Mandatory Organ & Tissue Donations

The Law Says So Is A Circular ArgumentWhat if the law said it wasn't a parent's responsibility to provide for their children?Saying the law says so is using the is-ought fallacy. No the law doesn't hold parents responsible for donating blood or organs to their children or to other people in need, but this debate is about whether or not it should. There is really no difference. The parents must use their bodies to go to work and earn money and then take their bodies to the grocery store and buy food for their children, so either way the government is telling them what to do with their own bodies.Food is a necessary substance of life, yes and vital organs are also necessary for life.Saving Someone From a Burning Building Is DangerousThe difference between mandatory organ donation and laws that would make being a hero in a disaster situation a legal requirement is that if the building is on fire there is an inherent risk to your own life. Taking that risk is noble but should not be required. An organ donation may take some of your time but it's not particularly dangerous in most cases and I said in Round 1 I'd support exceptions if it was too dangerous. The exception level should be the same as for abortion exceptions.Personal Arguments Are IrrelevantFor all you know I'm playing devil's advocate and don't even believe in the position I'm advocating. In either case the rightness/wrongness of my proposal and hence whether I deserve to win this debate does not rest on my own personal actions. There are pro-life women who have abortions but nobody would suggest that proves the pro-choice position must automatically be correct. If I can show that we should have mandatory organ donation I win the debate.Religious FreedomThe law and not the first amendment determined that soldiers of "conscience" at first just religious but later on philosophical could avoid being drafted. But in this case the citizen desires not to kill, this is a virtuous temperament and so granting the exception is good and promotes the value of life in society. But letting people opt out of saving people's lives with no significant risk to their own life or health is not the same and promotes callous indifference to death and suffering as social norms.A better example is payment of taxes. If religious freedom grants people to avoid having to do anything that goes against their religious beliefs then by that logic I should have the right to avoid paying any taxes if my religion is against it. This of course would not hold up in court and for good reason. The test is compelling state interest not active v. passive. The life of citizens for whom the state is to serve and protect is always a compelling state interest.No Change in StanceI'm arguing that the government should require all people to be subject to mandatory organ donation but I've made it clear I'm saying this in general. Health concerns are taken into account. As research and education are both good for society it wouldn't be out of line with my proposal that the government could decide that some people when they die have their organs donated to science or education instead of medicine, although organs that simply can't be used in medicine, for example if an organ turns out to be defective should be prioritized for that purpose. As to everyone who dies, it naturally follows if we require people who are alive to donate their own organs as long as it doesn't pose a serious risk of health problems or death then when they are dead the government should take what ever organs we can and transplant those to donors.Government Can Compell DrugsAt times crazy people have been court ordered to take drugs. Which in your terms is "active". As to the draft, the argument that it's justified because we get protection in exchange for giving protection is well thought but it's still "active". So as an analogy the government protects your right to be alive and healthy by providing you with organs when you need them in exchange you have to donate your organs if requested or face prison.