In the United States, voluntary euthanasia should be legal for anyone who wants it.

"It removes all criminal penalties which prevent people to do the act, in this case, euthanasia." A. Seems correct so far to me. "It enables people to advertise their service in aiding the person who wants euthanasia." A. Yeah, seems logical. "In fact, with this definition, it's technically allowing someone to commit suicide legally." A. Okay seems reasonable but I don't so far understand how this contributes to your case. "If you read my example, I explained how legalization increased the acts (By showing examples of legalization of alcohol, and marijuana." A. Keep in mind legalization of both these things actually decreased illegal possession of them. "You see, since euthanasia isn't being offered now, people are actually holding on." A. This is a kind of lofty claim, do you have evidence that people who want to die refrained from it just because euthanasia was illegal? "I'm forced to study hard, as my family wouldn't be able to support my further studies. Therefore, I put tons of effort in my studies. However, in John's case he doesn't have to put on. His family has the cash to support him in his studies. What's the use of putting lots of effort. He has the easy way out anyways." A. Understanding symbolism is actually something I am pretty good at, however I can not see the symbolism in this and how it helps your case. This is kind of convoluted. Since one character is really rich and one seems to put hard work and seems to be content enough. "You see, if the easy way out is offered, what's the use of holding on?" A. Why force people to hold onto a life they find depressing? In any case, there is still an easy way out, it is suicide, with a knife, or a gun, or a drug overdose. The U.S has pretty high suicide rates, I just don't understand how people are being forced to hold on. But to many people, as I stated in the last round, euthanasia is just a more pleasant option of death for them, so why not allow it? There is nothing forcing people to hold on as it is. "Many people would give up." A. As many people already do as it is. "No longer have they go on." A. They still don't have to go on as it is. "With this definition, wouldn't someone choose euthanasia on impulse too? A. No, because under my definition, there has to be written consent, and some one has to pay for it, so no. "...open to anyone, as long as they give their consent, and the doctor gives his." A. Specifically written consent, as with most medical issues. And it must be payed for. "So, literally anyone should be allowed to choose euthanasia, right?" A. Assuming they could pay for it. "Would that mean kids are allowed to go for euthanasia?" A. I am curious, how exactly this child would pay for this? "What about the mentally disabled?" A. Actually people that are considered legally incompetent, are not allowed to sign consent on medical treatment, and since euthanasia would be done by consenting doctors, it would fall under this category. http://patient.info... "If you think doctors will all have an ironguard moral shield, you're wrong. It's easy to imagine that if euthanasia is legalized for anyone, there'll be centers JUST for euthanasia. Doctors will specialize in this field, as there are many doctors out there that long for money, and are willing to take a life away, ANY life away. After all, it was their choice right?" A. Okay... but if the said person wanting to get euthanized does not consent, then the practice is illegal. So how does this really go against euthanasia. The reason I included this in the definition is because I think it isn't rational to force doctors into doing this is they don't want to. "Hippocratic oath." A. However, is euthanasia was legal, this would not be a misconduct of doctors. B. You need, under my example a written consent from both the doctor and the person. C. I am not completely sure what you mean, could you elaborate on this? "I'm trying to show how legalization would increase usage." A. Oh, okay, we already went over this. "Thanks :)" A. For what? I was explaining why the way you phrased your example in that instance was completely subjective to you. You were implying that is a mother taking all her son's money from her for hopeless treatment so see could see her grandchildren was not selfish, but I said while it was understandable you could make a good case it is also selfish. "I would be happy an cherish every last moment I have with her, instead of crying every single time I visit her. She's already sad enough; the least I could do is to make her last days happy, right?" A. How the hell does this mean euthanasia should be illegal. " I didn't say anything about it being a fast food chain lol. I said choice, and then, take it. Hence, meaning I took the choice, and opted for euthanasia." A. Yes but the implication was that euthanasia under my definition is extremely easy to access, which was false, since ti requires written consent and payment. "I never said they didn't enjoyed their life. If your loved ones are dying, you'd naturally spend even more time and effort on them." A. Well you said the mother in your made up scenario only realized the happiness her life brought her at death. You said: "Little did you know, your life has brought you way more happiness than anything." "I'm trying to show that people's life matter more than money." A. Okay, but as stated, the mother is dying soon anyway, if she wants to die now, why shouldn't she be able to. "She feels that she's taking her son's time and money away... but please remember that you're being happy at the expense of your son. Wouldn't you feel guilty and selfish?" A. Because she is. B. If I am dead, how would I feel guilty and selfish? "He's repaying her by taking care of her, the way she took care of him." A. Since you refused to specify the type of treatment, I could only assume that she if going through quite a lot of pain. B. It seems like he has already repaid her quite a bit then. "I never said they're suffering." A. That is why your example makes no sense, you refused to specify the type of treatment. "A kid fails his test and is afraid to come home? Opt for euthanasia." A. Well, I think he is probably legally incompetent, meaning he would not be able to. B. How would he pay for it? "Mentally disabled children will be allowed to do it because they are special." A. How would they pay for it and legally incompetent people can not sign off on medical issues. "can not overcome We can try our best to prevent such an act." A. But if they don't want to why should the government force them? "Imagine a world where there's always an easy way out. Oh, I have AIDS? It's ok, I can go for euthanasia." A. This assumes it is impossible to kill yourself without euthanasia, people already can, but sometimes people just want to die a peaceful and dignified death which to them is euthanasia. If they hate their life so much, their is already an option for them to kill themselves on their own. "Ew, working in Walmart suck. I don't want my friend to see me this way." A. If it sucks so much you probably won't be able to pay for euthanasia anyways. If this person wants to do this, I assume they are legally incompetent most likely, in which case they would not be able to sign off on medical issues. "We need an authority to control this power, if such powers are given." A.Yes, that is paperwork, which in me definition we already have. As well as laws that are already in place which euthanasia would not override obviously, such as legally incompetent people not being able to sign off on medical issues. 'Dignified death? Are you sure it's dignified? You committed suicide!" A. Maybe not to me, but to many people it is. As I stated last round, we have evidence for it. Many organizations vying for legalization get many calls from people saying they would want to die peacefully or dignified (assisted suicide) rather than commit suicide. "Last I checked, the definition of dignified is, having or showing a composed or serious manner that is worthy of respect, and last I check, respect means having admiration for. You want people to respect suicide?" A. Con confuses subjectivity with objectivity. While euthanasia may not seem dignified to them, it does not mean it is not. To many people, as i stated, it is a dignified way to die, whether it is or not is a completely subjective thing. B. I don't want people to respect suicide. I want people to understand that wanting to die in what YOU CONSIDER is a peaceful and dignified death (it is completely subjective to oneself) is a personal choice and should not be a choice of the government.