It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Round 1. Agent47 V mig12: Organ Sale

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 03:18 PM
Debate 2

The topic for this debate is "The sale of Human Organs should be legalised."

Agent47 will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
mig12 will argue against this proposition.

Each debator will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included in any post. Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

As a guide responses should be made within 24 hours, If the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit their replies and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 11:30 AM
Big thanks to Kano, my fellow Texan Mig12, and to Robojesus.

Organ Sales:

Since 1984, the buying and selling of human organs has been illegal in the United States. Instead the United States has chosen to rely upon the good will of those who volunteer to have their organs harvested. Although an admirable practice, the current system of donating organs is sorely lacking. Figures from the United Network for Organ Sharing estimate that more than 80,666 men, women and children are waiting for organs for transplantation in the United States. Of these 80,666 souls only 24,681 received life saving transplants. The remaining 70% people are left to wait an indeterminable period of time whilst their bodies slowly shut down and die. Across the United States, an average of 17 men, women and children of all races and ethnic backgrounds die every day for lack of donated organs. In 2003, 5,968 patients were removed from the national waiting list for reason of death. The idea of free will donation has failed over 5,000 people the last 6 years, and has ruined countless more lives. In order to remedy this situation the Federal government should repeal the prohibition on the sale of human organs. There are no statutes preventing an individual from selling their hair or reproductive materials, but legislators have decided that a kidney is different from a batch of fertile ovaries. The idea of selling ovaries and kidneys, are closely related in that they facilitate the creation of life. America system is built around the same capitalist properties that organ sales encourage.

Economist Brian Nottage Ph. D has suggested that organ sales would create an equilibrium market where supply will exceed demand. Nottage's numbers indicate that a $20,000 increase in the price for a kidney would bring around a 50% higher donation rate. This is mirrored in the fact that blood banks experienced a higher donation volume when they offered monetary compensation. Currently operating under the same voluntary basis most blood banks have encountered a crippling shortage. Some argue that organ sales would result in a breakdown in quality. This would be offset by stringent Federal regulation and standards. Individuals would sell their organs directly to the government at a price determined by need and availability. Currently it is the Federal government who manages both donation and transplants, and implementing an organ sales program would only integrate with the current system. Furthermore, repealing the prohibition would enable the Federal government to operate under the idea of assumed consent. Cadavers would have their organs harvested unless otherwise stated previous to the individual's death. Many European governments have implemented this system in an effort to curb crippling shortages.

The traditional conflicts to organ sales have been our morals and fear of a criminal element specializing in organ traffic. Some myths are that donation disfigures the body and prevents a traditional open casket funeral. The truth is that transplants are carried out with the utmost sterilization and care. Donating your organs will not interfere with traditional funeral services. Although it is unsavory to think that money must motivate a populace to help save lives, it is a hard fact we must acknowledge. We cannot let almost 6,000 people slip into painful darkness due to our belief in the dogma of voluntary donation. Organ sales encourage profit just like any other aspect of our capitalist economy. By legalizing the sale of organs we create an environment that encourages production and eliminates the unsavory idea of illegal trafficking. The idea of a seedy underbelly of organ trafficking is another myth held by many Americans. The truth is that cases of organ theft or sales are extremely rare, and small in numbers. True organ trafficking is only prevalent in third world countries where organ sales are legal, but not regulated on the government level. By implementing the aformentioned federal system we reap the benefits of increased supply and prevent degradation in quality and practices.

Just realize that in the few minutes it has taken to read this piece, 17 more people have come closer to death. It is our duty as capitalists to remedy this situation as soon as possible.

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 09:02 PM
Thanks go out to Agent47(AHHS baaybee!), the judges and Kano. Thanks yall.


I ask again.


Why must we sell our organs? We can't just GIVE them to other people. No, we need some monetary compensation, hmm? So, only the rich people can get organs now. No wait. Only the rich people can get the GOOD organs? In my posts, I'll show you why organ donation is better than the black market scheme.

It's illegal for a reason.

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 12:05 AM
The system for organ sales would be the most efficient way to save the lives of the most needy regardless of their financial situation. The proposed system would only enhance upon the federal system of donation, where the government pairs donors and paitients on purely a need basis. Organ sales would not be a business where only those who can afford a product may prosper as the organs would be sold directly to the government. In response to the question why? I have one answer:

Every day another 17 people on that list die. If my opponent must play the economics card I must point out the economic hardship presented by the current donation service. Those 60,000+ remaining on the list must pay hundreds for medicine that maintains their health. In the case of kidney transplants, victims must deal with dialysis. Dialysis is a hard and repetitive treatment that could be eliminated if the wait was reduced.
Studies have found that five years after a transplant a patient saves $176,000, just because they have been removed from dialysis.
The National Organ Transplant Act was created in order to protect those who may not be able to afford an organ. This is an illogical cause as the disparity between the rich and poor is a repeat problem in the healthcare system. "There are millions of uninsured people in our country, people who cannot afford healthcare insurance, for whatever reason. Among those who do have insurance, there is still a disparity of what services these people can obtain. This is due in part to high deductibles, tier structure of available pharmaceutical products creating higher co-payments
for third tier products that makes those products out of reach of many insured people, and non-approval of these procedures by HMO insurance plans." (You Need A Kidney And I Need The Money)

By legalizing organ sales and using federal surplus to pay for donations the Federal government has the ability to save the lives of thousands. The system would mirror the current one in that it would match patients on the basis of need, and not money. This effectively silences the "only the rich will receive transplants" argument in that their would only be gain on both sides of the equation. The patient receives a life saving organ whilst the donor receives either a tax break or monetary compensation.


These are where the stats come from

And these are the written pieces
Gary S. Becker. Business Week. New York: Jan 20, 1997. Iss. 3510; pg. 18 "How uncle sam could end the organ shortage"
"I'd Sell You My Kidney If I Could" - Debate/ Analysis orginally posted at dismal
You Need A Kidney And I Need The Money Link

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 11:21 AM
Sorry for the delay.

Sell the organs directly to the government, you say? Yes, that would make a lot of people want to donate, or rather sell, their organs. But what happens when a million people rush to sell? The National Debt massively inceases over time.

Let's look a some other countries where they get by without selling organs.


Prisoners who are about to be executed, or have already been executed become involuntary donors. This would work, seeing as how many prisoners on death row we have. Taiwan and Singapore used to parctice this also.


Poor people sell their kidneys for cash or credit. It became illegal in 1997.


Brazil also had a problem with "sellers", so after death, everyoine becomes a donor. Only those who do not wish to donate after death have to buy a card which states so. Another method which would do well in the US.

Why should we sell our organs?


It's illegal for a reason.

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 04:15 PM
Once again the economic card is played and once again I have to point out the flaws in the argument and necessity of organ sales.

The national debt would not increase exponentially due to the government granting tax breaks to donating individuals, because at the same time the transplants would take people off of Federal medical care. The roughly 2,000 that the Federal Government would have to pay out pales in comparison to the 176,000$ it costs to keep someone on dialysis for a year. The number of people covered by Medicare on the waiting list is high, and if they were to receive a transplant they would no longer need intensive long term care.

Furthermore you use China as an example of how we could harvest organs.
Well as of 2002 there were 3,700 people on death row.

60,000 - 3,700 would leave 56,300 people still waiting for transplants, and that would require executing all 3,700 in one year. The death penalty is only practiced in 38 of the 50 states, and I would remind readers that transplants are done on a state basis. So if you were to follow my opponents advice you would only help 4/5 of the country. Once again this would require all death row inmates to be executed, and I would like to remind readers of the various moratoriums that have found a signifigant number of inmates on death row innocent. Furthermore only 782 people have been executed since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1978. My opponent says "this would work seeing as many prisoners as we have on death row", but Ive shown that:

60000+-3,700 does not equal full coverage, and that many innocent lives would be lost in order to provide such a slim number of donations.

My opponent used India as an example but all he points out is that it is legal to sell organs, and he did not prove why it was right to outlaw it in 1997.

Lastly my opponent mentions the government operating under the assumed consent principle. This was one of the points I suggested in my opening statement! The practice is not available now because of the National Transplant Act, so in effect my opponent has argued for my side of the argument

The United States is not China nor India nor Brazil, and the socio economic makeup of our culture necessitates the legalizing of organ sales.

If my opponent must continue to ask "why", I must continue to ask him "when are you going to prove why not?"

Death Penalty Stats 1

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 09:07 AM
60,000+ people.....

Now, I might offend some people when I say this, but, do we really need another 60,000+ people in the US? True, it might be your aunt, my sister, or his cousin, but a scientist once said " War, disease and death keep the population under control." If he was correct, then would it not be wrong to make organ sales leagl and keep 2/3 or more of theses people alive. My opponent might say something about a slow, painful death, which brings me to euthnasia, but that's another topic.

I do not understand how I argued his side of the argument. Isn't Agent47 supposed to be arguing Leagalising Organ Sales? I showed how other countries without Organ Sales get by. So, you actually arugued MY side.

If Organ Sales, are legal, then the old myth about the black market criminals harvesting some tourists kidneys in a hotel in Las Vegas might become a reality. Except for this time, they won't be selling to the black market, they'd be selling to YOUR GOVERNMENT!!

Even though it might sound wrong, or inhumane, death is a form of population control.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 01:53 PM
Well seeing as you can't provide a name for your mystery scientist I find it hard to believe his "population control" theory at face value.

If your last argument rest solely on the idea that we need 60,000+ people to die a horrible, painful, and slow death to avoid overpopulation then you will be glad to find out the following.

The National Vital Statistics Report published by the CDC found that 157,078 accidental deaths occured in the United States in 2001.

Thats nearly double the number my opponent has suggested, and these people did not have to endure the slow agonizing death of illness.

Imagine having Acute Renal Failure (End Stage Kidney Failure). Everyday you wait on a transplant list your kidneys continue to deteriorate, until at one point your body is incapable of filtering out your blood. Urine and other bodily fluids continue to build up in your bloodstream. Your blood pressure rises and you enter a state of near constant nausea. The pain doesn't end here. Soon blood poisoning sets in. Bacteria is coursing through your veins and attacking your vital organs.

Septicaemia begins as an infection in the walls of the blood vessels, before developing into a tissue infection such as cellulitis. Blood poisoning commonly occurs as a complication of a serious infection, such as a kidney infection. Blood poisoning is dangerous because once bacteria get into the bloodstream, it is difficult to prevent them flowing to the bodys vital organs. Meningitis is caused when the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord become infected and inflamed, which can be a consequence of blood poisoning.

Without a fresh kidney to clean up all these toxins your blood stream continues to become polluted. Everyday you wake up and vomit blood as you slowly die from your own fluids. If your lucky the bacteria will reach your heart or lungs. Once it gets to your lungs you can take heart in a quick death, but also an agonizing one. As you violently gasp for air you feel a suffocating pain as your body slowly dies from lack of oxygen. No matter how hard you try to breath nothing will enter your lungs. Slowly you black out, and in five minutes you are dead.

Now I've seen someone die from complications from cancer in this same way, and that was my mother. Now I am not making this up as it is a very touchy subject with me. To sit by someones bed side and watch them slowly loose the fight to breath, listen to them gasp for oxygen, and feel their pulse go weak is something I would wish on no one.

My opponent thinks this is acceptable for over 60-,000 people not to mention their families. Just because he claims the US is overpopulated.

Well the truth is that the United States maintains about 75 people per square mile compared to India which has 750 people per square mile. India has one hundred times the population density of the US, but my oppoenent claims that "they get by"

Furthermore my opponent has only mentioned the "black market of organ sales" but has yet to produce one concrete story or link. Im hard pressed to believe these claims as they seem to be just pulled out of thin air.

I remind the reader that these 60,000 population control deaths are outnumbered two to one by the number of accidental deaths in the United States. Why bury more loved ones?

Sorry if you find my personal story in bad taste.

Overpopulation Statistics

Acute Renal Failure

Blood Poisoning
National Vital Statistics Report

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 05:06 PM
I honestly can't remember the name of this scientist. I remember he did some research on spreading bacteria during the 1800's.

If your last argument rest solely on the idea that we need 60,000+ people to die a horrible, painful, and slow death to avoid overpopulation then you will be glad to find out the following. The National Vital Statistics Report published by the CDC found that 157,078 accidental deaths occured in the United States in 2001. Thats nearly double the number my opponent has suggested, and these people did not have to endure the slow agonizing death of illness.

Did I not say that he would say that he would state this? Euthanaisa!

I'm not even going to touch on the story, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with legalising organ sales. I would like to say, though, I have seen two friends die of complications of cancer in a similar manner.

My opponent thinks this is acceptable for over 60-,000 people not to mention their families. Just because he claims the US is overpopulated.

I DID NOT say this
1 I presented a quote from a scientist (Jesus, it was in my science book, wish I could remember the name!) who had a theory on population control. I don't care if it's morally ethical or not. I'm just presenting the facts. No emotion here, bub.

Furthermore my opponent has only mentioned the "black market of organ sales" but has yet to produce one concrete story or link. Im hard pressed to believe these claims as they seem to be just pulled out of thin air.

The "Black Market" in Human Organs

I remind the reader that these 60,000 population control deaths are outnumbered two to one by the number of accidental deaths in the United States. Why bury more loved ones?

You must detach yourself from the situation at hand. Emotion only clouds the skys, making truth impossible.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 05:19 PM
Well the music is over and I find it time to sum up my argument for why organ sales should be legal.

Quite simply it is a supply and demand equation. The government regulates various commodities which retain a high demand (ie gas), and this case is no different. The demand for organs is so high that it falls at the feet of the government to offer some form of supply control. As I have shown time and time again the current system leaves 60,000 soulds out in the cold, and puts 17 people in the ground a day. This is not the idea behind our system. Were the most influential capitalist system on the face of the earth, and yet we have repeatadly fumbled a chance to save lives through capitalist transactions.

If organ sales were legalized then the government would have a steady stream of organs that would save countless lives and families. The 157,000+ who die of accidents would have their organs harvested under the idea of implied consent, and millions more would be motivated to donate their own organs.

I must return to my opening statement in which I asked why the sale of ovaries is different from the sale of a kidney. I would like to refrain from asking "why" as my opponent has done enough of this for both of us.

Speaking of which I must finally adress my opponents claims.

My opponent has one occasion fought for my side of the argument when he campaigned for implied consent ( outlawed by the National Transplant Act), and tried to paint America as China, India, and Brazil because "they get by". Then I was able to show how China does not get by, and India is struggling with various population controls. My opponent argues that organ waiting deaths are necessary to cap the population, but this certainly hasnt helped India. In fact nothing my opponent has presented has given one good reason that I havent debunked.

My proof, statistics and rebuttals speak for themselves, unfortunately my opponents one link and cluttered arguments do not.

I ask the judges to weigh the information presented, and judge impartially.

It is true I played the emotion card and I am not proud of it.

I was simply offering a counter balance to the callous nature of my opponents argument.

Thanks go out again to Kano, Mig, and the judges.

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 01:48 PM
Now it is time for the end.

Supply and Demand?

Imagine, if you will, you're a tourist in Las Vegas. You decide that tonight, you wanna have a little fun, so you buy a stripper (male or female) for the night. You take a sip out of your wine glass, beer bottle, whatever. Next thing you know, you're in a bathtub full of ice, an incision is running down your side, and a note on the table next to you has "CALL THE POLICE NOW!" scrawled on it.

You have had your kidneys stolen.

This scenario could become a reality if organ sales are legal.

The "black market" of organ sales is very much alive. People get thrown in jail all the time for selling organs.

I believe the topic at hand states, "The sale of Human Organs should be legalised."

Notice how the topic never says anything about America. I was never talking about overpopulation of America. I was talking about the entire world!

One link. My opponent asked for a link, and I gave it to him. The link contains thirteen different stories about black market organ sales.

I tried to present my information as emotionless as possible, as emotion only clouds judgement.

I'd like to thank Kano, Agent47, and The Judges.

I hand it to you, the Judges to determine who is the victor.

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 02:28 PM
Good work guys, I'll go take the judges out of the plaster moulds and set them to work.

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 11:22 PM
The winner of this debate by a margin of 6-2 is Agent47. Well done to both of you and comiserations to mig12.

Judges comments:

Agent47 did very well and provided a lot of statistics to support his arguments. His large variety of arguments and good use of rhetorics added to his victory. Agent47 could have responded to mig12's black market kidney stealing argument with the fact that that is nothing more than an urban legends: Not that it matters much for his victory.

I'm sorry, mig12, but simplicity doesn't always work. Sometimes it helps to keep it simple and to the point, but you overdo it. The population control argument was also very strange. It sounded to me like you said that we shouldn't legalise organ sales, because it would better that the 60000 people requiring those organs were dead. If you meant something else, you should have been clearer.

One person had a formal debate; the other had a conversation. The winner was the former.

This was one very difficult decision to come to. Whilst Agent's arguments were the most structured, well written and professional posts it was somehow mig12's style that grabbed me the most.
After I mulled this over, I decided to myself "If these to guys were having a live debate, who would have won me over" and the answer was mig12.

Best of luck to Agent47 in round 2.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by Kano]

new topics

top topics


log in