The Instigator
SocialDemocrat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FieryNyan
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

In the United States, voluntary euthanasia should be legal for anyone who wants it.

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 2 votes the winner is...
FieryNyan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 781 times Debate No: 88711
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

SocialDemocrat

Pro

By voluntray euthanasia, what I mean is a written concession from both the person being euthanized as well as the doctor who would be doing it. When I say anyone, I mean anyone. Keep in mind some one has to pay for it.
FieryNyan

Con

In my opinion, I believe that voluntary euthanasia shouldn't be legal to those who want it. True, many may argue that "Oh no, the pain is unbearable... Please, just pull the plug." seems like a good move, as you are ending someone's misery and sending them to "a better place", but I believe such a standpoint is on weak grounds. I will now present my points to support my claims.

First off, euthanasia is the act of, as defined by Merriam-Webster, "...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." On the surface, legalizing this act would seem perfect, no? It's our right to choose the way we live; it should also be our right to choose the way we die! Wrong. Legalizing this act would not just simply "legalize" it; it will promote it.

Let me show some previous examples regarding the pattern that legalizing something ends up promoting it. Look back into history: The alcohol bans, the cigarette bans, and in our current era, the marijuana bans. Before those bans were lifted up, many people were against it. However, the moment they're legalized, Bam! Instantly, the amount of people addicted to those substances increased tremendously. Coincidence? It isn't. I'll explain now why this plays a huge part.

Supposed you're in your 80s, lying on the hospital bed. Every day, your son would come over, bringing your grandchildren to visit their favorite grandparent. Seems perfect, right? But deep down inside, you're guilty. You think you're a vegetable. You think you're just being a burden; slowly sucking away your son's finances. You think it's selfish for you to cause your son to suffer, just so that you can spend an extra day with your children. (Let's imagine that Euthanasia is indeed legalized in this parallel world). You decide that euthanasia would be the best choice. You take it. Little did you know, your life has brought way more happiness than anything. In fact, your contributions are so huge, the amount of cash your son has to pay each month is nothing compared to the happiness you bring to your family. Do you think your son will feel great that you chose death, because you're worried about his financial status? Put yourself in the son's shoe for a second. Your mom, who gave up everything just for you, chose to die to save you money. After all her sacrifices, and finally, you thought you could repay it? Nope, she chose to save you a couple buck.

I would like to conclude by clarifying the poin I made: if euthanasia is ever legalized, old people will be pressured to choose that path, thinking that they will help their family, but in reality, no. Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
SocialDemocrat

Pro

"euthanasia is the act of, as defined by Merriam-Webster, "...killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick of injured individuals (as persons pr domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." No, no, no, I already gave the definition in my opening statement as to what we are debating upon.

I said, "...a written concession from both the person being euthanized as well as the doctor who would be doing it. When I say anyone, I mean anyone." We are debating upon that definition, that I gave in the first round.

"legalizing this act would not just simply "legalize it; it will promote it."

A. What is the danger in this, I mean the number of people who will decide, they are just going to euthanize themselves because it happens to be legal will probably amount to... 0. When some one takes something like alcohol, it is often on impulse, which under my definition would not make sense, or pressure, which is very different for death in this scenario, and people understand that one drink does not kill them, people who get addicted, do not go in with that intention.

"However, the moment they're legalized, Bam! Instantly, the amount of people addicted to those substances increased tremendously."

A. Getting addicted to euthanasia... doesn't really make sense.

"You think it's selfish for you to cause your son to suffer, just so that you can spend an extra day with your children."

A. Understandable, yes. Selfish... yes, to me at least. You could make a good case for that.

"You decide that euthanasia would be the best choice. You take it. Little did you know, your life has brought way more happiness than anything. In fact, your contributions are so huge, the amount of cash your son has to pay each month in nothing compared to the happiness you bring to your family."

A. I didn't know it was the case that people in a close knit family get so much joy from watching each other die painful and inevitably soon deaths.

B.You don't take euthanasia, you are euthanized by a willing doctor, it isn't an over the counter med or something.

C. If this family is so close, I would think they would have enjoyed their life, and it would not have taken them until their death to realize they had a good run.

"Do you think your son will feel great that you chose death, because you're worried about his financial status?"

A. In this example, I think the mother is somewhat justified in deciding not to take all the money her son has away just so she could delay a painful death.

B. I don't think he will feel that great getting the call soon that his mother had died, but that's just me.

C. So we could determine just how much this costs, can you specify what kind of treatment she is getting, if she has medical benefits, if so are they good, where this is taking place, and their son's net worth.

D.Put yourself as the mother, if this example is happening, think about how great you would feel knowing that soon, you will die, and everyday you can't move, you are stuck in a bed, it sucks, it hurts, the hopeless procedures aren't that fun, and you just want to go after a good run. If this happens, I think there would be some other factors influencing the decision.

"After all her sacrifices, and finally, you thought you could repay her?"

A. Overall through your example, if this mother is on her death bed, and her son shoves the grandchildren she is leaving in her face everyday, then I think if this example ran 100 times most of the time the pressure would actually be to push her to live as long as possible, not die.

B. He really is repaying her well by... what? How exactly is he trying to repay her, think about how him throwing away all his finances just so his mother could go through pain everyday? I mean I really don't know.

"... if euthanasia is ever legalized, old people will be pressured to choose the path, thinking they will help their family, but in reality, no."

A. This is a pretty lofty clam, do you have any evidence? It isn't really a common sense claim, definitely not.

B. I feel like in the end that would actually help their family. Financially, and maybe emotionally. Watching your mother or father or whoever die a painful suffering death can't be fun.

C. Even if this was true, I guess no one has decent health benefits anymore? Most people will.

D. The point remains this is very convoluted, and you don't really have any evidence to support it.

To make points, I think it is only rational that by law we allow some one who is suffering from a depression they can't get over or a disease they have no chance of getting over, and there is a doctor willing to euthanize them, it is not the government's place to dictate whether or not they can die what is to them a way to get a dignified and peaceful death.

The Hemlock Society U.S.A is a right do die organization, and constantly they say that everyday they get calls daily from people who want to end their lives but don't want to put a bullet in their head. People do want this, and what is the reasib for not allowing it. http://euthanasia.procon.org...

To me, this is a somewhat simple decision. If there are people who are suffering from a depression they can not overcome, or an illness that is hopeless and painful, but they don't want to put a bullet in their head, why should the government stop them from allowing for them to die from what is to them a peaceful and dignified death.
FieryNyan

Con

"No, no, no, I already gave the definition in my opening statement as to what we are debating upon."

1. Well, I didn't expect it to be opened to anyone and everyone, but if so, let's go on. I'd like to apologize for that. My bad :P

"What is the danger in this, I mean the number of people who will decide, they are just going to euthanize themselves because it happens to be legal will probably amount to... 0."

1. Ok, I'll now explain how legalizing it will kinda promote it. I will now explain what legalization does. 1. It removes all criminal penalties which prevents people to do the act, in this case, euthanasia. 2. It enables people to advertise their service in aiding a person who wants euthanasia. In fact, with this definition, it's technically allowing someone to commit suicide legally. If you read my example, I explained how legalization increased the acts (By showing examples of legalization of alcohol, and marijuana.)

You see, since euthanasia isn't being offered now, people are actually holding on. Imagine it this way. I'll use myself and a friend of mine as an example. In my case, I come from a decent household, and my friend, who we shall call "John", comes from a rich household. I'm forced to study hard, as my family wouldn't be able to support my further studies. Therefore, I put in tons of effort in my studies. However, in John's case, he doesn't have to push on. His family has the cash to support him in his studies. What's the use of putting lots of effort? He has the easy way out anyways.

You see, if the easy way out is offered, what's the use of holding on? Many people would give up. "Why was I born this way", or "Why God why" victims have the easy way out. No longer have they to go on.

"When some one takes something like alcohol, it is often on impulse, which under my definition would not make sense, or pressure"

1. With this definition, wouldn't someone choose euthanasia on impulse too? Like, after a breakup, a horrible day, etc. Note that the argument you stated was allowing this choice to be open to anyone, as long as they give their consent, and the doctor gives his. So, literally anyone should be allowed to choose euthanasia, right?
This isn't a good thing at all. Would that mean kids are allowed to go for euthanasia? What about the mentally disabled? Giving this right to everyone is something despicable. Children make the worst mistake. They feel emotional; many would easily give up. I believe even if we were to legalize the use of euthanasia, we shouldn't let it be available to just everyone.

If you're thinking doctors will be the check and balance to this dilemma, you're wrong. I have two arguments for this, and here goes:

a. If you think doctors will all have an ironguard moral shield, you're wrong. It's easy to imagine that if euthanasia is legalized for anyone, there'll be centers JUST for euthanasia. Doctors will specialize in this field, as there are many doctors out there that long for money, and are willing to take a life away, ANY life away. After all, it was their choice right?

b. Hippocratic Oath.

"However, the moment they're legalized, Bam! Instantly, the amount of people addicted to those substances increased tremendously.
A. Getting addicted to euthanasia... doesn't really make sense."

1. Well, the thing is you took my words out if context. Any average joe that reads this would assume I said people would get addicted euthanasia, making me seem like a retard. But it's taken out of context. If combined with my previous statement, I'm trying to show how legalization would increase usage.

"A. Understandable, yes. Selfish... yes, to me at least. You could make a good case for that."

Thanks :)

"I didn't know it was the case that people in a close knit family get so much joy from watching each other die painful and inevitably soon deaths."

1. Well, I don't know about you, but to me, if I know my grandmother's dying, I would visit her everyday. I would be happy and cherish every last moment I have with her, instead of crying every single time I visit her. She's already sad enough; the least I could do is to make her last days happy, right?

"You don't take euthanasia, you are euthanized by a willing doctor, it isn't an over the counter med or something."

1. I didn't say anything about it being a fast food chain lol. I said "choice", and then "take it". Hence, meaning I took the choice, and opted for euthanasia.

"
If this family is so close, I would think they would have enjoyed their life, and it would not have taken them until their death to realize they had a good run."

1. I never said they didn't enjoyed their life. If your loved ones are dying, you'd naturally spend even more time and effort on them, even when you've had an amazing life with them.

"In this example, I think the mother is somewhat justified in deciding not to take all the money her son has away just so she could delay a painful death."

1. Yea, it's a justified action, but I'm trying to show the cons of it, as explained further on.

"So we could determine just how much this costs, can you specify what kind of treatment she is getting, if she has medical benefits, if so are they good, where this is taking place, and their son's net worth."

1. Well, life support? Lol, it's just an example. I didn't create a background check for this. The fact is, I'm trying to show that people's life matter more than money. I'd give the world to have my mom enjoy another day in this world.

"Overall through your example, if this mother is on her death bed, and her son shoves the grandchildren she is leaving in her face everyday, then I think if this example ran 100 times most of the time the pressure would actually be to push her to live as long as possible, not die."

1. The thing pressuring her is the love of a mother. She feels that she's taking her son's time and money away. True, you're feeling goddamn happy, but please remember that you're being happy at the expense of your son. wouldn't you feel guilty and selfish?

"He really is repaying her well by... what? How exactly is he trying to repay her, think about how him throwing away all his finances just so his mother could go through pain everyday? I mean I really don't know."

1. He's repaying her by taking care of her, the way she took care of him. By letting her spend her last days happily, with her family.

"This is a pretty lofty clam, do you have any evidence? It isn't really a common sense claim, definitely not."

1. Well, naturally, if you're old, and you can barely move, you'd easily assume you're being a burden, right? Wait, no. You KNOW you are a burden, eat, sleep, repeat. Leeching off your family's income. Most old people do not know how much their presence have helped, at all. I would know. My grandfather always thought he was a burden, but in fact, no. I felt happy to take care of him. Every day, our usual chat would bring warmth into my heart.

"I feel like in the end that would actually help their family. Financially, and maybe emotionally. Watching your mother or father or whoever die a painful suffering death can't be fun."

1. When I referred to older people, I never said they're suffering. Imagine this. You've taken the most important and active role ever. Raising your child, working, etc. And now, you're literally doing nothing except leeching off your children. You may not know how it feels, unless you really give it some thought.

"I think it is only rational that by law we allow some one who is suffering from a depression they can't get over or a disease they have no chance of getting over, and there is a doctor willing to euthanize them, it is not the government's place to dictate whether or not they can die what is to them a way to get a dignified and peaceful death."

Well, you said ANYONE, not limiting it to terminal patients. It may be tough to argue regarding terminal patients, but allowing anyone? Oh, come on. A kid fails his test and is afraid to come home? Opt for euthanasia. Maybe if euthanasia is available to anyone, "running away from home" will be changed to "Running back to our heavenly home" or such.

Since the argument is whether we should let anyone have the right to do so, my points would differ from my previous' (I thought it was limited to those suffering from pain only, lol).

If you truly believe it should be up to kids to choose their life and death, then what's the use of parent's consent? Mentally disabled children will be allowed to do it because they are "special", and they hate the way they're born. Unless the earth gets super populated to the point it cause mass hysteria, such an act should be frowned upon.

"If there are people who are suffering from a depression they can not overcome, or an illness that is hopeless and painful, but they don't want to put a bullet in their head, why should the government stop them from allowing for them to die from what is to them a peaceful and dignified death."

1. "Can not overcome" We can try our best to prevent such act. Imagine a world where there's always an easy way out. Oh, I have AIDS? It's ok, I can go for euthanasia. Oh, I can't find a job. I'd rather die than live! Ew, working in Walmart suck. I don't want my friend to see me this way. We should not simply allow the right to death to anyone. We need an authority to control this power, if such powers are ever given.

2. Dignified death? Are you sure it's dignified? You committed suicide! Last I checked, the definition of dignified is, "having or showing a composed or serious manner that is worthy of respect" and last I check, respect means having admiration for. You want people to respect suicide?
Debate Round No. 2
SocialDemocrat

Pro

"It removes all criminal penalties which prevent people to do the act, in this case, euthanasia."

A. Seems correct so far to me.

"It enables people to advertise their service in aiding the person who wants euthanasia."

A. Yeah, seems logical.

"In fact, with this definition, it's technically allowing someone to commit suicide legally."

A. Okay seems reasonable but I don't so far understand how this contributes to your case.

"If you read my example, I explained how legalization increased the acts (By showing examples of legalization of alcohol, and marijuana."

A. Keep in mind legalization of both these things actually decreased illegal possession of them.

"You see, since euthanasia isn't being offered now, people are actually holding on."

A. This is a kind of lofty claim, do you have evidence that people who want to die refrained from it just because euthanasia was illegal?

"I'm forced to study hard, as my family wouldn't be able to support my further studies. Therefore, I put tons of effort in my studies. However, in John's case he doesn't have to put on. His family has the cash to support him in his studies. What's the use of putting lots of effort. He has the easy way out anyways."

A. Understanding symbolism is actually something I am pretty good at, however I can not see the symbolism in this and how it helps your case. This is kind of convoluted. Since one character is really rich and one seems to put hard work and seems to be content enough.

"You see, if the easy way out is offered, what's the use of holding on?"

A. Why force people to hold onto a life they find depressing? In any case, there is still an easy way out, it is suicide, with a knife, or a gun, or a drug overdose. The U.S has pretty high suicide rates, I just don't understand how people are being forced to hold on. But to many people, as I stated in the last round, euthanasia is just a more pleasant option of death for them, so why not allow it? There is nothing forcing people to hold on as it is.

"Many people would give up."

A. As many people already do as it is.

"No longer have they go on."

A. They still don't have to go on as it is.

"With this definition, wouldn't someone choose euthanasia on impulse too?

A. No, because under my definition, there has to be written consent, and some one has to pay for it, so no.

"...open to anyone, as long as they give their consent, and the doctor gives his."

A. Specifically written consent, as with most medical issues. And it must be payed for.

"So, literally anyone should be allowed to choose euthanasia, right?"

A. Assuming they could pay for it.

"Would that mean kids are allowed to go for euthanasia?"

A. I am curious, how exactly this child would pay for this?

"What about the mentally disabled?"

A. Actually people that are considered legally incompetent, are not allowed to sign consent on medical treatment, and since euthanasia would be done by consenting doctors, it would fall under this category. http://patient.info...

"If you think doctors will all have an ironguard moral shield, you're wrong. It's easy to imagine that if euthanasia is legalized for anyone, there'll be centers JUST for euthanasia. Doctors will specialize in this field, as there are many doctors out there that long for money, and are willing to take a life away, ANY life away. After all, it was their choice right?"

A. Okay... but if the said person wanting to get euthanized does not consent, then the practice is illegal. So how does this really go against euthanasia. The reason I included this in the definition is because I think it isn't rational to force doctors into doing this is they don't want to.

"Hippocratic oath."

A. However, is euthanasia was legal, this would not be a misconduct of doctors.

B. You need, under my example a written consent from both the doctor and the person.

C. I am not completely sure what you mean, could you elaborate on this?

"I'm trying to show how legalization would increase usage."

A. Oh, okay, we already went over this.

"Thanks :)"

A. For what? I was explaining why the way you phrased your example in that instance was completely subjective to you. You were implying that is a mother taking all her son's money from her for hopeless treatment so see could see her grandchildren was not selfish, but I said while it was understandable you could make a good case it is also selfish.

"I would be happy an cherish every last moment I have with her, instead of crying every single time I visit her. She's already sad enough; the least I could do is to make her last days happy, right?"

A. How the hell does this mean euthanasia should be illegal.

" I didn't say anything about it being a fast food chain lol. I said choice, and then, take it. Hence, meaning I took the choice, and opted for euthanasia."

A. Yes but the implication was that euthanasia under my definition is extremely easy to access, which was false, since ti requires written consent and payment.

"I never said they didn't enjoyed their life. If your loved ones are dying, you'd naturally spend even more time and effort on them."

A. Well you said the mother in your made up scenario only realized the happiness her life brought her at death. You said: "Little did you know, your life has brought you way more happiness than anything."

"I'm trying to show that people's life matter more than money."

A. Okay, but as stated, the mother is dying soon anyway, if she wants to die now, why shouldn't she be able to.

"She feels that she's taking her son's time and money away... but please remember that you're being happy at the expense of your son. Wouldn't you feel guilty and selfish?"

A. Because she is.

B. If I am dead, how would I feel guilty and selfish?

"He's repaying her by taking care of her, the way she took care of him."

A. Since you refused to specify the type of treatment, I could only assume that she if going through quite a lot of pain.

B. It seems like he has already repaid her quite a bit then.

"I never said they're suffering."

A. That is why your example makes no sense, you refused to specify the type of treatment.

"A kid fails his test and is afraid to come home? Opt for euthanasia."

A. Well, I think he is probably legally incompetent, meaning he would not be able to.

B. How would he pay for it?

"Mentally disabled children will be allowed to do it because they are special."

A. How would they pay for it and legally incompetent people can not sign off on medical issues.

"can not overcome We can try our best to prevent such an act."

A. But if they don't want to why should the government force them?

"Imagine a world where there's always an easy way out. Oh, I have AIDS? It's ok, I can go for euthanasia."

A. This assumes it is impossible to kill yourself without euthanasia, people already can, but sometimes people just want to die a peaceful and dignified death which to them is euthanasia. If they hate their life so much, their is already an option for them to kill themselves on their own.

"Ew, working in Walmart suck. I don't want my friend to see me this way."

A. If it sucks so much you probably won't be able to pay for euthanasia anyways. If this person wants to do this, I assume they are legally incompetent most likely, in which case they would not be able to sign off on medical issues.

"We need an authority to control this power, if such powers are given."

A.Yes, that is paperwork, which in me definition we already have. As well as laws that are already in place which euthanasia would not override obviously, such as legally incompetent people not being able to sign off on medical issues.

'Dignified death? Are you sure it's dignified? You committed suicide!"

A. Maybe not to me, but to many people it is. As I stated last round, we have evidence for it. Many organizations vying for legalization get many calls from people saying they would want to die peacefully or dignified (assisted suicide) rather than commit suicide.

"Last I checked, the definition of dignified is, having or showing a composed or serious manner that is worthy of respect, and last I check, respect means having admiration for. You want people to respect suicide?"

A. Con confuses subjectivity with objectivity. While euthanasia may not seem dignified to them, it does not mean it is not. To many people, as i stated, it is a dignified way to die, whether it is or not is a completely subjective thing.

B. I don't want people to respect suicide. I want people to understand that wanting to die in what YOU CONSIDER is a peaceful and dignified death (it is completely subjective to oneself) is a personal choice and should not be a choice of the government.
FieryNyan

Con

"In fact, with this definition, it's technically allowing someone to commit suicide legally.
A. Okay seems reasonable but I don't so far understand how this contributes to your case."

Therefore, you're agreeing that this is suicide! I believe this is wrong, as this is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissible to take human life under some circumstances such as self defense - but they miss the point that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life - either their own or someone else's. With euthanasia no one's life is being saved - life is only taken.

"A. Keep in mind legalization of both these things actually decreased illegal possession of them."

But it increases usage

"A. This is a kind of lofty claim, do you have evidence that people who want to die refrained from it just because euthanasia was illegal?"

Yes, many people would like to opt for it, but it isn't available. Therefore, it encourages people to deal with it and fight on.

"A. Understanding symbolism is actually something I am pretty good at, however I can not see the symbolism in this and how it helps your case. This is kind of convoluted. Since one character is really rich and one seems to put hard work and seems to be content enough."

I'll explain the symbolism. The rich kid, in this case, is someone who lives in a world where euthanasia is offered. Since it's an easy way out, the rich kid would opt for it.
As for the poor boy, he lives in a world where he can't simply walk in and ask to be euthanized. He has to deal with his problem, in this case, by studying.

"A. Why force people to hold onto a life they find depressing? In any case, there is still an easy way out, it is suicide, with a knife, or a gun, or a drug overdose. The U.S has pretty high suicide rates, I just don't understand how people are being forced to hold on. But to many people, as I stated in the last round, euthanasia is just a more pleasant option of death for them, so why not allow it? There is nothing forcing people to hold on as it is."

It teaches people to solve their problem, instead of giving up. Would you like a society where people rather give up than facing their problems?

"A. As many people already do as it is."

Many people have given up, and chose suicide. However, many people are afraid of pulling the trigger, and choose to face their problem, and ended up solving it.

"A. . No, because under my definition, there has to be written consent, and some one has to pay for it, so no."

First off, I can sign a consent on impulse, too. Paying for it wouldn't be a problem either, if I'm gonna choose death anyways.

"A. I am curious, how exactly this child would pay for this?"

Since you're referring from kids, this would be no difference from children running away from home. They'd use their parents' money.

In fact, talking about money, if euthanasia would be legalized, there will be competitors. People will fight and fight to offer cheaper solutions to opt out.

I said thanks, because you praised me.

"A. How the hell does this mean euthanasia should be illegal."

Because people can make impulsive and bad decisions. Euthanasia is one decision you can't overturn.

"A. Well you said the mother in your made up scenario only realized the happiness her life brought her at death. You said: "Little did you know, your life has brought you way more happiness than anything."

I'm saying that the grandmother opted for euthanasia, because she deemed herself a burden, but little did she know, her life has brought much happiness to her family, happiness that meant way more than money.

"A. Well, I think he is probably legally incompetent, meaning he would not be able to."

Aha, you said legally incompetent. Then wouldn't that be against your argument, since you stated ANYONE should be able to opt for it. And I already explained that he'd be able to use his parent's cash.

""Mentally disabled children will be allowed to do it because they are special."
A. How would they pay for it and legally incompetent people can not sign off on medical issues."

Explained above.

""Ew, working in Walmart suck. I don't want my friend to see me this way."
A. If it sucks so much you probably won't be able to pay for euthanasia anyways. If this person wants to do this, I assume they are legally incompetent most likely, in which case they would not be able to sign off on medical issues."

Ah, then if life really sucked, and they're sure that they want to opt for euthanasia, why not just rob someone and commit euthanasia? They wouldn't face any charges. In fact, you might as well go crazy for a night before visiting the clinic to get your shot.

"A. Maybe not to me, but to many people it is. As I stated last round, we have evidence for it. Many organizations vying for legalization get many calls from people saying they would want to die peacefully or dignified (assisted suicide) rather than commit suicide."

Sure, some, or many, might like it, but majority of the people would still view it as undignified.

They may think it is dignified, but through the definition, it doesn't fit in. Pro might be using the wrong set of words.
Debate Round No. 3
SocialDemocrat

Pro

"Therefore, you're agreeing that this is suicide! I believe this is wrong."

A. Just because you believe this is wrong, means nothing when it comes to law, your subjective opinion on the matter, does not counter the opinions of thousands who would want to be euthanized.

"...this is a rejection of the importance and value of a human life."

A. No, it is a person saying, sh1t I guess I had a good run and I'm ready to go, but I don't want to put a bullet in my head. To so many people, they don't want to shoot themselves or whatever, but to them euthanasia is a peaceful and dignified way to die.

"... but they miss the point that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life- either their own or someone else's. With euthanasia no one's life is being saved."

A. However, this just does not explain why the government should get into the lives of people who do not want to live. With euthanasia, it is a personal choice.

"But it increased usage"

A. Why is this so bad?"

B. Logically, it would also decrease suicide numbers, as more people would do this, which they find a more acceptable way to die.

"Yes, many people would like to opt for it, but it isn't available. Therefore, it encourages people to death with it and fight on."

A. No it forces people who want to die to shoot themselves or OD or something that they simply do not want to do. Give me a single example of some one who wanted to be euthanized but kept on living just because they couldn't.

"The rich kid... since it's an easy way out, the rich kid would opt for it."

A. Why does he want to die in the first place? In any case so what, this does not mean euthanasia is a bad thing.

"As for the poor boy... he has to deal with the problem, in this case, studying."

A. No he does not, since he could kill himself. You are under a false assumption that the only way to commit suicide is through euthanasia, but this is obviously false.

"It teaches people to solve their problem, instead of giving up. Would you like a society where people rather give up than facing their problems?"

A. Again, a false assumption not having assisted suicide gets rid of suicide. This is completely false, without euthanasia people commit suicide through other methods not preferable to them.

"However, many people are afraid of pulling the trigger, and choose to face their problem, and ended up solving it."

A. Evidence?

B. So then many people overdose on drugs, or many other things. Yeah, so this is kind of void, as in the U.S each year, average 42,773 Americans die by suicide. http://afsp.org...

"First off, I can sign a consent on impulse, too. Paying for it wouldn't be a problem either, if I'm gonna choose death anyways."

A. The point I was making there overall, is that kids or the mentally disabled would not be able to be euthanized, as with regular medical treatment.

B. Also, tell me a medical treatment where you walk in and then they take you right into the room to get it done without authorizing insurance, verifying information, all of that. It doesn't exist.

"Since you're referring from kids, this would be no difference from children running away from home. They'd use their parents money."

A. How would they obtain their parents money. Again, if kids are failing tests and going to get themselves killed, lets face it, these kids are legally incompetent in some aspect, in which case, they could not sign off on medical treatment.

B. They will not be able to give any financial information that is not included in the immediate bill.

"... if euthanasia would be legalized, there will be competitors. People will fight and fight to offer cheaper solutions to opt out."

A. Under my definition, there must be a consenting doctor, so if you are saying people will pose as doctors and then euthanize people while failing it, that would still be illegal, in which case, that would already exist today.

B. You mean some doctors would offer it cheaper? Okay, this is capitalism, the service would be improved and made cheaper, this is not a bad thing by any stretch.

"I said thanks, because you praised me."

A. No, in your example, you implied a mother taking all her sons money so she could live another couple days is not selfish, and I said you could make a good case that it was.

"Because people can make impulsive and bad decisions."

A. As with anything, this includes sex, playing a sport, choosing a career. But we do not ban these things, because then you have a government that controls the lives of all people almost fully. This is very dangerous, as it limits the freedoms of all people in the U.S to almost nothing, same goes for euthanasia.

"Euthanasia is one decision you can't overturn."

A. Same goes for playing a sport that maybe gets you injured, or having sex with some one who has AIDS. And different from these, with having to sign off, pay, wait for a certain period of time, actually going through with euthanasia is something that you can't do on impulse. Maybe you could sign off on impulse, but then you have to wait, that is just how it works.

"I'm saying that the grandmother opted for euthanasia, because she deemed herself a burden, but little did she know, her life has brought much happiness to her family, happiness that meant way more than money."

A. After thinking this through, this example is invalid under my definition. Under your example, the mother can not pay for the treatment so the son does, and as I states first round, some one has to pay for euthanasia. Due to this, the son would have to consulted first, which in yours, he could not since he did not want to. So, your example is actually invalid since the son did not want it, and he would be the one that would have to agree to pay for it.

"Then wouldn't that be against your argument, since you stated anyone should be able to opt for it. And I already explained that he'd be able to use his parent's cash."

A. No, since it is obvious that euthanasia, would not override established medical laws. This is just how things work.

B. He wouldn't be allowed to sign off, so being able to pay wouldn't matter.

"why not just rob someone and commit euthanasia and commit euthanasia? That would't face any charges. In fact, you might as well go crazy for a night before visiting the clinic to get your shot."

A. Do you have a shred of evidence that legalizing euthanasia would increase robberies?

B. If they are really that depressed, and somehow legally competent, then they should be able to, if they can afford it.

"sure, some, or many, might like it, but majority of the people would still view it as undignified."

A. Con forgets here that what dignity is, is not for him, or the government to decide. It is completely subjective to oneself, that is why when some one believes it is for them dignified to be euthanized, that is undeniable for them, as it is a completely subjective and personal choice.

"They may think it is dignified, but through the definition, it doesn't fit in. Pro might be using the wrong set of words."

A. Do not be fooled by the logic con is using, what they are saying is, since they do not believe and many people do not believe, euthanasia is respectable/dignified it is factually not. However, whether something is respectable is a 100% personal and subjective thing. If some one believes euthanasia is respectable FOR THEM, it is for them, and in effect the opinions of the government or people with a different opinion, is subjective to them as well.
FieryNyan

Con

"...this is a rejection of the importance and value of a human life."
A. No, it is a person saying, sh1t I guess I had a good run and I'm ready to go, but I don't want to put a bullet in my head. To so many people, they don't want to shoot themselves or whatever, but to them euthanasia is a peaceful and dignified way to die."

Allowing people to take away their lives anytime they want to, with just written consent and some cash IS devaluing someone's life. It means some people's life isn't just worth living for. Their life aren't worth our help and time. We, the same species, should work for the betterment of humanity as a whole. Why do you think there are suicide hotlines? Kind people out there who does random acts of kindness? These people act as a pillar of hope, there so that people would not feel despair, so that people have someone to lean on. The fact that you want to erect a pillar for euthanasia would work against this act of preservation of others is inhumane.

"But it increased usage"
A. Why is this so bad?"

It is bad, because you're making it seem like, oh, more people wants to die, it's their right to! That's throwing away the worth of a human's life.

"Yes, many people would like to opt for it, but it isn't available. Therefore, it encourages people to death with it and fight on."
A. No it forces people who want to die to shoot themselves or OD or something that they simply do not want to do. Give me a single example of some one who wanted to be euthanized but kept on living just because they couldn't."

Nick Vujicic. He wanted to kill himself, but he chose not to, and look where he is now? Some people choose not to commit suicide also because of the fear of pain, and they don't want to lose your dignity. Like you said, euthanasia offers people the option to die with their "dignity".

"It teaches people to solve their problem, instead of giving up. Would you like a society where people rather give up than facing their problems?"
A. Again, a false assumption not having assisted suicide gets rid of suicide. This is completely false, without euthanasia people commit suicide through other methods not preferable to them."

It wouldn't get rid of suicide totally; it'll reduce it. Nope, they wouldn't commit suicide, as they fear losing their dignity and the pain far more than the problem.

""First off, I can sign a consent on impulse, too. Paying for it wouldn't be a problem either, if I'm gonna choose death anyways."
A. The point I was making there overall, is that kids or the mentally disabled would not be able to be euthanized, as with regular medical treatment.
B. Also, tell me a medical treatment where you walk in and then they take you right into the room to get it done without authorizing insurance, verifying information, all of that. It doesn't exist."

First off, the argument is "By voluntray euthanasia, what I mean is a written concession from both the person being euthanized as well as the doctor who would be doing it. When I say anyone, I mean anyone. Keep in mind some one has to pay for it."

Which means all you need is a) a written consent from the person receiving euthanasia, b) money, and c) doctor's consent.

In the topic, you never mentioned that this would be regarded as a medical treatment, as opposed of a service. Plus, this is not a treatment. The definition of a treatment is "medical care given to a patient for an illness or injury". Therefore, euthanasia is not a medical treatment; it's more of a service.

Plus, in the topic, you said ANYONE, not those that have the privilege to do so. You also failed to define the need of a consent, which only applies to medical treatment. As I have showed earlier, this is not a treatment.

"A. How would they obtain their parents money. Again, if kids are failing tests and going to get themselves killed, lets face it, these kids are legally incompetent in some aspect, in which case, they could not sign off on medical treatment."

The same way kids obtain their parents' money when they run away from their house. If you still haven't caught the hint, I'm talking about stealing. And, they can sign it off. It isn't a medical treatment.

Why would it need my financial information? It's just a simple service. I give my consent, include my bill, done.

"A. As with anything, this includes sex, playing a sport, choosing a career. But we do not ban these things, because then you have a government that controls the lives of all people almost fully. This is very dangerous, as it limits the freedoms of all people in the U.S to almost nothing, same goes for euthanasia."

One must understand that at times, laws are there to protect us. Sure, laws can be seen as metal fences limiting our movements, but why don't you perceive this metal gate as a defense, and not a restriction? Sure, you can step out of the gate, but there's no turning back.

""Euthanasia is one decision you can't overturn."

A. Same goes for playing a sport that maybe gets you injured, or having sex with some one who has AIDS. And different from these, with having to sign off, pay, wait for a certain period of time, actually going through with euthanasia is something that you can't do on impulse. Maybe you could sign off on impulse, but then you have to wait, that is just how it works."

The thing is, I don't go for sex just to get AIDS, and I don't go for sports just for the sake of getting injured. Those are accidents; just by-products. Euthanasia's motive, however, is to kill yourself. That ain't no by-product.

And look, you're just adding procedures on the spot. First, you stated that all we need is consents, and money. Now we have to wait, and sign more forms? What next, after I rebut these points, will you start saying that I need a jet pack, cancer, and to be a worshipper of Chthullu? Let us please stick to the original statement.

""why not just rob someone and commit euthanasia and commit euthanasia? That would't face any charges. In fact, you might as well go crazy for a night before visiting the clinic to get your shot."
A. Do you have a shred of evidence that legalizing euthanasia would increase robberies?"

No evidence. Just stating possibilities.

"A. Do not be fooled by the logic con is using, what they are saying is, since they do not believe and many people do not believe, euthanasia is respectable/dignified it is factually not. However, whether something is respectable is a 100% personal and subjective thing. If some one believes euthanasia is respectable FOR THEM, it is for them, and in effect the opinions of the government or people with a different opinion, is subjective to them as well."

Then, use the word respected. You're using a wrong word, implying the wrong definition, hence why I rebutted. I've showed you the definition of dignified, which is how OTHERS see it, not yourself. Dignified is an action one use to show an action is honored by others.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: queencoop// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for non-removal*] The debate does not require RFDs, and therefore RFDs (or lack thereof) are not moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
Could you reserve this debate for me at a later time, or recreate it? I'd be willing to accept at a later date
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
SocialDemocratFieryNyanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by queencoop 1 year ago
queencoop
SocialDemocratFieryNyanTied
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