Euthanasia should not be legalized.

My opponent begins by claiming that bodily autonomy is a myth. While it may not be real in the legal sense, I've explained that we should be discussing what the law ought to be. I've argued why we should have bodily autonomy in the fullest sense, even though that is not always the case legally. Con writes, "We can all agree that acts of violence should be recognized as punishable by the state. This is what bodily integrity is." However violence should not be punished by the state; aggression should be punished by the state. The distinction is that aggression involves physical force against another person, which infringes on other people's rights. On the contrary, bodily integrity is the right of the individual to do what they please with their own body. Con (snidely) comments that "nothing upsets people more than telling people they can't do what they want." However I have not argued that people should be able to do whatever they want, but free to do whatever they want with their OWN body. I will copy and paste what I said last round because it's important: Pro is arguing that other people should dictate how we use our bodies. This would effectively make us slaves. If Pro is correct and we do NOT possess stewardship of our own bodies, then rape would be perfectly fine, because how other people wanted to use our bodies is somehow more important than how we choose to use our own bodies. Obviously this is a shoddy standard. We possess the right to bodily autonomy because any other standard means our bodies can be dictated by other people's desires.==Con writes, "Despite what she says, I do not find it appalling that people have debated standards of personhood." However in the previous round, he wrote, "I ask: who gets to decide the criteria of personhood? ...The notion that anyone can claim such a position is appalling." As you can see, I used his own words here. However Con says what he finds appalling is that a so called ethical "expert" would exercise their subjective and politically defined view of ethics. There are no ethical experts, he says, only ethical philosophers... and yet this is an incredibly hypocritical position. He concedes that his opinion is completely arbitrary. It's a subjective preference based on his cultural conditioning and his individual, personal values.This is exactly why acknowledging and upholding individual rights is so important. If I would prefer to die peacefully and painlessly, as opposed to suffer a long, drawn out, insufferable, traumatic, painful, agonizing death -- that should be my right, as I am not hurting anyone else and should be able to exercise MY values over MY person. Con readily admits that there is no such thing as an ethical expert, yet hypocritically insists that HIS value system ought to dictate how other people live (or end) their lives. While he criticizes people for wanting to "do what they want," he also wants to do what he wants: prohibit people from exercising their personal freedom. The difference here is clear. I am arguing that we have individual rights to dictate how we treat our own bodies, so long as it does not involve aggression (force) against another. Yet Con wants to use government force to make it criminal for us to govern our own bodies. He wants to aggressively impose his personal ideals based on HIS politically defined view of ethics. ==Con also says that I have brought up abortion; however, I only mentioned one single line about abortion. I pointed out that sentience is a reasonable standard for qualifying the right to life and personhood, which is why it is morally and legally utilized in that regard (where abortion is only legal in the early stages of pregnancy). Here was my singular abortion reference: Unlike fetuses that are not YET sentient, euthanasia is typically reserved for those who willnever again become sentient. I proved that in most cases it was reserved for the end of one's natural life. ==Con states, "If I said that a handicapped person has less value as a human being, I'm sure she would not respect my subjective point of view. This is why we need a universal human standard of unalterable value." First, Con is correct that I would not respect his subjective point of view. However his POV is meaningless. Unless he was trying to infringe upon a handicapped person's rights, he is entitled to hold whatever opinion he wants, however asinine or outrageous I might find it. Now if he suggested killing someone for being handicapped, the law should step in as that involves aggression against another person. I've made myself perfectly clear throughout this debate. People often choose euthanasia while they are fully conscious and readily willing. People also choose power of attorneys that they trust to make life-or-death medical decisions for them. As such, Con is drawing incomparable analogies by bringing up aggression of handicapped people. He is suggesting I would condone violence against others, just because I have condoned "violence" against the self which is unfounded. Moreover, there already IS a human standard of unalterable value that I have proposed to distinguish the right to life: a particular level of sentience or self-awareness.==In conclusion, I'll re-cap my arguments. 1. One's life belongs to one's own person due to the concept of bodily autonomy. To reject this principle means our bodies are at the mercy of other people's desires.(Fortunately, both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognize the right to bodily integrity.)2. Voluntary euthanasia gives people the option of dying with dignity on their own terms. It allows them to die peacefully and eases their suffering.3. Not allowing people in tremendous pain to opt out is cruel. It presumes that an outsider understands what the patient is feeling and undermines their desires out of culturally biased, subjective preferences and selfish desires. 4. Non-voluntary euthanasia ought to be reserved only for those who are terminally ill and at the very end of their expected life. It should only be legally enacted by a power of attorney.5. End-of-life care is ridiculously expensive and futile. Patients are in tremendous pain or completely unaware that they even exist. Forcing them to stay alive against their wishes is cruel and unusual. 6. We show greater concern for pets. We don't want animals to suffer at the end of their lives, but Con wants people to suffer, often against their will.7. People who want to die will either commit suicide or refuse medical treatment. This means they will die in a lot of agony and pain (when they are still conscious). If they can legally refuse treatment and kill themselves that way, why not let them "kill themselves" without needless suffering? 8. Facilitating death with dignity doesn't mean that a patient would be excluded from the best care, or have other options ignored or dismissed preemptively. It simply ensures one's life is not valued by longevity but quality.