The Instigator
KirstinKate
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
NOW
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Euthanasia

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,669 times Debate No: 6679
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

KirstinKate

Con

That Euthanaisa in a medical setting is moral.
NOW

Pro

There is no such morality to Euthanasia. Just like when people make poor choices in life, that does not mean that they have right morals. Ending your own life should never be the answer for any kind of medical issue. For this reason, that is why we have the aging process in life. Even though Euthanasia may be a gentler manner to end ones life, this manipulates and affects nature.
Debate Round No. 1
KirstinKate

Con

Basic Background on the Topic:

Euthanasia is one of the most contested topics in all ethics. Euthanasia is, as defined by Merriam Webster: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.

So basically, euthanasia is, in layman's terms, the killing of a hopelessly sick or injured person or animal in a painless(so we believe) way because we want to be merciful.

Burdens: So if I am successful in proving that euthanasia in a medical setting is not moral, then I win the debate. If I show that it is wrong in even just one instance, I win, since I have shown that euthanasia in a medical setting is not moraly. My opponent or opponents must show how euthanasia is always moral, since not doing so would be like admitting that euthanasia might not be moral, in which case I win.

To my points:
1. Euthanasia is killing, no matter how you make it sound. Killing is always bad. We might kill because we might think we have to, but that doesn't make it right. Because killing is always immoral, euthanasia is always immoral. How do we know killing is immoral? We know killing is immoral because: a. We feel it is. Our feelings and conciensce are guides to morality. If we were to ask ourself why something is wrong, most of us would say, 'Because it feels wrong.' This of course, is assuming you don't know any moral theories to explain it. b. We are given no right to do so. If you cannot justify killing in any sense. c. Justifying killing would lead us on a path to destruction because we would be able to justify all sorts of other atrocities, due to the fact that we might think we are helping the victim.This argument is an argument that applies to all parts of this debate. However, later in this speech, I will be branching the debate into more specific areas.

a. With consent. Euthanasia is still not moral, because we are killing. Look above for justification.
b. Without consent. Euthanasia is especially not moral, because nothing has given the killer permission to do the act. Just because he/she believes he is acting out of mercy, the victim might desire.
The problem with saying euthanasia is not killing is because that opens the door to a whole host of problems. If euthanasia is not killing, then what is it? The peaceful taking of ones life, sometimes without the victim's consent?
The legalization of euthanasia undermines the impetus to develop truly compassionate approaches to the care of the suffering and the dying The proper expression of compassion is care motivated by a more or less strong sense of sympathy with the affliction of the person suffering. But one cannot care for people by killing them. It is very important to bear in mind that a key element in the context of contemporary debates about legalizing euthanasia is the drive to reduce health care costs. One of the conspicuous dangers of legalization is that, before long, euthanasia would be seen as a convenient 'solution' to the heavy demands on care made by certain types of patient. Medicine would thereby be robbed of the incentive to find genuinely compassionate solutions to the difficulties presented by such patients. The kind of humane impulses which have sustained the development of hospice medicine and care would be undermined because too many would think euthanasia a cheaper and less personally demanding solution says Luke Gormally in 1997.
Let the following quotation from the House of Lords' Select Committee Report stand as the epitome of the collective wisdom of these Committees:
'[S]ociety's prohibition of intentional killing ...is the cornerstone of law and social relationships. It protects each of us impartially, embodying the belief that all are equal. We do not wish that protection to be diminished and we therefore recommend that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia ...The death of a person affects the lives of others, often in ways and to an extent which cannot be foreseen. We believe that the issue of euthanasia is one in which the interest of the individual cannot be separated from the interest of society as a whole.'
It is the hope of the present writer that the members of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee will, after due consideration, associate themselves with the moral and political wisdom exhibited in this statement.

In Conclusion: The fact that euthanasia is killing, and killing immoral, so euthanasia is immoral..The exiting of life from one body, aided by the medicine of another is indeed immoral thats why it's immoral.
NOW

Pro

NOW forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
NOW

Pro

NOW forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by boycemsc2014 3 years ago
boycemsc2014
I believe that Euthanasia is morally correct in one circumstance. If an animal or human is terminally ill and is in extreme pain and suffering than I believe that Euthanasia should be put into practice. If someone does not want to be killed even though they have a terminal illness, then people should allow them to live. People have free will and are allowed to choose and make whatever decisions they are satisfied with.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
Kristin: You should be PRO in this debate, as you support the resolution. It's not really a big deal, just something to know for know for next time.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
KirstinKateNOWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KirstinKate 7 years ago
KirstinKate
KirstinKateNOWTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by daboss 7 years ago
daboss
KirstinKateNOWTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 7 years ago
theitalianstallion
KirstinKateNOWTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
KirstinKateNOWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50