The Instigator
yunsta
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
XxDominatexX
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is killing someone without their knowledge murder?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/22/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 295 times Debate No: 87074
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

yunsta

Con

Should involuntary euthanasia be valid at any point?

Involuntary euthanasia befalls when euthanasia is executed on a person who in their own rights has provided none whatsoever informed consent, either because they do not choose to die, or because they were not asked. This issue has been put to question multiple occupations resulting in religious fanatics shoving the Bible down our throats and ranting on about gods plan; however, sometimes there is really nothing we can do about it. Personally, I find active euthanasia quite similar to abortion, just a more live version. Having a brain dead, or incredibly sick child with no future possibility would rather cause quite a hassle where child euthanasia comes to light as an option. This is the only case involuntary euthanasia is justified upon my eyes. Although some may doubt the fact, that it"s "playing god" deciding whether someone should die or live which is reasonable considering the circumstances however, would you rather live or witness someone you love live in misery. There has been some statistics release on euthanasia in Netherlands stating that 2,300 people died upon patient"s wishes in comparison to 1,040 people died from involuntary euthanasia, which would add to an average of 3 deaths per day in which 14% of these patients were fully competent and 72% had never given any indication that they would want their lives terminated.

Although it may seem wrong, I still believe that involuntary euthanasia is acceptable in strong cases, where the patients have no chance of recovery or is extremely sick.

Sources:
http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...
http://www.lifenews.com...
XxDominatexX

Pro

I am happy to debate this topic with you. this is my first debate so I hope it's a good one. ( please excuse my grammar )

I am going to start with quoting what you said "Although it may seem wrong, I still believe that involuntary euthanasia is acceptable in strong cases, where the patients have no chance of recovery or is extremely sick." "Even if you said although it may be wrong" I think that in no case should killing should be acceptable. Let's just say that the victim really has no chance of survival or recovery, that doesn't mean you could show up and shoot him/her point blank. Instead of killing the person, let him/her live the rest of it's life. Even if he has less thank a week to live. Now if we want to bring up a another example we could do that. Let's say a member of a family is a terrorist and he/she dies, do you think that cause on member is a terrorist the whole family has to die too? In my opinion if the whole family was influenced then they probably should. If they didn't know that then no. That's all i'm going to say for this round:)
Debate Round No. 1
yunsta

Con

yunsta forfeited this round.
XxDominatexX

Pro

I know you forfeited. but i had a great debate and loved your argument:)
Debate Round No. 2
yunsta

Con

yunsta forfeited this round.
XxDominatexX

Pro

XxDominatexX forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Any situation in which you kill a human without their consent should be viewed as murder. Otherwise, you set a dangerous precedent by making it legal to kill a person without their consent in some cases. In law, some lines should never be crossed because of the future consequences allowed by those crossings.

After studying law for a little while, I've realized we have hard lines in some areas for a reason. Because certain things can be too flexible, like in what situations a person should be killed. If they're not viable, what hard restrictions determine viability? Or if they are deemd to have no chance at life now, what's to say in five years medical advances won't be made to help people deal with this?

In other words, from a legal perspective nothing is certain about this allowance, and if nothing is certain about the circumstances in which you can kill another human, you set the dangerous precedent with that uncertainty.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
guess believers are ready for your blade
No votes have been placed for this debate.