Assisted Suicide

I am not upset that you used those arguments, I am just saying how they are ineffective and broke them down from my reasonings. It seems like you do not get the definition: It is only for people with disease that are INCURABLE. My opponent does not get how having incurable diseases bring suffering. They refuted that they give and provide you relief and help you go through those tough times. However that is only partially true. They do not get how when you are diagnosed with these symptoms, you have to take medications and stay in the hospital for many years. That is the suffering I am talking about. It is in fact illogical that they promise there will be no suffering. There indeed will be suffering for these incurable diseases and the fact that making them go through that will cause depression as well, therefore also contradicting their side. They are not using common sense on the fact that they make illogical decisions because they are depressed, but does that still change the fact that they are depressed and diagnosed and will suffer doesn't change their decision. I admit they can get depressed but its a reality. They know they will die in horrible ways from their diseases and it scares them. Assisted Suicide brings them comfort because they know there is another way out with death: Painlessly. They make decisions even if they are depressed because they know their outcomes and depression can't trigger that. It may come afterwards, but if there is assisted suicide they are no longer depressed with the fact that they might die in very bad ways. Depression also makes them want to commit suicide in horrible ways without any assisted suicide. I believe that assisted suicide provides a clean death and painless, with no more suffering from that patient. They also bring up the bad effects on society. But the government is not encouraging. We are *providing* one option for the incurable and not encouraging them to commit suicide. No, suicide is wrong but assisted suicide is a whole different scenario. You only have two options with incurable diseases suffering and death or painless death. The whole refutation on the impact to children and the next generations is false because they will grow up knowing that these incurable diseases have a way out. This brings the debate to a summary, which I will give you below. My opponents brought up religious beliefs but I believe this should not be considered because of the fact that it only applies to certain people and just because some people are Christian, doesn't mean that we should ban it. We should also discard the depression argument because of the fact that it is irrelevant to this whole case and very misleading. We are making assisted suicide a choice, not a mandatory thing. If we provide it for other people who want it, they have that option. People who don't doesn't need to have it. They haven't refuted my patients rights claim so I will base off my view in there. These patients have rights. The other side is suggesting we ban it but their rights for their life is gone. We view that as immoral because these patients also have lives and they can make this decision whether or not they should have it. It also promises a painless death, making it a great choice for those who are suffering. Here is a balance. The harms without assisted suicide is more vast. We branch out to people trying to commit by themselves, suffering and gone rights. The benefits of assisted suicide weight these out much farther. We have: Painless death, another choice for those suffering, rights from patients and summed up: another option we should consider into our future. I proudly propose assisted suicide Vote Pro ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good debate! Best wishes to Con and for his/her future debates! [Check out my abortion topic. It's a closed debate so if your willing to debate, apply in the comments]