The U.S. federal government should permit the sale of human organs.

Thanks for the reply. Things have come up in real life that have restricted my time, but I will more than likely have the time to finish this.I'll attack my opponents case, then move on to defend mine. I. We have a right to sell our organs --> Umm, no. Legally, the sale of human organs has been banned in the U.S. since 1984. --> My impacts otweigh. Sorry, but dehumanizing people into commodities outweighs the libertarian notions of absolute liberty.--> Refer to my framework (which has been dropped.) The government has an obligation to suppress organ markets. --> The American public seems to disagree. I know, I know, ad populum fallacy, but I contend that since rights are something that society determines my opponents argument falls if it's shown that people dont view organ selling as a right. Here's a poll: Only about 1 in 3 supports an organ market[1]. --> My Opponent hasn;t really made any logical arguments in support of this. He merely asserts that we have this right. --> The value of life is undermines by organ selling. The kidney foundation writes[2]:"By treating the body as property, in the hope of increasing organ supply, we risk devaluating the very human life we seek to save."--> No impact argued, who cares?II. Saves lives--> Non unique. I offer three counter-plans.1. (main plan): Fix the ineffective system. Jeremy Chapman writes in 2010 that when considering organ markets [3]:"You should take a long hard look at those 85,000 people who are registered in the US organ transplant system – a large number are never deemed fit enough actually to be transplanted by the listing transplant programme. Some 2,700 kidneys were discarded in the US last year – so the first place to make changes is in the efficiency of US systems."Scheper-Hughes argues something similar, stating[4]:"Sadly, however, the discourse on scarcity conceals the actual existence of excess and wasted organs that end up in hospital dumpsters on a daily basis throughout those parts of the world where the necessary infrastructure to use them is lacking. Indeed, the ill will and competiveness of some hospital workers and medical professionals also contributes to the production of organ "wastage."2. Presumed consent system:The presumed consent foundation writes[5]:"An individual who does not want to be an Organ Donor would have to "opt-out" by entering their name on a National Registry maintained by OPTN - the same organization that now keeps the National Waiting List of transplant candidates. When a person died under circumstances that would permit Organ Donation, a search would be made of the Registry. If their name did not appear in the Registry, it would be presumed they had consented to be a Donor."We can save more lives this way. Indeed "Tracking the 2% who don't wish to be Donors would be easier than tracking the 98% who do wish to be Donors or don't care." This sysstem already works well in Europe. 3. Prisoners. There are literally thousands of murderers and rapists serving a life without parole sentence, and dont need an extra kidney. There are also thousands of people who need kidneys. Let's connect the dots people. --> Refer to my C2. Organ donation would likely decline. The kidney foundation writes[6]: "While payment for organs has real potential to undermine the transplant system in this country, its ability to increase the supply or organs for transplantation is questionable. In a recent survey of families who refused to donate organs of their loved ones who have died, 92% said that payment would not have persuaded them to donate. Public opinion polls and focus groups have disclosed that many Americans are not inclined to be organ donors because they distrust the U. S. health care system, in general, and, in particular, because they are concerned that the health care of potential organ donors might be compromised if their donor status were known. A program of financial incentives for organ donation is not likely to change these perceptions and, indeed, may aggravate mistrust. "III. Gov. ought not be involved in moral issues.--> Let's consider this. My opponent, again, just asserts this. He links a poll, and when I try to click it it's broken. This is no accusation, but since I can't see the actual poll we can't judge its merits.--> Turn: The number of people thinking the Government should be involved in morality is increasing according to his own statements. --> What did his poll define morality as? I assure you that much larger majorities agree that the government should suppress theft and murder, both of which are immoral. --> Refer to my dropped framework. The government has an obligation to stop an organ market. Now I'll move on to my case. A. Commodification--> I offer an extension of my Scheper-Hughes and Demme cards which have been dropped. --> My Opponent argues that "Right now, we already do assign values People like President Obama and Bill Gates are considered to have a higher societal value than people who work at Mc Donalds and Burger King." He's mistaking fucntional value with intrinsic value. There's a distinct difference. When we commodify humans we lower the underclass to "suppliers" of the wealthy which dehumanizes them. --> My Opponent argues that someone could only take a kidney if its offered. Why? If it's a commodity than a bank has the right to take it, just like they have the right to take a house. B. Poor exploitedExtend the Huebner card which has been dropped. --> My opponent argues that there are less poor in the U.S. than India. There is some merit to this argument....for my side. If we see enough exploitation in India, where, as my Opponent stated "the true "rich" in India are more like our American middle class", than what on Earth is going to happen in the U.S., where we have actual rich people? See, the fact that our middle and upper classes can afford to buy the organs from the poor "suppliers" just dehumanizes them more. C2. --> My opponent argued that our economy is driven by selfishness. Cool. Our organ donation system, however, is not. Extend the Caplan, Campbell, and Danovitch & Leichtman cards which argue this logically. CX.1. Why should the government prevent theft and murder?2. What is the major unique advantage of your case?3. Do you believe that there is any human organ/part that should not be sold?4. Is it ok for the wealthy to suppress the under class?Sources:1. http://internationaldesk.blogs.cnn.com...2. http://www.kidney.org...3. Chapman, Jeremy. "Is It Ever Right to Buy or Sell Human Organs?" October 2010. 4. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. “The Ends of the Body: Commodity Feishism and the Global Traffic in Organs.” 2002. 5. http://www.presumedconsent.org...6. Ibid, kidney foundation.