Choose Your Topic, Liz! <3

I have no idea where to start. I think I'm too distracted by her beauty. :P I don't want to waste one precious round, therefore I introduce my alter ego, who will debate for me against debatability. It's a good thing Jack--or rather, I--am not distracted by mere beauty. I will remain in this debate for all the rounds, unlike any other debate, and I trust that debatability will have a good challenge in this debate against me. Let me introduce my first argument. "Every day in the United States, 17 people die waiting for an organ transplant. The number of people on the waiting list for an organ has more than tripled over the last ten years and now exceeds 82,000 individuals; at the same time, the number of donors has remained relatively stagnant (OPTN, 2004). In 2001, 6,439 people died while waiting for a transplant, nearly double the 3,916 candidates who died while waiting just five years earlier in 1996....there is only an increasing organ shortage in the United States." This quote is from the introductory paragraph of the source below. http://web.stanford.edu... As you can see people clearly need organ transplants. It would only be justified to benefit the nation with presumed consent. That way, more people will be saved. It is evident that indeed, presumed consent does help the nation and save more people. As the same article notes, "After Belgium passed presumed consent legislation in 1986, its donation rates also rose dramatically (Michielsen, 1996)." Not only so, other examples are noted to, with Leuven's rise from 15 to 40 donors a year, and Austria's rate of donation rose by 4 times. There is a definite positive increase of donation that saves those lives. A just society would want to save more people rather than killing people, of course, and therefore presumed consent is the best policy.The same exact source also noted the economic advantages of presumed consent. This economic gain could help the government as well. "In the United States, there are currently over 50,000 people on the waiting list for kidney transplants, which potentially represents a large savings in healthcare expenditures." The site states. Spain, a country with presumed consent, saves more than 200,000 euros in cost every year due to its policy. [http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org...] Alright, is that not outstanding? Some policy can save people and help the government's economy? What could be better? The answer is, my friends, better education. Obviously presumed consent wouldn't be very fair if nobody knew they were going to lose their kidneys after they died, and they respect their full body by some religious mumbo-jumo. But of course, this "just society" would make sure as much people recieve education as possible, so this wouldn't be a problem. As everyone could make the decision when they are adults after their good, fair education, people will know they have to say "no" if they don't want their organs to be donated for whatever reason. In addition, won't you think about the poor families, filled with grief, having to make the decision? They are struck with trauma at their daughter or son's death, leave them alone. Let the doctor have the choice and alleviate the emotional pain from the families. Besides, only the donor gets to truly decide whether he or she wants to donate his or her organs, not his or her family. This freedom of choice, especially after education, is just and fair. But of course--obviously his or her family can have a say in the matter, not that these living people's rights are ignored, only that the donor's choice is chosen in priority if the donor's true choice is unclear. As you can see it is just and fair for presumed consent. This is the best and most just policy possible. I have a rising anxiousness for the arguments that will come from my opponent, but I know I have already calculated in my mind masterfully, full well of what my opponent will hand to me, and have prepared very good rebuttals. Onto you, my friend debatability.