No-one should be an organ donor in the event of their death

I must say I am disappointed by my opponent, I was hoping for a serious debater obviously Con is not. Con plays dumb knowing that I cannot counter his argument in the next round , as a result he should lose conduct points, he also misleads voters e.g. he connects what I say about people thinking I am selfish due to leaving the donation register with devaluing life, this is probably to convince voters my argument is weak, confusing, or doesn"t make sense. I introduced my argument by using a simple example about terrorism to merely point out that just because something belongs to you such as money does not mean you "should" or assume it is right to do whatever you want with it, and this is true for your body too, which is why this topic is debatable. Con"s response to this is "Organ donations are optional. Nobody is holding a gun to a person's head, screaming at them to donate their organs". What Cons fails to realise is that holding a gun to someone"s head does not remove someone"s choice to do the right thing i.e. prevent them from stopping others being in the same situation via not complying. I do accept Con"s definition "Deceased donations are donations where a deceased person, who has volunteered to do so before death, may give organs, eye or tissue for a recipient". The question is: should someone be an organ donor in the event of their death? Below is Con"s entire argument: "Of course, donating organs, tissue, or any other body parts posthumously will not harm the donater, being that the person is already dead and has no need to use them. Organ donation can save lives. According to DonateLife.net, over 119,000 people are awaiting lifesaving organ transplants. Every ten minutes, another person is added onto the national transplant waiting list. Twenty-two people die each day waiting for an organ. One organ donor can save up to eight lives" organ donations give more value to the life of both the organ donors and the recipient. It lets the organ donor seem more selfless and contributing to a noble goal, and lets the recipient be healthier, extending the lifespan of this person and possibly even giving them the opportunity to experience life in a way that they couldn't be while being bedridden, reliant on artificial organs and machines in a hospital. " Con dismisses my argument about people disrespecting the dead, and thus concedes to my point. Con believes that more people will be happier if more people sign the organ register, however if people disrespect the dead which he accepts, and they vandalise or destroy gravestones, not many families would be happy, nor would they be happy knowing their deceased family member"s organs has probably gone to someone who has no respect for them or the deceased person. Sure people who sign the register to donate their organs in the event of their death will feel selfless, and feel others should do the same, but they will hate those who don"t. Therefore Organ donation divides people into groups, and increases hatred which makes people less happy, and feel their life is not worth as much. Far more people can die or suffer cruelty as a result of joining the organ transplant register, anything that leads to wars among countries, gangs etc should be avoided, and wars start because people devalue human life. Unless Con can prove that more people are saved than die his argument regarding the number of people who could be saved by organ transplants is invalid. To clarify how being an organ donor devalues life: Ask yourself this, if a woman has nine dogs, eight of her dogs are dying but eight can be saved but only by killing one dog, and she kills a dog to save the other eight dogs, would you say she loves dogs? I wouldn"t!! A person who kills what they claim to value cannot possibly be telling the truth, even if the dog was dying, killing a dying dog when it can be saved is just wrong. It"s not something someone would do if they value dogs. The same is true for humans, if someone can perform an operation to save your life, but in doing so allow eight people to die who are awaiting organ transplants, and they choose not to do that, and instead choose to kill you so they can save eight people, then they do not value human life! Many people mistakenly believe that the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few, so this could easily happen. Imagine how you"d feel if you took someone"s organ, and the only reason they died is because you wanted to live, you"re either going to feel horrible or feel you are better than them. By signing the organ resister you are signing away the rights to your organs, and people will consequently not try their best to save your life unless you need an organ transplant maybe through wasting your life, abusing your body, drinking too much, eating unhealthy foods - basically not looking after yourself. People should not be encouraged to believe that there are times when murder or negligence, is okay.