Euthanasia

A final hello and first thank-you for your arguments :) I cannot prove my point without successfully supporting the all three of following points{1} killing, as defined, does not equal murder{2} [therefore] those who physically conduct the euthanasia are not murderers{3} suicide and therefore Euthanasia is legitimateCon can not properly disprove me if he fails to show art least that {*} killing, as defined, equals murderI am sorry that 3) was confusing for you. I was just concluding that {1}/{3} and {2} are linked in a way, that means that the prove of {1} and {3} will automatically be sufficient prove for {2}: If killing is not murder and suicide and euthanasia legitimate actions then those who are involved in an act of euthanasia cannot be murderers.The second part of 3) was probably the one actually confusing to Con. Rhetorically not very well executed, true, but not wrong. Con earlier stated that "She will continue to try to differentiate between killing and murder. I will explain why there is no different types of killing and that all types of killing are considered murder." This showed that Con acknowledges how central this is for this debate and I assumed therefore that I will get his approval that {1} is used to prove {2}. Nothing from 3) intends to attack the article; that's what 4) was there for. In terms of 4) I assumed it would be easier to disprove the article itself first.. You stated bot, that the article was an example that "was to show that killing and murder are the same" as well as it wanted to show that active and passive euthanasia are the same. I claimed that it is doing neither.Euthanasia means we have two parties and both agree that one of them will die. And at the end said person is dead. Rachel's bathtub example on the other hand shows two parties but only one decides that the other one will die. And at the end said person is dead. James Rachels cannot just take any passive and active act that leads to killing and apply it to active and passive euthanasia if the central part, the consent, is not identical to the concept of Euthanasia. It deliberately parts with the core concept. Therefore it fails to show that active and passive euthanasia are the same.The main problem with that example is that it shows two random acts of active and passive killing that both are considered murder and assumes that this works for any sort of active and passive killing. It nicely shows what the idea is all about, but is not prove at all. Two similar situation in which killing equals murder aren't sufficient prove that any killing is murder. Or differently: if we we can find at least one or two examples were an act of killing (may it be active or passive) is not concidererd murder, than is the article not able to support Cons point. Con declined my example given but I am going to show again, why he was to quick doing so:"As to drunk driving and human error, they are irrelevant to this debate, because both examples are deemed to be manslaughter" That's true: it's manslaughter, from most legal points (what is enough for me here). But it is still killing due to your premise that killing is "an act that causes death". Drunk driving is an excellent example, as we have the act and we have the cause of death. The intention (premeditation) behind the act is just the criteria for Murder, not for killing. Manslaughter, as Murder, is only the interpretation we draw from the pure act of killing. Euthanasia is another one. This supports my argument that there are very different kinds of killing: There is Manslaughter, Murder, Euthanasia and we are probably able to find more if we look into a random countries law text. I am confident to say that western law text always differs between Manslaughter and Murder yet does acknowledge that both involve an action that caused death.Murder and Euthanasia (other than Manslaughter) share the intention to end someones life (Con has proven this at least twice and I never declined it), but Manslaughter and Murder share the lack of consent. Rape is a good example how consent can drastically decide whether something is unlawfully or not. Consent decides between rape and perfectly legal sexual intercourse. With the consent of both parties there is no primary reason to state Euthanasia as unlawufl/murder.Con proceeded that there are other (secondary) reasons to outlaw Euthanasia:1. Financial burden of being sick will force people into choosing Euthanasia dependently. This purely applies to the American health system. And is therefore dependent itself. Neither is everyone in the western societies part of the american health system nor is this system itself indefeasible. Both, the law concerning Euthanasia and the US health system can be altered and therefore a solution can be found to make them compatible. 2. Euthanasia is an inappropriate way of cutting the costs for terminal ill patients and would encourage doctors to force that on their patients, therefore go against the Hypocratic Oath. First a doctor that truly believes in his Hypocratic Oath would naturally not encourage his patient to take his life. But as doctors are not perfect human beings it is easy to back it up by law that they are not allowed to encourage it.3. It will lead to an absurd amount of court cases about grey area cases. Mainly when the law is poorly phrased. Can the consent be proven? If no, the cases prospectively fails prior to the first instances. That's not expensive for the community. And there are at least some cases where doctors helped a patient passively to commit suicide and were sued for it. These cases, as they can be regarded as Euthanasia, would not burden the community any more. I am not saying this will reduce a judges work. But it will not significantly raise it either. 4. It's emotionally damaging for relatives and friends if someone is allowed to die. For someone who is terminally ill this means is only robbing his loved ones from months of watching him or her suffering. Someone who knows that he will die and is still physically and mentally fit to spent this time with those he loves will usually not agree to any sort of Euthanasia. If they are immobilized and under pain it's not something pleasant to watch for their relatives as well. And ultimately it's not their decision. The weal and woe of relatives should not be a reason to prevent someone legally from having their will carried out.All examples apart from 4. mainly apply to the US. The sole reason that Euthanasia is currently not compatible with the American system is not enough reason to deny ones right to it on a general level. I don't deny that most US states have not legalized any sort of Euthanasia. But as they are some states and some European countries that open the opportunity for it, we can see that compared to Murder, that is outlawed in all western countries, Euthanesia does not fulfill the definition point of "unlawful" with the same sustainability as a classic Murder case.Summary; I tried to show that there are situations in which killing is not murder {1} and that Euthanasia does not fulfill the definition of murder because it lacks fully established unlawfulness, which makes murder not applicable to Euthanasia {2}. I have also shown that everyone has the personal freedom to engage in a decision, that does not do any harm to other parties {3} and I did my best to explain why Con's claims, that Euthanasia hurts the community, are not relevant enough or not at all relevant. A/N That was quite a thing; and I am happy to be part of it. I wasn't expecting my opponent to draw a BOP for me from my intro and rather expected an free debate with more different ideas but the outcome was also interesting and especially challenging. This the first proper debate I was able to participate in and I obviously made some faults that mainly show my lack of experience. Nevertheless are the arguments provided relevant and competitive - that counts. Thanks for those reading and writing.