The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points


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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 523 times Debate No: 40832
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I am against Euthanasia. I'll let the opposition start the argument with his/her points about the debate.


I would take the pro side, In my case I would rather end the patient's life, enough for his/her suffering.
Debate Round No. 1


First I will define Euthanasia.

It is a practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain.

According to the Bible, God created all living beings and thus, He is the only one capable of taking it back.
Since we ARE not God, we are not allowed to take one's life.


A life is A life though we all know that the machines was the only one making his/her life stable, no other cure to his/her illness then there is no use for the machines to continue it's work making the cycle start again, by removing the machines it would also ease a person's heart the same as saving all of the expenses.
Debate Round No. 2


You completely forgot that there are types of Euthanasia.

Voluntary Euthanasia means one asked the patient's consent about it.
You claimed that "by removing the machines it would also ease a person's heart the same as saving all of the expenses".

You cannot simply do that without asking the patient about it first.
What if the patient chose to live and still wishes to fight, you cannot do Euthanasia.
Even though the patient suffers from the illness or for whatever reason for being in the hospital, you need his/her
consent first.

You did not have specific examples to prove your claim.


First of all yes we do need the patient's consent and his or her family's though it is Euthanasia where you would oppose or aprove of this type of process which the doctor's would gladly recommend since it is just a repetitive cycle, when they decided not to remove the machines there is no difference either way, it's just the same since you would just see the person breathing but nor opening nor even start a conversation to anybody just proves that the person is same as dead since a proper living human is capable of breathing, start a conversation, and most of all can stand on his/her two feet.
Debate Round No. 3


Again, invalid argument.

"same as dead since a proper living human is capable of breathing, start a conversation, and most of all can stand with his two feet."

True, but also false. You need the consent of the patient regarding Euthanasia. Since in that statement you said that you cannot have a conversation with the patient due to the fact that he/she is the same as dead, does mean you cannot ask his/her consent. If you do Euthanasia without the consent of the patient that is considered an involuntary Euthanasia which is the same as MURDER.

And commiting murder is a sin.


Yes it is but most of these types of illnesses can occur unexpectedly. Then the descision would pass through the relative of the patient, it is not considered as MURDER since such events can come as they go. Time pass by quickly then you'll wait and wait till the patient wakes up though the reality is he's far from us, we wait and wait but then the outcome will stay the same, what is the other option then?

It would never be a sin since the one who's taking him is God. Life is a big word.
Debate Round No. 4


Ok, the last round, so I would like to thank my opponent for the time she gave in this debate.

"the decision would pass through the relative of the patient"
What made you say this? Have you encountered Euthanasia already? Have you been in a hospital with a relative
Of yours that is on the verge of dying and you cannot ask for his consent anymore?

You don't have enough examples or anything that supports your argument.

"time pass quickly.... What is the other option then?"
True, but if you cannot ask for the patient's consent, it is still involuntary Euthanasia and is still considered MURDER.

"it would never be a sin..... Big word"
It is a sin because the patient have not decided upon the matter yet.

Also, Many doctors would disapprove this since it is the contrary to the vocation of medicine to hasten or cause death.
In all cases, medical or non-medical, taking human life should be a last resort, and until our society has given appropriate attention to pain control, hospice care, and advance directive, doctors will not have met the criteria of last resort with respect to legalized euthanasia.

That is all, after all there is no right or wrong answers in a debate. It just depends on how one answers the question and backs it up with examples and sources. I thank again my opponent for this debate.


Life, one time you would be carried dear to your mother's heart and soon enough you would be grieving for her death, as time pass by they would be grieving for yours next. Then the next. A Complete Cycle. I am not in the right place to decide things for I have not yet encountered such events, though at the end of someone's death we have no choice but to accept. Acceptance. You cannot mourn forever, you have to continue and live your life. Then after successfully completing your job down here then there will be a life after this. A New Begining."

By ending this argument, Yes, I have no resources nor facts or any specific details to prove my judgement, but it really depends on the person and the family to decide such fate, if they would turn the machines off it means they have not yet Accepted the death pf their love ones then eventually they would undergo this process. At the End it will still be the same, Death will still come.

Just Live Your Life.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.