Euthanasia should not be illegal

Let me clarify : “Euthanasia should not be illegal for people over 18 years old” My response to my opponent’s introduction: He obviously does not accept people who would choose to die peacefully. He blames others for not thinking properly, if they choose euthanasia, and he says this, simply because he would not choose euthanasia. Freedom of euthanasia is not directly proportional to mental guilt or handicap. My opponent says that suicide is a permanent solution to a sometimes temporary problem, when we are talking about people who have almost NO CHANCE of recovery. Yes, there is always the miracle possibility, but people shouldn't have to be forced to wait for a miracle. Guilt is when somebody does something wrong, and they feel bad about it. Guilt is not when somebody accepts somebody elses freedom of choice. My opponent says that in Greek, Euthanasia means good death. Then he says that the defenition of today is "assisted suicide". He is obviously against assisted suicide, so he is saying that todays defenition is invalid, but rather the greek defenition is more valid. Since we can see that a good death to him is fighting for every moment of life, we can already prove that he doesn't accept whatever anybody elses opinion of a good death is. "If we help kill them, it is involuntary murder by the means that our emotions have taken over and you just killed soemone who could have been helped"Humans are emotional, and it should not be catagorized as a bad emotion for somebody to want somebody elses freedom of choice to be used. My opponent is catagorizing emotions, and using this as a point against euthanasia, without realizing that everybody is different and has different values, which ultimately gives people different emotions. "We only live once. "Yes we only live once. I agree with that, and that is one of the reasons why I would not euthanize myself. We both agree, that the fact that we only have one life is more important than the need to stop pain. These are our values, and not everybodys values. If somebody is in extreme pain in a hospital, we should not enforce our beliefs on them, because they have their own beliefs that should be used in making decisions for themselves. My opponent brings out some information. He gets his information from a site with a title "euthanasia should be illegal". The essay on this site is very much against euthanasia, so it is obviously going to have biases against it. . http://electionsmeter.com... "According to a survey conducted in 2002, 63.5 percent of the people who took the survey would want to die on their own without euthanasia. 30.4 percent of the people who took the survey would want euthanasia, 6.1 percent were undecided. Only one third of the people would want euthanasia instead of dying on their own. Decisions may not be the patients' choices. "This is a quote from the exact site that he used. If he put this website in his introduction, he is firmly stating that he supports its points. It says that only one third of the people would want euthanasia instead of dying on their own, and then it says decisions may not be the patients' choices. This site is basically saying that the values and beliefs of 1/3 of the population should be diminished for the values and beliefs of the other 2/3 of the population. This is a good example of how anti-euthanasia supporters don't accept the needs of the minority of the population when it comes to euthanasia. Then finally, it says that decisions shouldn't be the patients choice. Why? Because the majority of people wouldn't want to be euthanized? This isn't a good enough reason. This essay that he is using was constructed by an eigth grade student at Floyd Dryden High school. The sentence in his introduction regarding 'one thousand patients died without their request' does not have any statistics proving it, I am asking my opponent to use statistics. I am asking my opponent to use better sources than that, in order to have a proper debate. At the beginning of his introduction he asked me to stop looking at ages, but now he is looking at a case of a person with a crippled leg, and a maniac enemy coming into the hospital and unhooking his life support. A person with a crippled leg would not need life support, and a person with a crippled leg can speak against an enemy trying to kill him. A hospital would not let someone who has no family connections to a person, choose euthanasia for the person. Let's try to be realistic here alright? My opponent’s introduction is biased as it doesn’t show why the freedom of choice is less important than the illegalization of euthanasia. All it shows is why HE thinks euthanasia is wrong and not why people shouldn't be free to choose euthanasia. --------For the longest time, I was against Euthanasia, and I wanted the government to stop euthanasia from happening. I couldn't understand why people would give up on their lives, and that they should just fight for their only life. This was my morality. MY MORALITY. Now I understand that what I believe, and how I treat my life, should not be enforced on other people. If the government makes a law against euthanasia; they're effectivly saying 'our morality replaces your morality when it comes to your life choices. ' There are two options: Fight for your life and suffer, or die peacefully. Most of us would choose the first one. Exactly, most of us, so we shouldn't make a law against the minority who have a different morality. "So you wouldn't try to stop a teen suicide? What's the difference? ! "The teen hasn't finished their learning stage. An 80 year old man in the hospital is definately more wise. Same reason why people under 18 don't have the same rights as adults, because they aren't done learning about the world. "There is just something completely wrong about supporting suicide! "I am supporting the freedom of the person, and the fact that they have the right to make choices about their lives, especially in critical condition in a hospital. "Euthanasia is a slippery slope! "LIFE IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. No matter where you are in the world, what your doing, what the rules are, not everything will go right! Whatever laws the government makes, will sometimes be broken. Whatever freedoms people have will sometimes be abused, etc. There is no such thing as a slope that isn't somewhat slippery, because life is not perfect. "Won't there be cases of family members putting their relatives to sleep because they just want to inherit wealth? "Obviously, bad things happen. But the government can put rules and regulations in place to make sure that it is as safe as it possibly can be. Maybe when people turn a certain age, they can answer a paper from the government asking 'If you are unconcience and extremely old and sick at a hospital, and there haven't been signs of recovery for x weeks, would you want to be euthanized? ' -------In Oregon, ONLY 525 euthanasia caused deaths happened from 1998-2010. 467 of them were over 55 years old, which is 88%. 424 of these people had malignant neoplasms, which is the real medical word for cancer. That is 80% of the people who chose to euthanize themselves. If you call this a dangerous slippery slope, I call you blind to reality. . http://public.health.oregon.gov...I am pro-euthanasia, becauseI understand that my morality doesn't override someone elses morality when it comes to decisions about their own life. I am pro-euthanasia, because the government doesn't have a right to force suffering on people. I am pro-euthanasia, because I walk with my feet, I eat and talk with my mouth, I breathe with my lungs. The government doesnt walk with my feet, eat or talk with my mouth, or breathe with my lungs, so why should they stop me from doing what I want to do, when I'm the one living in my body?