resolved: a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased

To specify, my opponent refers to a sitation in which the deceased has not clarified whether they would like to donate their organs. The position I am taking is that a just society should not harvest their organs for donation without written or filial consent. I will loosely be responding to my opponent's contention-conclusion format, while making additional points. To remind readers, they are: C1. Organs/Organ Donation Saves Lives C2. The Medical World Must Take Care of Their Patients C: Therefore, Unless Opted Out, the Organs of a Cadaver Must be Used for Medical Purposes "Minimizing Death": While this phrase is incredibly vague to the point of being almost meaningless, it is no doubt a worthy goal to reduce casualties, and it is also hard to argue hat organ donations don't save lives. So both of those things are true. However, if our criterion is to minimize death by forcibly and legally removing parts of the body, why wait until death? Why not sign a law into effect requiring the offering of, say, a kidney, which we don't really need two of anyway? (1) It involves the violation of the body by law, and will save lives. The point I am demonstrating here is that this alternate solution, which almost noone would concur with, is exactly what my opponent is suggesting: the disbanding, the mulitation, really, of the human body, by neither personal consent nor family-granted permission, but instead by the government. This reccomended law of mine is supported by the same contentions as my opponent's. C1. Organs/Organ Donation Saves Lives C2. The Medical World Must Take Care of Their Patients C. Therefore, Unless Opted Out, People Must Surrender Their Non-Essential Organs for Medical Purposes This is a matter of personal freedom, and a matter of the rights of the dead, and do not let the fact that something can save lives, readers, lure you into this kind of trap. The State and The Body To what extent may the government tell us what to do with our bodies? They may limit what actions we may take without repurcussions, and in extreme cases, they may force us to do something, like join the military, but they may not decide what is done to our bodies, or indeed parts of our bodies. And I see not why this should'nt apply in death as much as in life. The right to one's body is held sacred in all enlightened countries, and I find the idea of a body being handed over to the state for dissection, simply because they are not capable of refusing, a grotesque one. Now, I am a materialist, meaning I do not believe anything comes of our mind or body after death, and I do see a certain fetishization of our empty corpses in society, but here even I must draw the line. In the unfortunate circumstance that a cadaver be recovered not possesing surviving family or a will and testament, the government must adhere to the accepted societal way of burial rites, and must respect the deceased's fundamental right to the security of their person. When someone agrees to be an organ donor, they essentially sacrifice any legal rights to their body when dead; any family members or guardians no longer hold any legal weight in deciding what becomes of the dead. (2) As a personal choice, this is perfectly reasonable, but when you make it mandatory, you are, in fact, stripping that person of their right to body. And that is unnaceptable. As An Alternative I would like to argue two things here: 1. Almost everybody is already asked to decide whether they would like to be an organ donor upon death. 2. Legislating a mandatory decision is better than a mandator sacrifice of body. The first of these makes the point that the situation this debate is centered upon is already a rare one; a vast majority of citizens are asked the very question of organ donation when they get their driver's license. (3) Look at any license, and it will say whether the proprieter will give their organs up when dead. So already a massive proportion of the population are decided on the matter. But instead of my opponent's disgusting solution for those with no clear choice, why not simply require every citizen, come a certain age, to list themselves as either an organ donor or not? The greatest problem I have with the proposition is a matter of consent, and to ask the consent, while albeit demanding an answer, is infinitely preferable to the government removing the question and taking the answer as "yes". The Veil of Ignorance This argument, asking the reader to place themselves in the shoes of needy, has always seemed quite "ad hominem" to me, no different in this case. If my life were threatened by a terribel disease, and the only cure was an organ transplant, it may be true my fear and emotion would overcome my reason, but that seems to possess no bearing on this debate. Would I rather my chance of survival be increased by taking the innards of an unidentified body then risk death by not doing so? No. It's that simple. I will leave my argument here, and conclude briefly. There are many measures that could save lives, just as there are many measures that could reduce crime. That is no automatic justification, and this is a case where the rights of all outwight the needs of a few. I look forward to my opponent's response. (1) . http://www.davita.com... (2) . http://online.wsj.com... (3) . http://www.dmv.state.pa.us...