The Instigator
Amandavick
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CodingSource
Con (against)
Winning
9 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
CodingSource
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 86541
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Amandavick

Pro

Euthanasia is dealt mostly with animals in particular. So in this argument it is based around the animal aspect.

Yes, euthanasia is morally acceptable. As the saying goes, "if you love something, you have to let it go", if your pet is suffering beyond recovery. You should end it's misery. It is the hardest decision to make (I just had to do it not 48 hours ago).

The way they do it is that they sedate the animal, the animal remains in a painless, semi-conscience state. Once they are sedated the drug is administered to stop their heart. It is 100% painless.

Most people after going through with the procedure feel guilt, which is perfectly normal. However, it is the kindest thing to do to an animal who is suffering. Please rebuttal.
CodingSource

Con

Our pets and animals are God-given, and it is said that we should be good stewards on this earth. God grants pets to give up its spirit when the right time has come. It is like the human's spirit, too. Clearly, pet euthanasia is a murder, and it is merely unethical. We do not have the privilege to end someone"s life, whether it is a human or an animal. Yes, God give us free will, but we didn't have power to play like Him and slaughter, even their pets.

Anytime we favor about taking a life of a creature, especially our pet, we belittle their lives, even their rights, and their religious right in their inherent value. They live by the Word of God to die uniformly, and not by the law"s euthanasia.

Euthanasia is illustrated to be painless and peaceful, 100%. However, a gigantic portion of euthanasia practitioners are unsuccessful at pre-anaesthetizing pets, particularly dogs. Instead of using the proper butterfly intravenous line needles death drug injections, they purportedly used a method of killing animals by inserting the syringe and big needle straight to the animal"s heart with no pain or stress alleviating pre-desensitizing because that method is said to be fast and cheap. The animal is watchful, frightened, and knows how much it feels when it is stabbed to the heart.

Or more often than not the executioner uses the unambiguous low-cost style of supposedly executing the death drug by a syringe that is allegedly stabbed straightforwardly into the animal's leg or somewhere on the body or limbs in a struggle to shot the correct vein to insert the drug into the heart. When the needle of the syringe is injected, it will be the root of extensive torment and agony to the animal, even if they inserted the drug in the proper vein. Shockingly, more than one attempt is needed to inject this death drug to kill the pet because the killer is impotent to hit the vein. To think about it, the animal does not quickly die and suffers terribly without that quick death.

According to an answer in Answers.com, it says that some dogs in various shelters used gas chambers, guns (used for huge animals), and neck ringing (rabbits). Some shelters euthanize dogs for no other good reason but only space.

My further research leads me to this site that shows that instead of euthanizing animals that are terminally ill (and the reason why this practice exists in humans), but also those animals that are considered to be too old to take responsibility and too destructive to live outside the shelter. Given by AmericanHumane.org, it says that "56 percent of dogs and 71 percent of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized." It could be higher as animal shelters are not been ordered to inform these incidents of euthanasia.

The euthanasia of an animal that is not in critical condition should be not allowed and illegal as animals that are injured can be recovered in full health or the unadoptable animals be adopted one day.

This is the question: why are the executioners didn't grant the pet owners to observe the euthanasia unless if a considerable added cost is paid?

(CanadaFreePress.com, Answers.com, Live Against Animal Euthanasia (Google Sites))
Debate Round No. 1
Amandavick

Pro

With bringing God into this, you say "We do not have the privilege to end someone's life, whether it is human or an animal." So I ask you, what about the sacrifice of animals in the Old Testament, particularly the lamb. Ending a life before one starts.

Your sources are unreliable. Answers.com is not a reliable source. Therefore your argument about how they euthanize animals is unreliable. However, some shelters do use euthanasia to rid of animals who are not adopted. That is still humane. They only do it when there is over population and after anext amount of time. They try to have the animal adopted out, but sometimes it is impossible. They employ trained veterinarians to euthanise. I volunteer at a veterinary clinic, every euthanasia that I see dogs, cats, and horses alike. None have issues with pain. All are fully sedated before the final injection is inserted.

Let me ask you this? If you are in the ICU on life support. You're only living through that machine. With an unlikely percentage rate of survival and full recovery. Would you like your relatives to "pull the plug" so you can end your suffering? That is what we do with animals. It is painless. I would like too see reliable sources from unbiased sources, that show that all euthanasia is painful.
CodingSource

Con

The Biblical sacrifices in the Old Testament are required by God to give a brief forgiveness of sins and it is there to foretell the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Are we still continuing the animal sacrifices? The animal sacrifices stopped when Christ died on the Cross, as it says, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace." Ephesians 1:7.

And it also says in the Bible why animal sacrifices happened in the Old Testament:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." Leviticus 17:11 (2)

With the ethical question about Euthanasia, I"m going to provide two ethical principles: Virtue Ethics and Religious Ethics. Before bringing here the answers of those theories, I will give the definitions of those words.

Virtue Ethics emphasizes the role of one's character and the virtues that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior. (Wikipedia)

Religious Ethics are the ethical values that have been proclaimed by every religion as God"s laws. (Ethical Society)

Focusing on the Virtue Ethics, a man that didn"t have a good character and principles, he would think that old, unadoptable and ugly animals are just jam-packing the animal shelters and they should mercy-killed. Negatively, a person with good traits will assume that "animals have every right to live a happy life the same as humans." They will live by the Golden Rule: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12)." Relating the Bible verse here, it means that you, or we, should have a good conduct towards any living creature the same as you like to be treated. This thinking could also be related to Kantianism.

If we are talking about Religious Ethics, people should not be playing God and therefore, should not take God"s role of having that power to take an animal"s life (and shall not be linked to animal sacrifices because God requires it to do so). To do or attempt as a mere man is a sin. It is stated in Job 1:21 that "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away." The religious duty of every man is to be accommodating and helpful to animals.

Answering your question, although I have that small probability to live and recover, performing euthanasia to human beings is deemed wrong. There are many Biblical passages where the definition of euthanasia clearly fails. The following Biblical verses show that euthanasia is murder:
"Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Exodus 23:7
""Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone"s animal must make restitution"life for life. 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death." Leviticus 24:17-21

"Moreover, Manasseh also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end"besides the sin that he had caused Judah to commit, so that they did evil in the eyes of the LORD." 2 Kings 21:16

..and there are many more Biblical passages that says that euthanasia is evil. So what is the option left for me? The way of the Cross; it demands us to provide ourselves to others in need by consuming our time, money, and energy in discovering sympathetic solutions for human misery. (Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 8:34; Philippians 2:4-11; Galatians 6:2, 10) [3]

There are other few alternatives that are more humanitarian and at the same cost as euthanasia. These alternatives include pet hospice and spaying and neutering.

"Veterinary Hospice is a family-centered service dedicated to maintaining comfort and quality of life for the terminally ill or geriatric pet until natural death occurs or the family elects peaceful euthanasia." This practice is obviously for terminally ill animals.(4)

Spaying and neutering are for the homeless animals. Before continuing, let us define "spaying and neutering."

"Spaying or neutering refers to a surgical procedure to render a dog or cat unable to produce litters of puppies or kittens. In addition to halting reproduction, other health benefits include the prevention of certain types of cancers and behavioral problems that include roaming, fighting and "marking" territory." (5)

How is this practice done? To be able to do this, the veterinarian pulls out the uterus and ovaries, which is called ovariohysterectomy. Essentially, the female gets her tubes tied. For the male, the testis is being removed and will take an antibiotic is taken for it to heal in three to four weeks. According to Operation Catnip, in just 7 years, a female cat can produce 420,000 more cats. This will give a lot of problems for the animal shelters. It also helps the animals because they can live a happy life in the wilderness.

"As for the young cats (kittens) and dogs (puppies), they can easily be adopted into descent homes and live carefree lives. "Spaying and neutering can also provide the animal with protection from breast cancer, male genital problems, uterine disease, and other health risks such as mastitis and ovarian cysts" (Why "6-7). Spaying and neutering also eliminates the heat cycle, reduces crying, reduces the urge to roam, reduces mounting, and stops spraying. Having all of these benefits either reduces or "removes discomfort, distress, and distraction" from the animals mind so they can live happier lives. These advantages also benefit the community, because it eliminates the problem of roaming and accidents, because the animals don't have to urge anymore to do so." (6)

(1) http://www.gotquestions.org...
(2) https://bible.org...
(3) http://www.lifenews.com...
(4) http://www.lapoflove.com...
(5) http://www.spayfirst.org...
(6) http://www.ukessays.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Amandavick

Pro

Amandavick forfeited this round.
CodingSource

Con

I will present other negative things about Animal Euthanasia:

It is very impossible for the veterinarians and the pet owners to know how much misery they are in as they are unable to speak. There is also a problem when it comes to its availability and convenience. A person who is performing it should be authorized and for this reason, it is hard to find somebody who will execute euthanasia. [1]

It is looked upon as the main alternative if the pet owner cannot pay. Animals, if the operation is not economical, will have no insurance of care. If the animal’s illness demands for medical procedure and the pet owner can’t afford it, then they look at Animal Euthanasia as an option. They overlooked other alternatives that are cheaper than this (and more humane, which I have already discussed the previous round). As a result, many animals die from curable conditions. And not to mention, it is costly when it is being done by a veterinarian. [2] On the following paragraph, I am going to list some other alternatives than the things I have mentioned in the previous round.

There are a lot of health alternatives to Euthanasia. Because an animal is not adoptable it doesn’t mean that it should be put down, especially if it is healthy and didn’t have a trauma (referred from source 2). We can’t ignore the fact that a healthy animal has the likelihood to be adopted, and that no-kill shelters are a good choice for rescuing healthy animals. [3] Animal Retirement Homes is also a valuable option. [4]

There are also some alternatives when it comes to Population Control to Euthanasia. First of all, it is not a wise answer for controlling the animal population. Second, for soon-to-be-pet-owners, consider adopting than buying from a pet store. Why? Not that it is more humane, but “most pet store puppies come from puppy mills where dogs are not bred for good health and temperament and when they are often raised in inhumane conditions.” [5] And additions to that, most dogs that are for adoption are already domesticated, the adoption shelters have already put vaccinations, micro chipping, and spaying or neutering, and that 6 to 8 million dogs are already in line to wait for somebody to adopt them. [6] Also, there are many foster programs out there, and that is also a good option other than euthanasia. [7] [8]

Certainly, the burden of proof is for the Instigator. I am looking forward for Pro's response in the next round.

(1) http://apecsec.org...

(2) http://nlcatp.org...

(3) http://www.nokillnetwork.org...

(4) http://www.vetstreet.com...

(5) http://www.americanhumane.org...

(6) http://www.peta.org...

(7) http://www.homewardtrails.org...

(8) https://prezi.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Amandavick

Pro

Amandavick forfeited this round.
CodingSource

Con

I extend all arguments. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CodingSource 9 months ago
CodingSource
6 months before the voting period ends. :3
Posted by CodingSource 9 months ago
CodingSource
I accept the challenge.
Posted by Mhykiel 10 months ago
Mhykiel
"if you love something, you have to let it go" IS saying let it freely do it's own thing. Not take it upon yourself to kill it.

Equating "let it go" with "killing it" is deceitful.
Posted by condeelmaster 10 months ago
condeelmaster
Agree with you. But what about humans? Would it be the same? just asking...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
AmandavickCodingSourceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited two turns = conduct point to Con.
Vote Placed by actionguy777 9 months ago
actionguy777
AmandavickCodingSourceTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I did agree with Pro before reading the arguments, Con has made sufficient argument to get my vote in this scenario. After Pro forfeited the last two rounds, my decision was made in favor of Con. Pro may have attacked Con's sources in the second round, but Pro never actually provided his own sources. Overall, Con made better arguments, which is why I am voting for him.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
AmandavickCodingSourceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
AmandavickCodingSourceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Pro, Conduct goes to Con!