Euthanasia

He has made many gramatical errors, such as his first two sentences. Slight gramatical errors do not bother me, but these errors were large enough to bother me. RebuttalsMy opponent has given me seven points with explainations. I will refute each one.1. It is opposed by all major religionsThis is a secular nation. This is a fact that my opponent cannot deny. Because this is a secular nation, the United States of America cannot make laws regarding religion. They just cannot.2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasiaYes, it is easier. My opponent denies this, yet it is true. It is much easier to administer euthanasia, yet it is only a last resort. Doctors do everything they can, but if they simply cannot end the suffering of the patient, why keep him or her alive? Most people would not want them to suffer.3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient"My opponent claims morality is subjective, but no serious person holds this view. There are certain things we all see as wrong including murder, and rape. We also believe in human rights which are universal morals such as it is wrong to force someone into slavery. "I want to stop for a moment and talk about morality. It drives me crazy when people cannot understand this. - Even though you think it is wrong to kill, does not make it true - I happen to be a sociopath, which means I do not have the same moral opinions as my opponent. My opponent thinks it is wrong to kill. I think it is wrong to kill. There are, however, people out there who do not think it is wrong to kill. There is no rulebook out there saying what it immoral and what is moral. Morals exist solely in the amygdala. This is a proven scientific fact. It's not dogma. It's not my opinion. It's a proven fact.4. It is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic OathMy opponent is simply not understanding this. If the patient is suffering and cannot be cured, why not be able to put them out of their misory? I cannot imphasize this enough. My opponent is either not understanding or is refusing to admit that he understands.5. Uncertainty of death and the subjectivity of requirements"Who can qualify for euthanasia? "How about the people who are in irreversible and unstoppable pain? If I were in neverending pain and could not be healed, I would not want to live the rest of my life in such pain. I think my opponent can agree with me on this.6. Fear and Hopelessness This point is not pertinent. It creates a paradox. If a patient is subject to endless suffering, they should be allowed the right to end it. But, preparing to end the suffering creates problems, so we should not do it. 7. Targets the Vulnerable'Right to die' does not become 'Duty to die'. Ever. Since when is ending the pain and suffering of a patient a duty? It seems my opponent has forgot my definition. I will restate it. The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. How does this sound like the patient's duty? It's not. ConclusionMy opponent's arguments are not sufficient enough. Throughout this debate, it seems my opponent has not been arguing against the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. He has been arguing against a person being able to kill themself legally and through lethal injection. My arguments have shown his mistake and they have shown that euthanasia should indeed be legal. I patiently await my opponent's rebuttals.