the people are alive at the time of intent of the organ donation. Thus your daughter has to die because of this mandate. B. We would have to prosecute the person for not giving up the organ or not having the organ at the time of death. SO I ask you, how do we penalize dead people? Another reason why this resolution fails is simply because no human is obligated to help another. Maybe socially is a debatable topic but currently legally no one is obligated to help by sacrificing there own flesh. Unless pro proves why I should have a legal obligation to keep my organs until death and give my organs upon death and not maybe possibly save my organs in case my family member needs a transplant then there should be no legal obligation to make organ donation upon death mandatory. If the person was still living as it can be considered murderThis statement is absolutely illogical. If this mandate was passed that would mean all organ donors who give organs before death are all murderers. Why should living donors be considered murderers when in reality they are life savers?If a person donates while still being alive then it should be by surgery and should not be considering murder. Also since pro believes surgery is murder then I guess what he is promoting is that all surgeons are murderers. I think not. This is a large portion of the many flaws of this mandate. Rejection of this mandate is justified. However, after death is your body still yours? No one knows. People who believe in religion believe many different things and some believe that if there body is disturbed after death then they are cursed or damned forever. I ask pro does he want to be responsible for that. Maybe this isn't true and thats not actually what happens. It doesn't matter. When it comes to religion once the rain believes something then that belief becomes reality in the subjects mind. So that religious person is going to live their entire life knowing that there going to be damned forever because someone is forcing their bodies to be disturbed. This is what pros case is promoting people.Why waste an organ that you won't need when you can save some body's life?Simple. I'm not obligated to nor do I owe anyone my organs, my blood, my skin or any other part of my body. Organ donation has the word donation in it. To donate is to give of ones own free will. This mandate would make the phrase a contradiction.However, with the prospect of saving lives and organ donation technology, almost every religion has made allowances for organ donation as they recognize the value of saving lives.If I can provide at least one religion that doesn't allow organ donations because of religious beliefs then this point fails. Jehovah's Witnesses don't give blood nor do they give organs. They will let their children die to follow the words of the bible where it says you must abstain from blood. That includes sharing blood transfusions and organs as well. I was one so I no this very well. Also even if there is evidence of people of a religion ignoring their negative views on organ donations that doesn't mean that all people of that relation is going to do he same thing. What my opponent is presuming here is the bandwagon fallacy.1. SAVES LIVESI'm not really going to comment on this contention too much because 1. If this is true and we pass this mandate, then using the same logic then we should give our houses that we worked all our lives for to the government to give to the homeless? NO! What will stop the government from forcing the people to give away their car to the sate and never selling them until death just because it will help those without cars get cars? NO!2. Transplant success rates vary from 50%-90%.......http://www.faqs.org...So even if everyone is forced o give up their organs upon death there is no way that here is going to be a guarantee that its going to save 18 lives a day because with organ transplants re not always successful so no this mandate will not guarantee that 18 people will be saved a day.2.SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHProblems1. Why is pro now suggesting that we donate our whole bodies after death? This is not in accordance to the resolution.2. What if I want to be cremated after death.3. It would not further scientific research. Maybe centuries ago there may have been body donation shortages but today there really isn't......More than 17,500 people donate their bodies to science each year. .......http://www.sciencebuzz.org...So why force people to give their bodies up when we don't really need anymore.4. This would cause overstocking and bodies and organs would get wasted because there is too many.5. Most people who donate their bodies to science are paid for it. Because of overstock people would not get paid for donations anymore.6. Again I'm not obligated to do this legally or ethicaly3. CURBS ILLEGAL ACTIVITYThe only reason this would happen is because your making an illegal action now actually legal. This isn't really a valid contention. Also pro said this,When these tissues are donated, tissues that have diseases are often passed off as "healthy" with forged papers.Wouldn't a mass supply of organs make people not want to check these organs and do the same thing? Also this happens in doctors offices as well my friend. his phenomenon is not exclusive to the black market. The only thing that's going to happen here is that the black market would be called the white market after this mandate would be passed. But those illegal actions would now be considered legal.One last thing. These body donations how would we know our bodies would got to scientific research and not some pervert who wants to violate dead bodies?SO I believe that I have pointed out the many flaws of this mandate. There proves to be too many problems for this mandate to actually be made a law. For these reasons a con vote proves to be a logical response to this debate. I also want to mention that i beleive it is obvious that pro has the BOP and dont quite think that burden has been proven.