"Mercy killing should be legalized."

I must disagree with my opponent's simple definition of euthanasia. In fact, the true (more elaborate and pertinent) definition reads: [1] Also called mercy killing. The act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition. This definition is more appropriate for several reasons. First, it establishes the link between euthanasia and the specific wording of 'mercy killing' in the resolution; they are in fact one in the same. Second, it proves that euthanasia can be accomplished through medical means, i.e. doctors and other medical professionals. Third, euthanasia regarding animals is mentioned -- neither the definition nor my opponent in her opening argument excluded animals from the argument. And finally, the definition takes notice of the fact that the actual terms euthanasia and mercy killing specifically deal with INCURABLE ailments, one that cause a particular amount of discomfort or pain. -- As for my opponent's contentions, she mentions 4: 1. Traumatic family decision 2. Only God has the right to take lives 3. People will choose this route for the wrong reasons 4. One's competence cannot be defined or determined REBUTTAL: 1. The idea of euthanasia being a traumatic decision for a family can be successfully argued two different ways. One, often euthanasia is decided by the individual - not a family member, thus negating your point. Two, as likely as this decision can be painfully traumatic for a family member, it can also be a deed that promotes closure and making peace with a particular situation. It some cases, it has the potential to reestablish one's relationship with spirituality, soul searching, etc. In any case, it can be equally as healing as it can destructive, thus negating this argument. 2. I noticed that my opponent is from India. Well then, where would she be had not the Indians enacted the Sepoy Rebellion against England in 1857? Enslaved, perhaps. Ahh my point here is that in some cases - for instance, war - killing is not only justified, but perhaps even beneficial (as it freed India from British control). In addition to war, there are other cases that even humanists would agree that a taking of one's life is justified. Self-defense, perhaps? Thus the notion that "only God should take lives" is speculative, at best, and therefore is debatable in particular situations -- it's not an absolute. This argument is negated. 3. The fact that people will choose certain actions for the wrong reasons does not mean that those actions should be criminalized. People have children for the wrong reasons all the time -- does that mean that having kids should be illegal? If not, then again you are agreeing that this vague reasoning is faulty and flawed, and again this point is negated. 4. Finally my opponent suggests that competence cannot be defined or determined. I disagree. In fact, I found several definitions of the word, one of which reads: [2] sufficiency; a sufficient quantity. This definition suggests that who/what is competent is deemed sufficient, and since humans use their mental sense to determine sufficiency... which is subject to change, but nevertheless requires a minimum of standards at any given point in time... then obviously people both can and do define/manage competence based on their particular inclinations at any given time. This competence is usually established by a minimum of standards. For instance, competence to practice law has been determined (via the governing bodies) that one must have completed an acknowledged law school. Now if Con's argument is that no one is competent enough to take a human life in general, please refer back to my rebuttal of point 2 which reminds us that people kill others all the time (i.e. war). If we can kill others for what we feel is a 'good' reason, than why not ourselves? And who says you are competent enough to answer that question? Either way, this argument is negated. -- CONTENTIONS: 1. Rights of the individual 2. Pain & Suffering 3. Letting nature run its course 4. Quality of life; risks of criminalization 5. Animal rights 1A. Indeed I have established how in some cases, taking the life of another can be deemed either necessary or justified. Just as such a justification exists for ending another's life, so too a justification exists for taking one's own life. 1B. "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights..." -- ACLU [3] 2. To deny a 'competent' individual the right to end their own pain and suffering is undignified and oppressive, not to mention tyrannical and condescending. Who are you to force someone to cope with unbearable, agonizing, excrutiating pain? Just because YOUR moral beliefs may point you in the direction of God does not mean that everyone elses does. In that case, you are forcing your own beliefs and religious observances onto others, which is not only abusive to their rights, but causes them extended pain and suffering (which could be a crime in itself). 3. Sometimes the opposite of mercy killing includes prolonging the inevitable -- doing everything one can in order to sustain life, which is not always the right thing to do. With all of our medical answers in this day and age, death can be prolonged for months or even years at the expense of the individual. We must ask ourselves: When do we stop doing all we can do and let nature run its course? 4A. At some point, one's medical condition and pain + state of mind no longer makes life enjoyable or even worth living. We cannot possibly determine whether that is the case for another -- only they can make that choice. In that instance, we must accept their wishes should life become more of a burden than a blessing. Of course this is not so with every condition, however, the definition specifically refers to causes in which one suffers from an extremely painful and incurable ailment for which there is miniscule hope for recovery. While that miniscule hope is enough for some and their faith, that is not the case for everyone. Again, we cannot impose our own values onto others regarding death anymore than we can with life and the way some choose to live it. 4B. By criminalizing euthanasia, two things can occur. One, the individual may be in so much agony that they go ahead and kill themselves anyway, whether it's legal or not (at least by legalizing it we can ensure the assistance of a medical professional). Two, we have the capacity to make one hate life so much, that they despise living and think horrible thoughts instead of peaceful ones remembering life's joys. 5. Mercy killing is already legal regarding animals -- many dogs are 'put to sleep' for instance each year in order to minimize suffering. Why then should human beings not be granted the same rights as animals? We are merciful to our pets but not with fellow man? What kind of backwards logic is that?! Granted in some cases dogs are more loyal than man; however, in that case you are asserting that they are worthy of mercy killing, proving that it is in fact often a good thing. Euthanasia of animals for the right reasons means that euthanasia of humans for the right reasons can also exist. And since in most cases people aren't "getting anything out of it" in terms of choosing to kill their pets, that means that people do have values and don't believe that selfish forced suffering should be one of them. -- SOURCES: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://euthanasia.procon.org...