Euthanasia

8 arguments 1. My opponent claims that this argument went unanswered, but this is incorrect as I debated that I argeed that we have this, but we must be in the right state of mind in order to make such a decission and I argued that, in my last round, people tend to choose life over death when in the correct state of mind. 2. We have pain killers and I brought up the New York doctor who invented a new pill to deal with these kind of these things. 3. I also answered this in my last round, we as humans concder ourselves to be above animals and we treat animals completely different than we do ourselves as we do several types of testings on animals that many dub unhumane. 4. I understand that they have the right, but as I stated before that this right should be left to the person who will die. When that person is in the correct state of mind then they may choose a decission, but as I said last round, when in the correct state of mind the average human will choose life over death. 5. Now I agree that such safe guards are needed, but this will not do anything as my slippery slope argument proves that it will become a social norm and we will go to other methods and we could end up like Belgium where they euthanize children. 6. My opponent claims that this will enhance quality of life for the patient, but this will kill them. How does this enhance their life? I demand to see the evidence on this. 7. I know that it is highly exspensive to keep these people alive, but even as my opponent said. You cannot put a price on a person's life and that the person's life outweighs the monetary cost. 8. This argument was once again refuted in my last round that even if it shortens life by a few days you cannot play God and give someone their death date. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent My opponent is twisting my words when she quoted my state of mind quote, but the fact is that once the person is in a correct state of mind then the person will choose life over debth as I showed last round. I acknowledged that you are against this, but the slippery slope argument shows that this will happen reguardless of weather or not you support it. Thus showing by supporting the legalization of this part will lead to the forced euthanasias. My opponent claims that I ignored her argument, but this is also incorrect as I did refute this argument last round with my argument of the person's correct state of mind argument. She also says that doctors are doing it and not reporting it, because this is illegal, but mind you that these reports are from nation's that where it is legal. This means that the ones that go unreported are those against the person's will and those that the nations of Belgium and the Dutch have decided are to be illegal. Here in my first video shows Terri Schiavo right before her death. Her eyes are open and moving and she is responding to the doctors questions with a moan. () The video clearly shows her recovery as she is attempting to get better, but they pulled the plug on her. My opponent also completely ignores my argument of the New York doctor that has a pill that leads to a 91% recovery rate and this is key in this debate, because you can easily escape a coma through this pill, but people repetitively go to euthanasias in this cituation. Contention 2: Slippery Slope Arugment. Yes, I am arguing the the normalization of euthanasia will lead to an increase of their usuage. What my opponent does not realize is that the normalization will lead to the legalization of involuntary euthanasia as it has lead to the ability to euthanize your children in Belgium. As I reitterate that there is plenty of information on euthanasia as it has been legal in both Belium and the Neatherlands and even Oregon where it has been legal for quite some time and it's normalization has already been able to take affect on the population as laws are changing to fit the norms. Though the increase in Belgium is only 1.8% it is still a large jump. I would like to point out that my opponent has dropped all of my other eidence showing the great amounts of euthanasias increasing by a multitude of 2 and sometimes even more than that. Contention 3: Gving the healing Doctor a killing role. My opponent is incorrect as I have shown that Pro's own source that's the majority has some sort of objection to euthanasia. Where she get's the 95% at from her source I have no idea, but the very first two charts is where I get mine and it contradicts what Pro claims. Pro's drops. In this debate my opponent drops several key things. 1. People, in the correct state of mind, will chose life over death. 2. My evidence from other nation's legalizing euthanasia. 3. Legalizing Euthanasia will lead to involuntary euthanasia. 4. Legalizing Euthanasia has led to the ability to euthanize children in Belguim. 5. Giving the doctor a killing role will lead to the fear of doctors. 6. The morality of killing an indiviual. 7. My refuting of her 8 'killer' arguments. 8. Humans outweigh animals. With these things dropped the resolution is thus negated.