The Instigator
hayleyadams
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Human euthanasia should be legal because it is morally and constitutionally sound.

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: 2/7/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,163 times Debate No: 20913
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

hayleyadams

Pro

Human Euthanasia is currently only legal in three states; Oregon, Montana, and Washington. It should be legal in every state. It is a morally sound practice that should be legal in every state. When pain and suffering makes it so that life is no longer worth living, it should be a choice that has been taken into careful consideration but ultimately available to all. Regulated as any medical procedure it, the ability to choose a peaceful death with the love and care of your family around you should be available to all. It says in our constitution that the government will secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves. It is our liberty to choose whether we may end our lives on a note of horrible pain, drug induced-comatose status, or one surrounded by family and able to say goodbye to those we love. Therefore Euthanasia for the Human man or woman is legally and morally sound.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Human Euthanasia should not be legal.

Argument 1: Careful Consideration?
You say the following: "When pain and suffering makes it so that life is no longer worth living, it should be a choice that has been taken into careful consideration but ultimately available to all." Where is the line between careful consideration and uncareful consideration? Is consideration discussing with your family or getting professional help? There is no way to describe objectively whether someone has taken a decision into consideration.

Argument 2: Constitution and family
I'm actually surprised you brought the Constitution into this. I do not think the Founders were referring to euthanasia when they wrote the line about security of blessings. In fact, the line continues to say "...to ourselves and our posterity," referring, of course, to children and future generations and their rights as well. This is interesting because it presents yet another point: what if children do not want to lose their parents? What if they want to protect them because they believe there is a better way out? Again there is such a blur in morality and ethics when talking about death. The fact that we already have laws concerning murder and manslaughter should negate euthanasia to begin with; even if we did make it legal, I can guarantee there would be hundreds and hundreds of conditions and footnotes that it would be better off to make it simple and say, military and self-defense aside, no human can kill another human.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
hayleyadams

Pro

hayleyadams forfeited this round.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
hayleyadams

Pro

hayleyadams forfeited this round.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Pro has not responded to my arguments and has forfeited Round 1 and 2. I urge voters to take this into account.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.