The Instigator
Lee001
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
FreedomBeforeEquality
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Dose a person have the moral right to end his or her own life?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Lee001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 64728
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Lee001

Pro

Any human being has the right to decide if they want to end his or her own life if they are terminally ill.
FreedomBeforeEquality

Con

I believe in your own statement you hint at the fact that they do not have the right to decide because you put a set of conditions that must be met for them to have that right (they must be terminally ill). I think you and everyone who reads this should consider that for it to be a true 'right' that's its not for you to gift to them conditionally, for one.

For two, you're saying that its not ok for them to make this decision otherwise. You're justifying the idea that their life is not in their own hands, but rather in the hands of the state and lawmakers, until the point that their life is no longer worth anything and they are terminal. What's with the change? Why shouldn't they just always be allowed to make such a decision? Are you saying that they are of too much value to let go when they aren't terminal? How does that worth change when they catch a disease? Are you suggesting removing the suicide constraint be a judgment dealt to people with an ailment because they are no longer worth anything to the state?
Debate Round No. 1
Lee001

Pro

First of all I'm talking about the "Death with Dignity" act. I didn't clarify. There has been allot of controversy with this new drug which is to end a persons life. Many people seem to think they should have the option to die or not. I argue, if some one is terminally ill and most likely bound to die, they should have a choice, to not suffer and take there life peacefully or be made to suffer until they die.
FreedomBeforeEquality

Con

But again, you're making your "right" a conditional one. A special right reserved only for those who are in a particular set of circumstances. If you're saying that the rest of the population does not have the moral right to end their lives, then I'm not sure you can justify this right for people based solely on how they happen to feel at the end of their lives. You wouldn't find it acceptable for others so you must have some reservations against it as an act in general, the act of suicide.

Also I'd like to bring up that this thought process would totally be conditional in the person anyways. It could come naturally to them that it is the best way because of the circumstance of their life leading up to it. If it were a bad life they were living they might be more inclined to do it as an escape.

This leads to my second point. I believe they would have a moral responsibility to stay because what they could be escaping is just going to become a burden to their family and everyone around them when they go. For example, I think if someone went through chemotherapy and racked up 10's to 100's of thousands in debt to try to live only to turn around and give up and leave that debt on everyone's hands is a crime. For them to spend themselves into a hole and have an escape from the repercussions is wrong, even as they approach death.

I think we have an unreasonable empathy towards them really. We are all in the same boat as them. We will all die one day. Because they know when though, they are allowed to exploit it? I see this as just as morally wrong as any person committing suicide when their life isn't going as planned. To escape from the reaping of what you've sown is a form of cheating in my eye. From a totally moral standpoint it would be wrong of someone to not own up to their life's circumstance.

Its bad form. It's like playing up to the river, betting all your chips, and when its time to show your cards, you don't. Not owning up to the life you've built for yourself and the image you've made in the minds of the lives you've touched. I believe its harming your self image in its last hours under the guise that it doesn't matter what others think, because you wont have to be around to hear or see what damage you've done. Selfish. If your last days are spent doing your bucket list and not focused on further cultivating the relationships you've made throughout the years to the very best that you are able, it really does say something about the true you. The you that's been hiding itself this whole time. A total lie.
Debate Round No. 2
Lee001

Pro

You brought up the point, "Being a burden for the family" what if this person is terminally ill and they are suffering but yet your worried about the family? That's kind of selfish. Your staying for the family's benefit, and your suffering. I think an individual certainly has the right to make the decision as to how and when their life is no longer worth living while he/she stills has the ability to make their own decision in a rational way. Most commonly people choose to end their lives when they are no longer able to tend to their own bodies, they are not able to interact with friends and family in a logical way, or their pain cannot be controlled by medications.The "death with dignity" issue becomes murky when people start making these decision for someone else, without the opinion or voice of the person who's life will be ended. Sometime family members decide an aging family member is no longer useful and is burning through their money (inheritance). The government decides that senior citizens have less of a right to health care because their productive years are over. Believe it or not, this discussion is quite active in our government today. Socialized medicine is based on an equation of life expectancy vs. the cost to maintain the life. To me, this is when the whole thing gets really scary. The next step is eugenics where people deemed by the government to be less valuable members of society are eliminated (elderly, retarded, deformed, homosexual, low IQ, undesirable race). It happened before and it can happen again.
FreedomBeforeEquality

Con

Wowza ... I read the part about families thinking an elder was "no longer useful and burning through their inheritance" and was taken aback. Im hoping what you meant by staying for the families sake was 'selfless' not "selfish", because everything about the scenario of the family deciding sounded downright horrible.

Now, if it was a family like that ... that truly believed their elder was worth less than the money she would leave behind for them ...

I cede. You are right. There is truly an instance where the family is no longer deserving of that elders presence. He should be allowed to die with dignity and hopefully donate all of his inheritance to someone outside that family.

But, to your last point, If nothing else then that elder has a moral responsibility to ensure that discussion does not take place in our government. The best way he/she could do that is by not participating in it and not advocating that it is right for others to be able to do so. Morally speaking, that could be their higher calling and not their deadbeat family.

That instance alone just shows that even when they lose all of their faculties, the choice they make at the end has more value than you're giving the person credit for.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 2 years ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
A good point. This type of decision again says a lot about the person. That they are able to choose death shows that they must not truly believe in those promises. I shudder to think that someone could lead such a wonderful life and ruin it all right at the end like that. On top of that, if they were at all religious in life, they just denounced the existence of those promises right before they are going to meet their maker. Probably the worst time to show your true colors.

Religion aside though, people though wouldn't have otherwise had the power to see what kind of person you really were, and your legacy could have been left on a completely high note. Morally it would be wrong of you to be so selfish as to disregard that legacy.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
All of us have a God-given right to make decisions.What we can choose may not be godly though. God did say he has set before us life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore YOU CHOOSE life that you and your seed may live. Suicide is so unnecessary because of God's promises. Despair is not in any of his promises.Jesus said if you listen and do what I say, then you will have life, and that in abundance. There is nothing in life that can defeat a man walking in those promises.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Lee001FreedomBeforeEqualityTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument is essentially that an individual is worth too much for their decision to end their own life to be taken to be worth acting upon. It is thus self defeating and thus points go to Pro. S&G tied. No sources.
Vote Placed by patrick967 2 years ago
patrick967
Lee001FreedomBeforeEqualityTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Although there was some concession, I felt that con backed up their arguments better than pro, hence the arguments points. No one sourced or had better/worse grammar, so those are tied.