Deceased donor organ donation ought to be opt-out

I will first attack the points which my opponent has laid out and then bring a few of my own.The 'dead body is not a person' argument revolved around the theory that a dead body has no legal rights whatsoever. Despite the fact that a dead body has the power of a will to declare who gets what of their possessions and maybe even entitlement to run their business. From a legal standpoint a dead body actually has some power and, as blunt as this may sound, most people never get quite as much respect or attention as they do the moment after the news of their death has been revealed to those who knew them. There is something extremely significant about death and it is inherent form the times when we were fighting to survive in a world where the other species outnumbered us and our primate rivals were competing with much more muscle and stamina than we had alone. It is the unique ability of mammals (not just humans but other mammals also) to show extreme grievance and regret when one of their species, within a given community, passes away. To hold this being as sacred then acts as a drive to encourage each member of that community to fight harder and together when defending one another so as to avoid that unpleasant feeling of remorse on one's death (regardless of one's involvement of lack thereof in the death itself). A dead body is actually very much a person to those alive who knew of them and to ignore this beautiful aspect to human society would be to neglect one of the most essential tools of survival we have over other species; empathy.The 'benefits' argument indicates that if there are more organs, more people will be able to survive when needing a transplant. Now, I do not mean to be heartless or rude but instead of seeing it as a benefit to a society to enable more people to overcome organ damage by transplant, shouldn't we be seeing it as a blindfold to the real problem? Binge drinkers and heavy smokers have got their problems by self-inflicted mistakes, often having complete knowledge of what they were doing to their bodies the entire time. If someone has been made aware that they have a cholesterol problem and then goes out and ignores it anyway, hoping the medication will compensate enough for their overdose on low-density lipoproteins and then it turns out they have a heart that has had all its arteries clogged up with a disgusting amount of cholesterol then why is it the duty of someone who merely wants to give their family and friends the emotional pleasure of seeing their body fully intact one last time before they either turn to ashes or slowly erode to skeletal form deep underground (or whatever death rituals apply to that specific community). You see, that dead person is merely dead because of an accident, usually, and since they have to be healthy (by default) in order to give their organs up for transplantation it's not likely that they died because of medical reasons. Why, then, should their family and friends be forced to see and empty case of what was once an intact body of their late father just so a binge drinker can get up off their hospital bed and drink some whisky to celebrate? The real problem to be dealt with is not having so many bodies on hospital beds in the first place, prevention is better than cure.My opponent's third argument was just a statement that many people are too lazy to sign a consent form, this is irrelevant to the debate because I can easily argue that those people would still be too lazy to say they didn't want to in the reverse situation (we can't always assume that 80% of a nation will want to donate their organs upon death).If my opponent wants to declare a limitation to debate that the next of kin are allowed to object then why not allow the very person themselves, who is obviously closer to themselves than their next of kin are, to have their own right over their body?Why is it that one should feel it is their duty to donate an organ and have to sign off a document just to say "hey there, I own my body and don't want your filthy hands on my organs when I die because my next of kin would reject it anyway." I mean, what if the person had no family left but had friends who wanted to see their beautiful body in a coffin to make peace with their departure from this world. A friend doesn't count as a next of kin and so couldn't object it, according to you.There is another problem with the system of automatic organ donation consent; the ability to give consent for organ donation requires one to be declared healthy enough to do so in the first place. Therefore the very fact that a person is licensed as an organ donor automatically makes it an efficient process for doctors to communicate across a nation that an organ is ready for donation. In a system where anyone above the age of eighteen who hadn't bother to sign a form at some point in their life to say they didn't want their organs donated was assumed to be a donor, it would require every organ to then have to be tested as healthy enough to be donated, this would then have wasted valuable organ life time outside of a body and if it's deemed unhealthy they it was probably an extreme waste of time and effort for the medics who did it. Thus, the con's version of consent is superior to the pro's for practical purposes.The final issue to address is that if a person just turned eighteen and die don their birthday they wouldn't have had the time to sign off their anti-donation consent form, since eighteen is the age of consent in most countries. Thus, if their next of kin had never spent the time to discuss this and felt sorry for the heavy smoker needing a heart (or a lung) transplant and gave the organs away then the religious group of friends that that eighteen year old had (assuming they were a religion that the next of kin were not) would no be able to legally object to this and have their values and ethical code violated due to the next of kin having the final word. There is also the problem that in the system of assumed consent there is no way, whatsoever for a person to express the will to donate organs so as to override the will of their next of kin.In conclusion, I find three main issues with the system of automatic donation consent. the first problem is that not everyone has a next of kin available to refuse it in case of them dying prior to signing the anti-donation form. The second is that since, in the system of reversed consent currently in place, to qualify as an organ donor already includes the declaration of being healthy enough to do so, it's far more efficient than a system where most dead body's organs end up being tested and rejected anyway since not everyone being considered a valid organ donor by consent is a valid organ donor by health standards. The final issue is that not everyone's religious views will match those of their next of kin and if they just reached the age where one qualifies as a consenting organ donor (commonly eighteen) then their next of kin might allow it despite their religious friends' denial of it. Additionally it's fundamentally impossible for a person, in Pro's system of consent, to express the will to donate their organs so as to override the wishes of their next of kin (which is currently possible in some nations where Con's system of consent is in place).