AAN-Tourney: This house would legalize the sale of organs.

C1) Saves lives My opponent makes the point that this legalization will increase supply and thus greatly increase the amount of lives saved. More than 10,000 people in the UK currently need a transplant, and 1,000 people die every year while on the waiting list.[1] In fact, “An average of 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that can’t take place because of the shortage of donated organs.”[2] The number of organs needed exceeds the number available for transplants. If we were to allow the sale of organs, those willing to sell their organs would help save some, if not the majority of those 1000 patients! This legalization will also deteriorate the health of the working lower class which will be the main sellers of organs. Their health and lifestyles will be seriously affected because they will no longer be able to complete strenuous Physical activity and thus rendering them unable to work. So this would increase the amount of poverty significantly. Furthermore, why should other people be responsible for one’s own health problems? By paying people for organs you’re ultimately making their life worse since the money will not last while their kidney would have kept them healthy. C2) Easier Access to organs – Available and affordable Paying for donors, would guarantee a greater supply. With a greater supply for the demand, prices can be lowered. Therefore, organs would be both more easily available and affordable. This does not benefit the poor who are being exploited at all, with the decrease in prices this means that the poor who want to sell their organs for money will make less money than they would if they engaged in an illegal organ trade. This only benefits the rich class who will lose even less money from a legalization of this nature. In Iran, the sale of organs is illegal. It is the only place in the world like this. The number of deaths resulting from a shortage of organs is significantly less, if not null. This argument makes no sense, I’ll ask my opponent to clarify what she means. C5) Incentive to give up organs (note my opponent made no C3&4) If people know they can get financial incentives for giving up their organs, they will be more likely to provide a supply. This may even help some people who are in need of finances. This is exactly the problem, this is formally referred to as exploitation of the poor. Ask yourself, is it fair to give someone who is desperate for money an incentive to sell a part of themselves? They will quickly burn through the money they receive and ultimately go back to how they were unable to work do to their health conditions. This is only ultimately benefitting rich people, since this becomes a trade it will be about maximizing profit. Not saving lives which is what organ donation is about. C6) Close the black market My Opponent makes the point that legalization would stop the illegal organ sales. And that People who want to help save lives don’t go to prison anymore. The question remains- Do these doctors and surgeons deserve to be in jail? Though committing a “crime,” what were the effects on their “victims?” How should they be reformed? Should they sit back and watch innocent people die, when they have the ability to save them? Absolutely, I ask all judges to view my opponents 4th source. From which I quote the following: Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark McCarren said Rosenbaum engaged in the practice for up to a decade and made millions by exploiting desperate recipients and paying donors paltry sums. "The defendant has attempted to portray himself as the `Robin Hood' of kidneys," McCarren said. "There is only one thing that his story has in common with Robin Hood, and that is, it is fiction." This argument completely supports my own contentions made in my argument. Against the trade of organs. trade is going on anyway, why not have a controlled trade where if someone wants to donate a kidney for a particular price, that would be acceptable? If it is done safely [under proper supervision by surgeons], the donor will not suffer."[8] Also, innocent people who just want to help save lives won’t risk getting themselves thrown into jail. Exactly, the trade is going on. Legalization would create a platform for the rich to completely manipulate the poor. With legalization there will be mass advertising and encouragement for corporations to sell your organs to get money. My opponent says “Innocent people who just want to help saves lives wont get in trouble” This is highly fallacious as organ donation is 100% legal if you’re healthy. The only incentive is money. So the correct phrasing of this argument would be “People who just want to make money off of peoples organs wont risk getting thrown in jail” My opponents previous source 4 clearly demonstrates the injustice of this trade. C7) Morality My opponent’s argument stated briefly is that “Organs are our possessions; the law is stopping people from giving up their possessions.” Keeping the sale of organs illegal would mean that someone who engages in consensual, open commerce would go to jail and thus is punished for a victimless crime, instead of resources being used for “real” crimes, like murder. Now, my opponent argues from opinion rather than objective fact. Commerce is regulated by the government which has every right to do so. She implies that organ traders shouldn’t be punished since they are doing a civil service rather than an injustice. Millions of people are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because ‘‘morality’’ does not allow them to have access to the organs. Therefore, it's immoral to legislate against the sale of organs. This argument implies two things, that the availability of something gives people the right to buy it. And that being denied the opportunity to trade something is immoral. It’s hardly a sound argument. I would like to remind everyone that this debate is about the SALE of organs not the RECEIPT of organs. How can we deny that someone not give up their possessions? Donation of an organ is perfectly legal, this not only helps save lives but makes sure that the needy are looked after before the rich. The denial is not in giving up your organs. The denial is in trading organs; since there are three parts and not just the buyer who is suffering. The Seller (Poor People) The Middle Man (Corporations) The Buyer (The suffering) C8) The government is not legitimate to make anything illegal. My opponent’s argument in a nutshell is the following: P1: The government creates laws. P2: The Government breaks said laws. C1: We shouldn’t follow those laws because the government doesn’t. Now, this mode of thinking really doesn’t make a lot of sense and I’ll explain why in just a moment. My opponent’s resolution is the following “This house would legalize the sale of organs” legalize being the key word. My opponent attacks government and yet opts for legislation, which is regulated by the very governments she attacks. It looks like a concession to a fallacious argument. There cannot be legalization without Illegality. Who is the government to stand in their way? The government has no right to make anything Illegal The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." [1] Now, the government as my opponent disagrees with has every right to impose illegality. This is called the Commerce Clause, Written in the constitution and for good reasons. The government is also a normative function in society; my opponent cannot attack its existence/legitimacy and expect me to waste my time proving the existence of government when this debate is about legalization, a governmental concept and application. Sources & Conclusion : I have refuted all points made by my opponent and eagerly await her response. [-] http://en.wikipedia.org... [-] http://www.relativelyinteresting.com... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...