Euthanasia is Unreasonable
Debate Rounds (3)
Euthanasia is a way in which people can prematurely end their life in order to avoid or end suffering.
This is not a wise decision for many reasons,
First there are several objective goods to suffering that I would like to present
1: Enlightenment~ one realizes how precious life is
2: Detachment~detaches us from the things in this life that are not necessary
3: Reparation~to fix our lives (suffering that one might endure as a penance or such)
4:Character building~how one responds to suffering can help build character
7:Drawing out love in others who help the person suffering
Thus, one should not end his life in order to avoid or end suffering.
Second, we did not begin our life and so we have no right to take it away. There is a difference between rights and freedoms. A right is something that we are entitled to, while a freedom is something that we are capable of doing. We are able to kill ourselves, but that does not mean that we should.
Third, euthanasia has cause many negative psychological effects on those who allowed one to be euthanized.
I hope this answers any doubts you may have, I am happy to answer any questions.
VogonPoet forfeited this round.
LuciaR forfeited this round.
Since the point being debated is in absolutes, if I can find any scenario where using euthanasia is a better option than not, my point is proven. For this purpose I will use the scenario of being terminally ill and having terrible quality of life.
When dealing with euthanasia, I see two choices. We can force people to endure terrible conditions before dying, or we can give them free will to do as they wish. We can waste medical supplies on people with no hope who don't want to be alive anyway, or we can redirect those supplies to someone who needs them more.
That is the crux of my argument, I will now address my opponent's.
The first 6 arguments, all of which relate to character building, have no bearing on terminally ill patients who have only weeks or months to live.
Drawing out love in others who help the person suffering could be an outcome, but more commonly the result is different. Terminal illness can tear families apart. Objectively, a terminally ill patient costs their family money, time and emotional pain.
The second argument is a non-sequitur.
Psychological effects will happen regardless. Seeing a loved one waste away in pain before dying can also cause negative psychological effects, arguably worse than if they had let them die peacefully.
I am looking forward to my opponent's response.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mdc32 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con, as Pro has used these same three arguments word for word in multiple debates. Arguments to Con as Pro did not have a chance to rebut while Con did. Sources are tied as is S&G.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.