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

Should Euthanasia be illegal?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 765 times Debate No: 37802
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Firstly, to answer your question about Janet; Since she is under the age of 18 which is the commonly accepted age of adulthood, she should not have the power to make the decision of ending her own life. If euthanasia were to be legalized than of course there will be many rules and regulations to abide by.

The main body of your argument is the importance of human life. However the value of human life is really a different debate. Who are we to decide how important human life is? Of course we'd say that human life is of infinite value, since we are such an egotistical species.
The fact is that the value of human life is very much in the eye of the beholder. Look at Hitler; The man believed that the German race was the epiphany of evolution and that any other subcategory of human had to be eliminated since they had no value to the world. Human beings importance is entirely subjective to the human. A man who has lived a life of nothing but pain and loss will have an entirely different concept of our importance has a species to that of a man who has lived a full, content life.

The reality is death is unknown. The unknown terrifies us. Humans are desperate to find the answers of what awaits us, going so far as to imagine millions of difference possible outcomes. Maybe we shouldn't fear death. Death is innate. Without death, how could life exist? Suicide is also clearly a natural part of human life, it happens everyday, all over the world and it is not going to stop anytime soon. In fact suicide rates, globally, are increasing. Why should we force those who have already wrestled their inner-consciousness, which is desperately giving them reasons to stay alive, to kill themselves without the support of anyone. We have tried condemning suicide, saying it's wrong, immoral and that it's a cowardly act. This has done nothing except put a huge level of guilt and shame on their already doomed souls.
If we change our outlook on suicide; if we try to understand what a person must go through physically and mentally in order to arrive at the decision that they don't want to be alive anymore, than we can respect an individuals right to die.


I don"t see why Janet can't make the decision for herself? Is it not the "right to die"? Just like the right to life, wasn't Janet born with this right? I don't agree with the "right to death", but I am just asking. Why does her age have a play in her decision? Also, if euthanasia is legalized, why is going to stop Janet from going to a radical doctor and saying she needs help killing herself?

If euthanasia was to be legalized, it would very quickly be abused. The regulations and rules that you speak of would quickly be thrown out the window, just like they have with abortion.

You are correct. The debate of the worth of human life is difficult, but I"m willing to have a go at it. You are, again, correct in saying that those two men will have different outlooks on life. However, feelings do not diminish the level of importance of life, and neither does subjectivity. It is still a living human.

The reasons for why euthanasia should not be legal are similar to the reasons for why abortion should not be legal. By definition for something to be alive it must have cells, be able to pass on genes, respond to stimuli, and use energy, at the very least. For the sake of this argument, let"s use Joe, 80 years old, like the first man you described, he has lived a life of pain and sadness. I can assume that you know that Joe is a living thing, but it is important to establish this before I go on. Joe is alive. Unhappy, and alone, but alive. Using the good old Webster"s dictionary, I looked up the word "murder". "Murder: the crime of deliberately killing a person." Keep this in mind.

Joe is having trouble breathing and he is in the hospital for the fifth time this year. The doctors discuss it with him, and Joe is convinced that euthanasia is the best option for him. Taking into account that Joe is alive, and that murder is "the crime of deliberately killing a person", would euthanasia not be murder in this situation? Put aside that fact that Joe is unhappy. Joe is alive, and euthanasia would be murder, and willful euthanasia would be suicide.

Something I had a problem with was saying that suicide is a natural part of human life. I know this isn"t a debate on suicide, but that is clearly off base. Suicide isn"t a natural part of life, it is a unfortunate horrible occurrence that happens every day because of the loss of the sanctity of life.

"Why should we force those who have already wrestled their inner-consciousness, which is desperately giving them reasons to stay alive, to kill themselves without the support of anyone."

Ah, the "good old can"t be them? So join them!" argument. Wouldn"t it make more sense to try our best to help them instead of encouraging suicide? I don"t think that society really helps the people that are depressed or contemplating suicide. In fact, I feel that society is leaning in your direction, and is sitting on the sidelines with big foam fingers goading them on. It is only making them worse. It is clearly an unnatural thing, which is exemplified by the fact people have so much trouble with it.
I don"t feel the society doesn"t anything to help the elderly people who are suffering, and I believe we should be doing more. We should try to understand them instead of just accusing them. What we need to do, it prevent people from feeling like death is their best option.
Debate Round No. 1


You can't put a decision as big as ending your own life onto an impulsive teenager who's mood swings are frequent and wild. Just like the decision to get married, get a tattoo or carry a weapon, the participant would have to be at least 18 years old - perhaps even older. I would not object to raising the age to 21, as I recognize how big of a decision it is and how much maturity is needed to make the correct choice.

What's to stop Janet from going to a doctor and saying she wants him to assist in her suicide? Nothing, that's the point. However, the doctor will not immediately proceed with the fatal injection; There will have to be a series of stages that Janet will have to progress in terms of psychological evaluation. Janet will be offered all of the relevant support for her situation. Hopefully, with the reinforcement of her doctor, family, and support groups she will no longer feel the need to end her life. However, if not, than she will continue with the procedure and she will finally be at peace.

Why do you think the the laws behind abortion have been thrown out the window?

Firstly, you can't just "have a go at it" because you are human. Whatever argument you choose to make about the value of human life in invalid because you are human, you're completely biased. Do you put the value of human life above the rest of the species that inhabit our planet in unison with us?

Your definition of murder is wrong. Murder; The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Evidently, if euthanasia was legalized then it wouldn't be against the law and therefore wouldn't be murder. Trying to use a definition of a word to justify your argument is not going to work.

The reason I say that suicide is a natural part of life is because anything that we do is natural. At the end of the day we are still just a bunch of cells, no different to any species on this planet, who is being transformed and manipulated by mother nature. Granted, we are at the top of the food-chain. The reason we dominate every other species is because of our powerful brains and our ability to work harmoniously and efficiently together. That is why we need to deal with the issue of suicide with an empathetic view and a willingness to help.

I never said anything about encouraging suicide. I agree completely with your last paragraph, except for you accusing me of wanting anyone who is sad to kill themselves. Suicide will always be prevalent among humans, It's one of the disadvantages of having a large brain. So if it's going to happen regardless of what support and care we can give, why not make their death a quick and painless one?

I have been mostly talking about suicide in terms of depression and not including patients who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. What is your stance on that?


ElephantGirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Does this mean I win?


ElephantGirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Although it feels like I am missing several round of debate here - is this possibly a continuation from another debate? - Con's arguments were slightly stronger even before Pro's multiple forfeits conceded the debate. One of Pro's main points, that euthanasia is murder, was rightly negated; unlawful killing is murder, whereas euthanasia would be legal. The issue of suicide being "natural" was considerably more in question, but Pro failed to show up again to defend herself. Conduct and arguments to Con.