Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

My opponent stated that I misunderstood the entirety of their argument, but I refuted it in several spots so they would have needed to shown how I misunderstood it for this claim to be a valid one.Again, both my argument and my evidence do not claim that PC reduces organ donation. I do not argue that just because people are against this loss of rights, that they will do the opposite of what they are told (reactance). This cannot be used in this debate because the legislation that we would be proposing would not be a law that is breakable. Unlike a law that may state "no exceeding the speed limit of 55 mph on this road", a law that would state that "your organs are to be presumed to be able to be procured in the case of your accidental death unless you state otherwise" is not really able to be broken in any way, so the theory of reactance doesn't really pertain to our case at all.My opponent has proposed that a just society would donate their organs with no fighting against it. I agree with this statement, but the way that this will be achieved is not clearly stated. The pro states that this just society would all donate their organs out of the goodness of their hearts and that presumed consent allows this somehow. This really is not the case because by presuming consent the mindset becomes 'we will take your organs unless you have the time to fill out a form' which is taking away the goodness of the donation itself. And really, there is more trifling in the OOS as you have to fill out the form to opt out, while in the MCS you simply have to answer a yes or no question. Under the MCS legislation, the path to organ donation would be quicker and smoother than with any other system.It was stated that in this just society that Pro is proposing that everyone would just donate because there are only good people in a just society. However there are always going to be conflicting views, whether it be in a just or unjust society. A person may see organ donation as a superb action while another may see it differently. This doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. The fact that people will have different opinions is inevitable and a just society would make laws that protect our rights to express our differences.Finally, my opponent states that presumed consent is better because morally it is superior. The only way that this would be true would be if it was proved that donation rates increase with PC. However, my opponent stated, "A society of people whose aim it was to save lives, then, might say that, yes, mandatory choice perhaps has some benefits over presumed consent." This contradicts my opponent's claim that it is morally superior because if we were to do what was morally right we would protect rights and save lives. My opponent has agreed that the MCS does save more lives with this statement and therefore s/he has no other arguments that state why presumed consent is actually morally superior, other than the argument that says that autonomy is ensured, when it isn't because individual rights to properties are taken with OOS. To clear this up here is an analogy: I you were to buy some cookies and they were yours and only yours, no body should be able to take them without your consent, right? They can't presume that you would give them to you if you were in another room because they would be taken what is yours to give. So, if your mother was to take your cookies(individual rights), but said that you could get them back if you filled out a form, it doesn't change the fact that she took your cookies. However, if she asked for your cookies then you have the option to say yes, I would like to sacrifice a cookie to help another, or no, I don't want to sacrifice a cookie. Likewise, if the government were to assume that you want to give them your organs, they would be infringing on rights, but if they were to give you the choice they would not be taking your rights. Because of the fact that the MCS both ensures actual autonomy and will likely have higher donation rates than the OOS, we must conclude that my opponent's argument stating that OOS is morally superior has fallen. In conclusion, the mandatory choice system will achieve a just society better than a presumed consent system will because of the fact that no individual rights are infringed and that donation rates will rise with it. Presumed consent doesn't ensure autonomy as I have proved above with my cookie analogy and it doesn't promise higher donation rates equal or higher to that of the MCS.Thank you AnDoctuir for an honestly stupendous debate. This was really enjoyable for me and I hope it was for you as well! Please vote honestly and fairly all you potential voters and until next time, DFTBA (don't forget to be awesome). :D