Instigator / Pro
14
1674
rating
53
debates
67.92%
won
Topic

THBT Markets for Human Organs Should be Illegal Worldwide

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
6
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and same amount of points on both sides ...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
14
1469
rating
7
debates
28.57%
won
Description
~ 503 / 5,000

People should not be able to sell their organs in any country through a legally sanctioned market, even as a personal decision.
This does not include a potential situation with agreeing to sell off your organs when you die.
Burden of proof is shared, no new arguments in the last round.

Organ: A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions. Examples of organs include the eyes, ears, heart, lungs, and liver. (https://www.medicinenet.com/organ/definition.htm)

Round 1
Pro
A market for human organs, if legalized, would be severely problematic. 

I. Contradictory for the Poor

Proponents of the Human Organ Market likely think the poor will benefit from the legalization. But this is not the case. From a study in India, it's clear that organ donation averages around to $1,000/month, nowhere near enough for the monthly cost of living. The fact that the same source notes 80% of donors do not recommend selling, the irrationality of the desperation is clearly shown. Logically your health would be worsened, making it more difficult to keep working and managing your family. Indeed, even in a legal example within Iran, the only country that legalizes human organs' market, proves that the poor do not benefit from being able to sell their organs. Firstly, poor information from the market dealers makes it unlikely that the poor will get a deal. Even the government could only enforce a lowly price of 4,600$ per organ. The writer notes that 70% of the Iranian organ vendors are still poor. And the nurse notes that the black market is not prevented, only further encouraged and now officially sanctioned. The transfer of wealth and inequality is a notable problem as nothing is fixed.

Furthermore, the prices existing for victims who need the organs will arise as a result. The same source explains, "currently, while hospital fees may be large, the donor system ensures that prices for organ stay low. If we are to legalize commodification, there is no guarantee that supply will meet the demand, the impetus which lowers prices." The poor will no longer be able to pay as well because organs now have higher costs that solely the rich will be able to afford. This goes to explain why illegal organ trafficking will increase, as there is still yet a greater demand for free organs. The six billion people currently living in countries with a corruption problem go to infer that legalization would completely fail. As such, no matter what system we have, the poor will always be exploited, and never resolve the problem of their poverty. 

II. Human dignity

Though we have our rights for liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, we cannot waive the right to liberty. The human body is an invaluable asset and while you are free to use it as you wish, to sell it sends the wrong message. You are saying your body and your potential autonomy is worth money. But people should not be able to put you in jail merely through bribery. Money, a temporary materialistic ideal, cannot match up to the transcendent ideals of life and freedom. Not only so, but you are also saying it is worth a price only the rich can buy. It would be illogical for a poor victim to support another poor seller. So you would be reducing the power of selflessness provided by the ability to provide organs for free! You reduce the humans to a means as an end, rather than highlighting the altruistic and virtuous nature of men we all should strive for. With both of these combined, I advocate for illegalization to discourage people from selling off themselves. Think of how slavery is outlawed, and we don't allow people to sell their liberty off to another. While people are capable of making their own decisions, depression and urgency can cause a person to lack the true autonomy to make a well-informed decision. Compounded by the selfish greed of the rich man, it is impossible to justify the selling of human organs from a moral basis. 

III. Implementation

Many proponents of the organ market worry that the problem of organ shortage will never be solved. But the opt-out program in many countries has resolved the issue already. Noted from Stanford.edu, Austria's donation acceptance is 90%, compared to the US's 15%.  It is only logical that most people would go with the status quo. To avoid complete loss of liberty as proponents argue, many family members can overwrite the decision. Nevertheless, Spain with the same system has the highest donation rate per million overall.  Though some worry that the ability to ask for permission is very difficult, there has been proposed a two-step plan to resolve the problem. Firstly, you ask for permission to maintain the body for the donation. Next, the authorization to donate would be asked only after the given time to process the death. By allowing thoughtful decisions, we can resolve the problem of emotional influence. As we combine opt-out with educating people about the organ donation possibility, there is no doubt that the shortage of organs will be solved without having to put our human dignity at risk. 

As you can see the market for organs is illogical and simply cannot be implemented. Now onto Con.
Con
Round 1


(HAHA before starting my intro , this question is really challenging though I don’t agree it but haha just challenge my thinking skills. )

Greetings. 

Markets for human organs are not only illegal around the world , but not even moral as well. That’s the general public attitude towards this disputable question. It is understandable but actually markets for human organs bring more good than harm. I will infer this question with two prongs : utilitarianism and democracy. After reasoning , I will rebuttal three points from my opponent.

Firstly , utilitarianism means if one action maximises the social benefit , that action is considered as a moral action . According to some investigations , 2 years is needed for curing your symptoms if your pancreas is in trouble. For general citizens awaiting two years may cause you to lose a few pounds only. You may already feel intolerable about it. But for bill gates a second means a lot for him. Based on this foundation , requiring a citizen to donate his organs to bill gates should be considered as a moral action. Paying money for it just acts as compensation only. Consequently , buying and selling human organs is a moral action . All moral action should be allowed by the government . Trading human organs should be legalized.

Secondly , my body is my choice. How I use my body is actually my choice.


Sorry I am not free so please post your argument a day later I will rebuttal it in next round the exam is so annoying 



Round 2
Pro
Firstly, con says the moral action is utilitarian but offers no backing. Secondly, he says money is necessary for compensation, but most kind acts are best done out of kindness of heart. There is no world where you should pay people to say please and thank you, nor open doors, nor help old ladies cross the street. Con has dropped every one of my arguments and has not proved that opt out program is any worse than his proposal. He says my body my choice but has failed to negate the fact that people are ill informed In the organ donation market and hence cannot make a good choice. As such he has failed to uphold his burden of proof.
Con
I will forfeit this contest , as when I ask my opponent to give me one more day due to my exam . He not even just ignore me but he post the next argument within two hours which is rude .So I am here to please ask you guys no to vote. Thanks you as my opponent really don't give me time to breath thanks.
Round 3
Pro
My bad. We could tie this for now and retry later.
Con
Yea I finished my maths exam so yea you open a new one with same topic but plsease set the respond to three days as if in case I really not free still can type to respond 

Round 4
Pro
Please vote tie.
Con
Thanks