The USFG should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation

My opponent forfeited. Shame, he had such an interesting case. Seeing as my opponent has not attacked any of my points I will make this round short and sweet, I will again refute his points and extend my arguments. At the beginning of his case, my opponent offers an observation that "moral arguments against doing something, even if successful, do not justify banning that something." While at first this appears to be a compelling argument, lets examine it closer. I contend that all laws are based on morality, as the Christian Research Institute states[1]: "Because every law springs from a system of values and beliefs, every law is an instance of legislating Morality. ...Those who seek to separate morality from law, therefore, are in pursuit both of the impossible and the destructive. The question before us is never whether or not to legislate morality, but which moral system ought to be made legally binding." It is immoral to kill thus we have laws against murder. It is immoral to force sexual intercourse, and thus rape is banned. It is immoral to steal, and thus theft is criminalized. The affirmative might state that all those laws have practical and not just moral reasons for their existence, and I would dispute it. However lets assume for a moment that that response is valid. Using the Pro's quotes all of these things would have to be legalized, because the only arguments against the are moral: Child-Adult intercourse, incest, bestiality, prostitution, necro-prostitution, gambling, animal cloning, human cloning, polygamy, and many other issues. Even if you believe that one or more of these issues SHOULD be legal, the Pro's statement only stands if ALL of these should be legalized. Pro's contention one has already been negated. He has not demonstrated how the antigen markers are unnecessary. Like I stated in the previous round, the fact that minorities are less likely to have these antigens is the unfortunate reality. Pro's contention two also falls because it is advocating an organ market. I have shown both in my case, and my rebuttal how an Organ Market is wrong and this has gone undisputed. I have also shown in my Contention Three that other forms of financial incentives do not work. Even if we assume that an Organ Market can solve the organ shortage, there are other ways to solve this crisis without the moral implications that come with an organ market, like required response.[2] Pro also states in his contention two that the quality of donated organs would increase. This is false, because the vast majority of those donating for financial incentives would undoubtedly be the poor, who are generally less healthy than the average American because of their lack of health insurance. Also studies have found links between poverty and kidney failure[3] so the kidneys donated by the poor are far more likely to be worse in quality than those currently donated so that advantage is negated. All of my arguments still stand unrefuted. Since I have thoroughly attacked my opponents contentions and he has yet to raise any objection against mine, the con side clearly wins this debate. Thank you. Resolution negated. Sources used in this rebuttal: 1.http://www.equip.org... 2.http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov... 3.http://handls.nih.gov...