Instigator / Pro
7
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2671
THBT Markets for Human Organs Should be Illegal Worldwide
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Undefeatable
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1469
rating
7
debates
28.57%
won
Description
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
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.
Good morning everyone
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 two 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 an organ 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. Biologically , the parts which are created with your DNA or contain no DNA such as hair are considered as your body. How to use your body is actually your choice. If how to use it is restricted by law , based on this logic all porn videos should be prohibited as basically speaking both are using their bodies to make money. However , we all understand that making porn videos is legal. Since both cases are of the same nature , as one has already legalized . It is clear that selling human organs should be legalized.
The aforementioned are my reasoning about why a market for human organs should be legalized.The beneath are the rebuttals.
Firstly , let me begin by concluding my opponent’s rebuttal about contradiction for the poor. Con basically founded his infertion on a market in the future when human organs buying and selling are legalized. Based on this postulation , con said that averages around to $1000 dollars per month only. However , presumption based economic models will easily find if the human organs market is legalized , the demand will surge . Thus the money they can make will increase. However , I don’t agree with using it as a way to earn money. As aforesaid , the poor who have low human capacity should sacrifice for those who have higher human capacity based on utilitarianism.
Secondly , I disagree with my opponent about the human body is an invaluable asset. I understand it is difficult to accept it however that’s the truth. As if energy in physics , actually the human body is a relative concept. Relatively speaking , a blind baby is less valuable than a well-being baby. As a result when selling your organ to help someone who is actually contributing more to society is actually a moral action. Thus it won’t affect our human dignity. The situation is similar to a company firing those unable to hire some gifted. The nature of two cases are actually the same.
Actually donating blood is the same as donating organs. Selling blood is actually the same as selling hairs. As a result, selling organs is the same as selling hair.
I want to ask my opponent a question. Do you think selling hair should not be legalized?
1.Meaning of utilitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
2.Statictis (waiting list for organ)
Round 2
Con responds with a net benefit analysis, which is astonishing given Con's supporters' logic. The original idea is that people have the decision to donate organs and should be allowed to do so of their own free will. If everyone was forced to sell their organs for the sake of utilitarian gain, the violation of freedom would be near impossible to enforce, not to mention hindering our basic rights. So his logic is flawed that we should have the poor person donate their organ to the rich. Next, even if we accept his argument, we do not know how it compares to the opt-out program. The difference is that educated persons may be able to make a decision well, and families will be able to decide better rather than violating citizen's bodies without their permission. As I stated, the poor are only further taken advantage of with the human organ market, and the gain is so minimal that the utilitarian factor is negligible.
Secondly, con opens up with a well-intentioned grounding that has a good basis on freedom but had a bad comparison. I will not go deep into pornography but it is commonly said that pornography is addicting and destructive in relationships. The portrayal of women as objects is simply insulting, and the only reason why it is kept is that the implementation of a ban is extraordinarily difficult, not to mention pornography is only bad in overwhelming amounts. On the other hand, banning the organ market is very easy -- every country is already doing it, except Iran. Organ donation is bad no matter how much you donate. For example, even a singular kidney -- perhaps the most expendable organ of the body -- shown in Round 1 was shown to have negative health effects on users. While most porn users would recommend others to at least try to dabble before making a decision, my research shows 80% of people recommend you do not sell your organ off for money. Clearly, this comparison is flawed and falls apart. Extend the fact that the rich will always abuse the poor, and hence this exchange of income is unacceptable.
Con attempts to reduce my power by saying that the demand will drive up the prices but fails to show the impact. Even looking at Iran's increased prices at $5,000 extra dollars per month, the sacrifice of health risks the users going to the hospital and having worsened health. While it is enough to live, it is not enough to break out of poverty, which is what the sellers desired. There is simply not enough benefit to encourage the poor to live in even worse health than they already are living in.
Finally, Con tries to refute the fact that humans' lives are invaluable but he makes an argument about disability. How can we judge someone merely based on their physical attributes? Steven Hawking was paralyzed, but he was one of humanity's greatest minds. Even with physical disabilities, one can make great contributions to society. In addition, his argument refutes itself, because, by his logic, the person with only one kidney would be worth less than the man with two kidneys. So we would end up not participating in the organ market anyway. When we donate our organs, we accept that someone's life can be equally valuable as our own. Our kindness and altruism is the only thing that can match the others' health. It is only when we put a price on it, that sends the erroneous message that our lives can be equal to a certain amount of money. Con tries to equate selling organs to selling hair or donating blood, but neither are incredibly detrimental to health and so the comparison still falls apart.
Secondly, con opens up with a well-intentioned grounding that has a good basis on freedom but had a bad comparison. I will not go deep into pornography but it is commonly said that pornography is addicting and destructive in relationships. The portrayal of women as objects is simply insulting, and the only reason why it is kept is that the implementation of a ban is extraordinarily difficult, not to mention pornography is only bad in overwhelming amounts. On the other hand, banning the organ market is very easy -- every country is already doing it, except Iran. Organ donation is bad no matter how much you donate. For example, even a singular kidney -- perhaps the most expendable organ of the body -- shown in Round 1 was shown to have negative health effects on users. While most porn users would recommend others to at least try to dabble before making a decision, my research shows 80% of people recommend you do not sell your organ off for money. Clearly, this comparison is flawed and falls apart. Extend the fact that the rich will always abuse the poor, and hence this exchange of income is unacceptable.
Con attempts to reduce my power by saying that the demand will drive up the prices but fails to show the impact. Even looking at Iran's increased prices at $5,000 extra dollars per month, the sacrifice of health risks the users going to the hospital and having worsened health. While it is enough to live, it is not enough to break out of poverty, which is what the sellers desired. There is simply not enough benefit to encourage the poor to live in even worse health than they already are living in.
Finally, Con tries to refute the fact that humans' lives are invaluable but he makes an argument about disability. How can we judge someone merely based on their physical attributes? Steven Hawking was paralyzed, but he was one of humanity's greatest minds. Even with physical disabilities, one can make great contributions to society. In addition, his argument refutes itself, because, by his logic, the person with only one kidney would be worth less than the man with two kidneys. So we would end up not participating in the organ market anyway. When we donate our organs, we accept that someone's life can be equally valuable as our own. Our kindness and altruism is the only thing that can match the others' health. It is only when we put a price on it, that sends the erroneous message that our lives can be equal to a certain amount of money. Con tries to equate selling organs to selling hair or donating blood, but neither are incredibly detrimental to health and so the comparison still falls apart.
As you can see Con's case is riddled with flaws and poor comparisons. He must negate the fact that the poor have very little to gain and so much to lose. We have not solved any major problems with the organ market, and his case only further helps the opt-out policy. Therefore I am still winning the debate by a large margin.
Thanks , as I hope to show my deductions more clearly , I will use point form with further elaborations.
1. Opponent didn’t respond to my question which means he doesn't agree that selling hair should be banned.
Hair is part of our body based on the definition of organ by pro . Consequently ,I strongly disagree with my opponent about Iran being the only country that allows transaction of Organ.Since many countries including USA , China , Japan you name it allowed citizens to sell their hair. My opponent is trying to change the definition of organ from both reproducible and irreproducible to only irreproducible. Thus unless my opponent provides concrete evidence that selling hair should be banned on this planet else the statement has already been partially wrong.
2. My opponent tries to shift the goalposts to “Selling human organs as a job should be illegal around the world. “
Firstly , I also opposed selling human organs as a job. However , that’s not the crux of the problem that we are debating. As a result , my opponent’s statement about selling organs to make money should be considered irrelevant.
Secondly , as my opponent doesn't define markets meaning I will provide a definition for it first. Markets should be regarded as compensation after selling organs. Based on this position , we could rewrite “the markets for human organs should be illegal “ to “ compensation for donating human organs should be considered as moral action.”
3. My opponent tries to differentiate donation with compensation and markets. However actually it is the same thing.
4. Based on economics , human capacity is based on two facets : physical and intellectual.
My opponent tried to use Hawking as an example , please allow me to further elaborate for him. Even though Hawking's human capacity in terms of physical should be considered as depressed , in terms of intellectual aspect he has reached the peak of human being. As a result , his human capacity is higher than you and I. In economics , sacrificing oneself for another is beneficial to our society.
5. If my opponent tries to talk implementation please provide one method which could ban all selling hair around the world.
I would ask my opponent another question: Do you think surrogacy should be prohibited all around the world ?
Round 3
I don't know what Con is going on about, as he keeps asserting about selling hair. But hair is not considered an organ donation, as the existence of tissue is necessary for the definition of the organ according to genome.gov. He has failed to say anything about how hair is very expendable and has negligible affects on health when gone, hence, his comparison to hair donation is completely futile.
Next, Con misinterprets that selling organ will be the person's job, this is not it. As most people who sell their organs are poor, they would want to make some quick money to get out of their tough situation. But they cannot manage it. As you can see con's interpretation is a massive strawman.
Thirdly, Con tries saying merely compensation would make it a market, but this would infer even rewarding people for donating organs would be equivalent to fulfilling his part of the premise. This is of course, absurd. The regulated market in economics is oversaw by the government. They need to make laws and restrictions about how to sell, what to sell, so on and so forth, in order to allow people to sell safely. Inter person trade very likely avoids taxes, extra restrictions, so on and so forth. In order for con to win, he has to show the government has to create the organ market to regulate laws and have people safely trade organs in this legal setting.
Fourthly, Con tries to say that Hawking's mental capabilities overcome his physical abilities. This is basically conceding his argument. He says people must make sacrifices for economy. In that case, why would we need to compensate them at all? We would only have more money to lose.
Finally, Con asks if surrogacy should be banned. I say no, but I do not see how this is relevant to the debate.
Dropped arguments:
- Poor people being taken advantage of
- Not enough money to truly help
- Weakened bodies from donating organs
- No difference from the opt-out system
- Devalues the human life and body
Round 3
Objection : My definition is based on description. I object to another definition of organ.
Organ: A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions. Hair is a relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions. Hair is considered an organ.
Objection : Opponent tries to argue selling organs will be the person’s job when they are poor. However today’s statement is “donating organ with compensation should be moral”
Objection : Pro has not opposed to my definition of market as he doesn’t define market
As a result all the arguments based on the free market and economics should be regarded as irreverent points.
Objection : my argument based on two prongs : economics and moral.
Economics speaking sacrifice someone with low human capacity for high human capacity is considered as good for society.
Morally speaking based on utilitarianism , sacrificing someone for the society is considered as moral action.
Point 1 : Hair selling should be considered as organ selling. Many countries allow hari selling. Please prove hair selling should be banned all around the world.
Point 2 : I agree the poor may take advantage of it if it is a free market. However today market definition is considered as donation with compensation.
Point 3 : Selling sperm should be also considered as illegal but my opponent agrees that surrogacy should not be banned. As a result his speeches are paradoxical.
My opponent not only tries to redefine organs , but also agrees selling organs (sperm , hair , blood) should not be banned. Thus just trying to use the microscopic part to cover the whole statement.
Thanks
Round 4
Hair alone cannot be considered the independent part of the body -- it must have a remarkably distinct location. Yet we have skin hair, hair on our private parts, and hair is non-unique both for survival and both for a special function that is indispensable. The problem with Con's assumption is that he does not look deeper into why organ is defined this specific way. He goes into the semantics and tries to argue for hair, but even a pro-organ donation site does not remark that hair can be considered an organ. Secondly, even if we buy his hair argument, this does not outweigh the corruption of the rich and the fact that the poor are taken advantage of in the legalization of organ donation. He fails to note the fact that 80% of people do not want others to donate their organs. He vouches for utilitarianism, yet does not go to show what impact donating hair has. The ambiguous gains in look is far, far outweighed by the poor who continue to donate their organs and end up with very poor health, often needing medical care that can be very costly.
Con says I have not objected to mere compensation being equal to a market, but voters should see that the government-regulated free market is far more complex than a few trades that are unrestricted. The fact of the matter is that the market makes things very different as people hardly care where the organs come from. It's like the meat on display in a supermarket; the persons who know each other intimately making private trades is drastically different from an anonymous rich man grabbing your organ for the lowest price possible. Con tries to infer that the market would be so free that there is absolutely no regulation whatsoever, but this world is even worse. Iran at least was able to enforce the $4,600 dollar regulation. In Con's world, we end up with India's study where you earn only one thousand for your life and blood. Clearly, Con's solution is horrible and should not even be considered.
Con's crux of his argument strongly supports my idea, therefore he has conceded this debate:
Economics speaking sacrifice someone with low human capacity for high human capacity is considered as good for society.
Basically Con wants no one to donate their organs to those that need it, as those who lack a crucial organ surely has less human capacity in physical efforts. This is the nail in the coffin to prove that I won the debate.
Finally, Con tries a strawman but has not proven that the sperm and blood fulfills the definition of organ, as they are not an independent part of the body. They are fluids produced by the body. By his argument, sweat would also be an organ, and you could receive compensation merely for crying into a bucket. This is an absurd generalization fallacy, and decreases Con's credibility severely. He clearly has no idea what an organ even is, based on strict medical definitions and clarifications offered by organ donation sites.
Con has repeatedly pushed a strawman onto my position and claimed that any part of your body can be considered an organ, while in reality organ donation considers specific functions, such as the liver, heart, eyes, etc. He has completely failed to overcome the advantage of opt-out system, in that the poor are not taken advantage of. All his arguments are completely ridiculous, and so I've won this debate.
Objection : based on cambridge dictionary independent means not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things
As hair is not influenced by people , events , or things other than your own body it should be considered as an organ.
My opponent's argument only considers the poor situation but he never mentions the rich. As a result this question is partially correct even the poor presumption is correct.
I would like all readers to consider donating organs is correct or not. Do you think donating organs with compensation will be better? Do you think selling your organ to help others will make our society become better? If all these questions answer are yes vote con.
(Bruh this question really bias toward to pro so difficult for con)
Argument: Pro left a sour taste in this voter's mouth by provision of the first sourced reference, which was apparently from another debate on this site; however, the link failed, and so the citation of the apparent cost of living in India also failed. Separate reference revealed that the cost of living in India is not as Pro suggests; it is virtually half of the suggested $1,000 per month. However, the argument of cost of living, regardless of what it is in India, or anywhere else [Iran is reference also used by Pro] is irrelevant because persons are unable to make a continuous living on the basis of selling organs simply because with the exception of blood, hair, or skin [all of which are human tissue - which Pro incorrectly rejects, while Con successfully argued for their inclusion as human tissue] no organ is self-replenishing, and therefore, only one of even organs which typically exist in pairs, can be sold until the person dies if that person expects to be able to continue use of the other paired organ. Therefore, the argument of economic support for an organ-selling industry does not figure as a sustainable argument. Con successfully rebutted the point, by demonstration that even the selling of self-replenishable organs [blood and hair] provides a viable market of organ selling that is beneficial to those needing organ transplant. Points to Con.
Sources: As if the sour encounter of an inaccessible source link could be ignored, Pro's sources presented unsupportable arguments relative to poverty and market liquidity because of the failed arguments as noted above, and the use of sources, such as Iran, whose economy is not exactly robust in any market, let alone organ-selling. Pro's sources are simply not reliable. Con's sources, by contrast, such as the sourcing of hair and blood offering, while not personally beneficial for sustained personal cost of living concerns by themselves, do contribute to a person's cost of living needs. Points to Con
S&G: tie
Conduct: Pro and Con had relatively equivalent conduct value until in R4, when Pro said, "Con's crux of his argument strongly supports my idea, therefore he has conceded this debate". A fair review of Con's arguments would suggest that in little regard do Con's arguments agree with Pro. Therefore, to suggest that Con has de facto conceded when Con offered no such concession, but rather continued argumentative and rebuttal language demonstrates that Con stayed active in debate in all four rounds. Point to Con.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6 (6 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The allocation of the conduct point is not properly justified.
"To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct."
PRO making a rhetorical statement about CON de facto conceding is not an excessive breach in conduct.
The voter may revote if they fix this issue.
Working on this one next. Should be able to get something up sometime this coming week.
I think the fundamental assumption that organ donation can refer to anything that is independent from human body, rather than what Organ donation markets assume are organs (face tissue, kidney, lung, heart...)
Where's the kritik?
Umm I really don't mind you vote pro or con . But serious would you mind to point out some serious spelling mistake or grammatical mistake ?
Umm but the definition should be based on the description only if the description has marked it
I'll get a vote up on this at some stage. Haven't given it enough of a look to answer your question, seldiora.
Nope. I don't play that game. That is a done debate, and buried from my perspective, regardless of outcome. The differentiation of "organ" and "tissue" is somewhat tenuous. As an avid student of human anatomy and the medical profession [my father was a hospital administrator, my mother a medical transcriber, and my older brother is a physician], the linkage of organ and tissue is tight. While I would agree that hair, specifically, is not an organ, it is clearly tissue [living at the root, or follicle, and dead in the exposed length, regardless of length], both heart and skin are organs. Pro clearly dismissed hair as tissue while Con offered it as an example of donated/sold tissue, and skin was my reference; not offered by either Pro or Con.
In any case, I don't know why the linking to the India study failed. Here's the link: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/195344
what do you think? Did Undefeatable fail, because he didn't put in what the organ donation/transplant market meant? Or is the premise vague enough that we should accept con's definition? I'm on the fence here.
*facepalm* this is what happens when I listen to you and don't put "no kritiks".
are you getting revenge for your systemic racism debate? It seems to me pro used multiple different sites in conjunction to support the idea of what an "organ" is. Why do you accept that the blood and sperm can be the organ? That's confusing to me.
vote if you dare!