People have the right to be euthanized.

My opponent contests that people have the right to govern their own person. He notes Thomas Jefferson claimed the right to life comes from a creator. This commits the fallacies of both appealing to tradition and appealing to authority. Rights do not derive from the Founding Fathers just because the Founding Fathers described our rights in a legal document. Indeed the rights Thomas Jefferson have said come from our "creator" have been amended many times throughout history to accommodate different moral standards, i.e. expanding property, marriage and voting rights to name a few. Surely Thomas Jefferson cannot be considered an infallible source of outlining rights. Moreover, it would breach the separation of church and state to suggest that an alleged creator's values ought to determine our legal standards. Please extend my arguments from the last round that have explicitly outlined why God is irrelevant to this debate. The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest. If someone is Christian, they might believe they should follow Christ and doing so makes them happy. That is in accordance with their own worldview; however, not everyone shares the same worldview. So long as we do not harm another or infringe on another person's rights, we do have the right to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness regardless of other people's standards. So if Con does not believe in euthanasia, he should not make that choice. However his beliefs (and other's) should not dictate our legal standards for all. My opponent claims that objective morality nor rights can exist without God. That is a fallacious bare assertion and I do not have time to argue that point, nor is it entirely relevant or important to this debate. Indeed many branches of philosophy accept the potential of objective morality and/or other moral standards to be valued without acknowledging God as the basis, such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism, Ethical Egoism, Utalitarianism, Secular Humanism, etc. [1, 2]. Furthermore, even if we accepted a "creator" as the basis of rights, people do not agree on any aspect of the alleged creator let alone be able to contend what said creator would feel about euthanasia. For example many Christians use scripture to support euthanasia. They note humans were given dominion over all living things by God (Genesis 1:28), so we should be able to choose for ourselves. They say Jesus came so that people could have life "in all its fullness" as explained in John 10:10, which means a good quality of life. If someone has no quality of life, then euthanasia could be valid. Some Christians say the Bible is about "Do to others as you would have them do to you." If I would prefer euthanasia, does that give me the right to euthanize others? Some Christians say yes. Some others say God gave humans free will, so should be allowed to use free will to decide when our lives end. They note there are examples of euthanasia in the Bible - for instance in 2 Samuel 1:9-10 it says, "Then he begged me, 'Come over here and put me out of my misery, for I am in terrible pain and want to die.' So I killed him." In short, there are conflicting views even amongst specific religious groups, so our individual rights and wishes should prevail. Con points out that the Constitution does not observe the right to euthanasia. Please extend my arguments noting that this does not mean that it is not a right - it simply means the federal government has chosen to regulate something that IS a fundamental right. I gave other examples of the USFG doing this which Con dropped. There are many things that are only legally valid state by state; that doesn't mean they aren't fundamental rights. My opponent continues to insist that rights came from a creator, and since the Founding Fathers (allegedly) believed that, the standard must be upheld. Once again "Separation of church and state" was also a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." [3]. Since nearly 1/4 of Americans are unaffiliated with religion, it doesn't make sense morally or legally to upheld the outdated and oversimplified standard of "God" in determining rights [4]. Con cites the 14th amendment as protecting the right to life. The 14th amendment protects citizen's rights under due process of law, however Con hasn't proven that citizens do not have the right to choose death. I have argued that we do have that right which means the 14th amendment would and should protect that right. In Cruzan v. Missouri, which involved a patient in a persistent vegetative state, the Court upheld a state requirement that there must be "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's previously manifested wishes before nutrition and hydration could be withdrawn - and then the Court ruled a patient could refuse medical treatment that would save their lives. SCOTUS ruled in favor of one's right to bodily autonomy - to act in a way that kills one's self by not taking the medicine or treatment. Con says this is irrelevant because of the Constitution, but I've already explained this fallacious appeal to authority and tradition. We aren't judging based on what the Constitution says but what it ought to say. My opponent continues to accuse me of a "double standard" and saying that non-sentient people were not human. He uses the term human and person interchangeably which is not supported by philosophy; indeed there is a philosophical difference and standard for personhood that goes beyond simply being human [5]. I've explained this at length and why sentience is a valid criteria for establishing personhood. Con writes, "Sure, you have the ability to eat whatever you want, but this doesn't mean you have the right to." This ignores my point. I noted that if I have diabetes, I not only have the ability to eat sugar but the right to eat sugar -- in other words I have the right to do dangerous and unhealthy things even if I know they will probably kill me. Con says that he can describe euthanasia as murder even though I specifically outlined the difference. Murder is killing with malicious intent without justification or excuse. Euthanasia is (often voluntary) death to end one's suffering. The two are not comparable by definition nor logic. In conclusion, Con claims that I haven't given a good reason for euthanasia to be legalized. Please extend all of my arguments which explain exactly why euthanasia should be legalized: 1. People have the right to govern their own body/person 2. It can end someone's life quickly and without pain to stop needless suffering 3. Death is private; the state should not interfere in a personal matter 4. Illness can take away one's autonomy (ability to decide for themselves) while proactive euthanasia restores it 5. We "put down" animals to end their suffering. Con says this is okay because they have no rights. This completely ignores the point. If we extend compassion to animals to end their suffering, we should extend the same compassion and consideration to humans who should have more rights than animals. It doesn't mean we WILL kill humans, but give them the option to decide the best (most painless and preferable) option for themselves. 6. End of life care is very expensive. Con claims to have addressed this by saying you can't put a price on a life. However I've argued it's not worth it on a cost/benefit analysis due to how little time the person's life is actually extended and how little they are actually aware of that time (not at all - and if they are - they are suffering). My opponent has dropped all of these points SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...