A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve, nor shall receive either" -Benjamin Franklin With these words in mind, I strongly oppose the resolution put forward that: 'A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased'. For the sake of clarification I shall define the following terms in this debate: 1. a just society shall from now be known as a society where the rights, and liberties of all persons are ensured, and appropriate punishment/rehabilitation may be done by a competent court against those who would breach other's rights. 2. presumed consent shall refer to an official consent for organ procurement, and this consent shall be assumed within the law. 3. deceased shall refer to anyone who is declared dead by a competent person (a person with such an authority). My value for this debate is "inherent freedom" because legally each person is born with the freedom which allows them to make decisions so long as these decisions do not infringe on another's rights, and vice versa. My value criterion is "universal law" for it is the best tool with which to measure if my value is being upheld in this debate. I have the following positive contentions: 1. Inherent Freedom 2. Impracticality Within Application 3. One Owns Oneself 4. Unneeded Legislation Where there is a lack of anything I give the following negative contentions: 1. General Incoherency, Lack of Model, Breach of format 2. Lack of Evidence 3. Naturalism, Empathy, and Justness I reserve the right to add, and subtract as so required before the last round. I shall furthermore possible break these contentions and may choose to discuss only certain in this round. Positive Contention 1: Inherent Freedom a. Any legislation that breaches fundamental human rights is unjust; b. The legislation of this resolution breaches fundamental human rights. c. Ergo: The legislation of this resolution is unjust The major premise is chairpersons self evident. We have declared that each person has been endowed with certain rights which must not be breached, these are the universal human right laws. Ex ve termini of "just society" this premise is self-evident beyond doubt. Chairpersons let us begin with the freedom of religion. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assures each person of freely choosing a religion, and practicing it. Furthermore Article 3 of this Declaration assures each person of the freedom of security of one's self. August chairpersons in many religions such as Judaism, and Islam the deceased body has spiritual worth.[1] In these religions the burial of the deceased body is thought eminent for the person dead. Not only does the state have the responsibility to comply with the deceased's will, but by applying this law you would also cause punitive damage to the family. No just society can breach these fundamental human rights, and therefore the right of organ procurement is draconian no matter the apparent need. This concludes our minor premise and therefore defeats the resolution in terms of justness. This is however not the only reason. In modern days, honorable chairpersons, the act of cryogenicizing a person is becoming common. Cryogenics has worked on mice, and scientists assume that in another hundred or so years it can work of humans as well.[2] For all intents and purposes these people are pronounced dead, however with they have paid great amounts of money to be preserved at low tempreatures. Will such persons be exempt from this law? They are after all deceased. However that would cause an unfairness, and further problems. Again it would be a breach of a person's fundamental right given here by Article 3. Positive Contention 2: Impracticability Within Application a. Any just legislation necessarily has a practical application b. This legislation does not have a practical application c. Ergo: This legislation is not just The resolution hath demanded a modal, a framework from my worthy opponent. However he has besides copying his argument, and making little to no sense done nothing more. I therefore raise these questions which must be adequately addressed. Who, pray tell, shall monitor which corpse should be mutilated? If one corpse is chosen instead of the other would it not be unfair for the corpse chosen, assuming both did not want to give consent? What if one wished to donate an organ to a particular person, how would that fit in with the framework that my opponent have in mind? Will these organs be for sale? Who will get the money? Are these organs now the property of the state? All of these questions need answers or the chairpersons must at once dismiss the legislation brought up by my opponent on the charge that it seeks to lay out a principle which is in practice unfair. The first premise is clear: if the application would cause harm to the populous, then the legislation need be unjust. Such a legislation (unless my opponent provides a framework) will marginalize people in cases, and is therefore unjust. Positive Contention 3: One Owns Oneself "...every man has a Property in his own Person...the individual has a right to decide what would become of himself and what he would do, and as having a right to reap the benefits of what he did." -John Locke a. The organ, as the body is under the ownership of the individual, and no just legislation would breach this ownership. b. The current legislation breaches this ownership. c. Ergo: This current legislation is unjust. The thirteenth amendment of the United States of America is the best proof of the application of this argument. The argument is actually quite similar. While it is always nice to have blacks as slaves to do manual labor, and I am sure with them as slaves costs would be lesser, we gave them a right. For they are born with the right to self. Today my opponent would bring forth the same oppressive, perverse, disgusting regime where he is once more trying to make the blacks slaves for some form of utility. The major premise is self evident. Each person is endowed with certain rights, and the Human Declaration in Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, and Article 4 guarantees this universal right. The minor premise is also self evident that it would breach these fundamental rights, it would try and take the ownership of one's body away from oneself. This is the height of immorality, and unjustness. No amount of utility in one form can over rule the fundamental ownership of one's body. If my opponent contends this then let him openly admit that this world would be better by keeping blacks as slaves, for it would reduce costs. 4. Positive Contention 4: Unneeded Legislation a. Any legislation which is unneeded is unjust b. The current legislation is unneeded c. Ergo: The current legislation is unjust. The first premise may be defended by the fact that any legislation uses capital to ensure, and useless legislation wastes time, and money which could be used in more ethical means, and such legislation is therefore unjust. The second can be shown by the fact that day by day the number of people dying are decreasing going from 32 in 1990 to only 18 in 2000. Also as research is improving more and more artificial organs, dead fetus organs, animal organs, and stem cells are being used. Within the next five years (to apply such a legislation would take longer) the need for human organs would decrease even more. It is then pointless, and foolish to endorse such a legislation.[3] In fact Harvard University published today viz. 11.10.14 the first successful process where an organ was brought back to life using stem cells.[4] There is therefore no need for such a policy. I shall give my negative material in my next round (something the Lincoln-Doughlas format recommends). My summary however will consist of much what needed to be said in my positive case. I summarize the current by stating that my opponent had a duty to provide an explanation with his copied work. He does not do so, even the copied work (which covers 80% of all written) is an appeal to authority for while the law of thermodynamics may have been stated there is no explanation why it affirms naturalism, nor is the philosophical/scientific community of this view. It is also sad that my opponent does not provide a modal, something which this format makes binding on him, he also does not argue the resolution but rather besides the point. His entire case is based on the belief that we as human beings "should" or "ought" to donate our organs, he in no way shows why these organs should be donated even if the respective people are against it. His argument therefore do nothing for his case. In effect while he may attempt to show (incorrectly as I hope to show) that we "ought" to give our organs or donate our organs my worthy opponent does not give any reasoning why this out ways the freedom, and the rights of the people involved. I on the other hand provided arguments with syllogisms (another thing required but not provided by Zaradi), for negating the resolution. In conclusion having supported my value of "inherent freedom", and debased my opponent's case, I urge a negation of the resolution that states: a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://research.physics.illinois.edu... [3]http://www.ahc.umn.edu... [4]http://www.telegraph.co.uk...