Euthanasia should never be considered.

My opponents first argument is showing how if we allow euthanasia for humans would be treating them like dogs. I can see how he got this argument a good one to and it makes sense since this treatment is pretty much 100% legal for dogs and only legal in some places for humans. My main response is basically that dogs need shelter and humans need shelter, dogs need food and humans need food, dogs need love and humans need love, so dogs need an escape from a incurable cure that has insane pain and so do humans since they both feel pain. Now I am not saying humans are super similar to dogs. For one thing humans have a soul and dogs don't and god (if you believe in god) made animals for us to eat and to provide for us. We are above animals no doubt but we have certain similarities and certain needs to animals that can't be ignored. Again shelter, food, water some examples of these similar needs as well as the fact that we both feel pain. I hope my opponent excuses me for this but I am very religious but not catholic I am Apostolic so I am not familiar with what you are talking about on the argument about Catholics making original meaning for euthanasia. I request opponent to explain it to me a bit more the concept of euthanasia in the catholic religion so maybe I could provide a response but for now I drop that argument until I have a grasp of it. The one thing I understand however is his main argument seems to be there is no correlation between literal meaning and modern meaning but argument I have right now is as things change definitions change. The definitions I provided from bing, Merriam Webster, and medical dictionary were all made in the 21st centaury so the meaning of Euthanasia changed especially probably due to the fact that it wasn't legal for humans at all back, but now some countries have it legalized. my opponent claimed European Declaration of Human Rights has nothing with Euthanasia but I will show how it does piece by piece. The first part that says "everyone's right to life shall be protected by law" means they should have a choice in life so they can choose to live or die. Now the last piece that applies is prohibiting torture which means that a person shouldn't be forced to endure the physical and mental torture of a disease, they should have a choice to die. IK this wasn't meant to apply to euthanasia directly but it fits in the description but some parts of it go against suffering so making someone live a horrible slow painful life until death is violating this. My opponents next argument is about economics shouldn't come first, our life isn't for us to take away (I guess he is saying god and I believe in god too) and last horror and doctors committing murder My response: What I mean by economic burden is that health care has cost and if someone is going to die anyway there is no need to lose money on them. I am not saying they are a waste I am just saying that it is costly to keep people alive especially on expensive treatments for deadly diseases like Cancer. I am not putting money first I am just saying that if they are going to die anyway offering them euthanasia would save money and allow them to have a choice. I believe in god as well I believe that we shouldn't take our lives and I believe in miracles but what you must consider is that their are non believers so since they don't believe they should be offered this choice. If someone doesn't believe in god and miracles it's not going to happen for them. Also they will have to endure so much pain and suffering and pretty much have no quality of life, or in other words no reason to live anyway. My opponent just said a doctors job is to preserve life. YES I agree on that. I even stated that a doctors job is to improve quality of life so basically if their is nothing he can do and by letting the person live her quality of life is actually getting lower due to mental pain and physical pain he should offer to end life. What I am saying is if a doctor can't save or improve quality of life he has no choice but to end it or let the person live it out. Like I said if they are religious like us then they can live it out. Euthanasia again is a choice it's a choice not a requirement. Also in horror films as you mentioned they get killed without wanting to be killed. When the doctor does it the patient ask to be killed and its done for a good purpose, to ensure they don't have to go through a few months of extreme mental, physical, and depending on circumstances/religious readiness spiritual pain. My opponent states that rights come from god. I said I am apostolic I believe in god 100% but what you must understand is since I am con in this debate I have to go against my beliefs. It's kind of like in debate in high school, you might not like a side but you have to learn how to defend both. My opponent says the government doesn't give us rights god does. God gives us divine rights I agree and I believe those come first, but the government also gives rights. God's rights are supreme because his come first and he is powerful but even in the bible god said that the devil would rule hell, he would rule heaven, and he would let people do as they wish on earth. He still is the most powerful but he is allowing people to influence the world so basically we have to go off the government giving us rights. Me and you since we believe in god wouldn't follow it but some others would cause it's still an option. There is porn available to watch but since I am Christian I don't watch it. This is the same thing Euthanasia is a choice if you believe in god taking it would be a sin since god can do anything and heal you from that disease. As I mentioned earlier my dad had cancer we prayed and it was healed, the doctors didn't understand and couldn't figure out how. I believe in miracles I believe in god which is why I wouldn't take euthanasia. But what I am saying is for those that don't and don't believe in miracles it would be insane torture for them to have to go through months of pain because they don't believe they will be saved so they have insane mental pain. A Christian who has all the qualifications needed will not endure mental pain cause he knows even if he dies he is going to heaven he will be relaxed knowing he is free from this sinful world and he also believes if god wills it he can survive, but a sinner or a nonbeliever doesn't' believe in this so he will panic and possibly go insane since he doesn't believe in miracles and is unsure about his after life. My opponents last argument is basically how god is willing to forgive. I agree 100% it can happen and I have seen it happen but it is very rare and usually only happens with people who were involved with the religion before death. My argument was focused on those that never have been to church or never believed in god. Also if your in insane mental/physical pain on a death bed chances are you will not be able to function right enough to get any requirements needed to get to heaven. Conclusion: I am glad to debate someone who believes in god as I do but again I am con so I have to run these arguments. Also again this is an option and anyone deserves a option. Even god gave options. A major example is with Adam and eve he could have just put the tree of life but no he gave Adam a choice between a bad tree and a good tree to show that god believes in choices. God let heaven be run by him, hell by the devil, and world by us because he wants us to have freedom of choice. Now he will be upset if we choose sin but he lets us choose. He would feel upset if someone chose Euthanasia but god offers freedom of choice. He doesn't regulate what people choose and if a supreme god with supreme authority doesn't force us to serve him then we as humans have no right to force people to repent to god and not take euthanasia. God has only gave us authority to try and persuade them to serve him