Euthanasia

I am exited about this response; it's really challenging :DTo acknowledge what Con said, I did write that "that Euthanasia is not killing". Unfortunately (and again here was Con right) I handled that poorly and intended to write murder at that point. It does not help that I did not recognized that when I set it on italic. I cannot take it back myself and if Con is not allowing me kindly to do so I will really have no option to get myself out of this, as it is in fact not working with what I argue later. (A/N That is really going on my note list, it's a really embarassing malapropism.I agree that I will have to succeed for all my BOP's to win this debate (obviously as they are directly linked and one cannot stand without the other). Meanwhile I approve the given BOP for {1} killing, as defined, does not equal murder{2} those who physically conduct the euthanasia are not murderers(A/N wavy brackets to differ between this and Con's response part as they don't match) In terms of {3} I have to correct Con. My BOP is not to show Euthanasias positive effects but just is one's right to do it. As from my point of view there is no personal or social benefit required to allow someone a certain decision. One might even choose to do something even if it's to nobodies benefit. The personal part of suicide this is anyway the most personal thing there might come and I don't claim to know anything about someones motives for killing himself. Quoting myself that it's "important to allow people to engage in or use Euthanasia", I think, that it is important to allow because there are no sufficient reasons to forbidde it.Therefore{3} suicide is legitimate (if it does not harm second or third parties)As Con did protested or provided an alternate definition for killing and murder during his rebuttal, I was assuming that he approves the definitions given. 1) As I would totally have to give in for the fault of mixing up the two words that are central for our debate, I am at least happy to see that that this part of Con's response bases only on that and falls the moment I this sentence is set right. 2) Although Euthanasia is premeditated, according to the definition provided (A/N that was quite a good explanation why it is), this can still not ultimately prove that euthanasia equals murder, as the "unlawful" part of the definition is still an unresolved matter in this case. As Con kindly underlined how important it is for me to succeed in for all three of my central points, I am going to conduct that a very similar concept needs to be applied to fulfilling a definition. Means: a definition is only applicable if it applies fully. I will come back to the term "unlawful" at the end to expand my argument as requested.3) going back to my BOP:{2} those who physically conduct the euthanasia are not murderers. This going to stay unresolved until I have properly demonstrated that {1} killing, as defined, does not equal murder. If this is properly demonstrated, the definition of murder will be established as inapplicable for euthanasia and therefore disprove Con. Con sharply interpreted that this is therefore going to be all about abut the question if killing and murder are equal. Considering that Con predicted this ("She will continue to try to differentiate between killing and murder. I will explain why there is no different types of killing and that all types of killing are considered murder.") I am deducting that Con agrees to point 3) 4) Let's talk about the given Article. First we are getting into trouble because that's finally the point when Con is offering an alternative definition for murder, when he presents his Premise ("Murder is premediated killing of one human being by another [...]") by excluding the word "unlawful". I am not willing to drop that part of the definition for two reasons: I think that Oxford Dictionaries did a good job and tried to find a definition that applies to the perception of most western societies (therefore should work for Con's and mine). Unlawful itself is always defined by the society itself, but usually not up to date. I am arguing that the different "actual laws" for euthanasia are not a different perception of murder but different development and age of the related law. It takes time till new ideas show themselve in the law of a country. The death sentence is good example: It was abolished in most of Europe half a century ago and looking into US death penaltry [3] we can see a clear tendency that this sentence is getting rather unpopular there as well (moving into the same direction). This means that the actual differences in law are not are not as relevant as the question whether it should be unlawful. This relates to my BOP {3}, that ther is no sufficient reason to outlaw suicide. If suicide cannot be outlawed, helping someone that has already decided on suicide, cannot be outlawed. Therfore the act of Euthanasia is not unlawful. 4-1 I also question the applicability of the given example to Euthanasia. The example shows a situation in which Smith knows that his cousin does not intend to die (as he slips = no premeditation) . He actively forces death onto him by not helping him (passive killing). Passive euthanasia does not work that way. It requires the consent of the patient (that is in a clear contrast to the given example) and offers him to decline euthanasia. A classic example of passive euthanasia would be a doctor who provides a deadly substance for a patient yet allows him the final decision to drink, inject (...) it own his own. Another classic example would be a doctor that offers to end life-sustaining measures or not undertake them, which is something the patient can decline*. This does not apply to the example either as Smith's cousin cannot protest against his cousins decision to let him die. *this is of course difficult for unconscious patients that have not left a will or consent. Euthanasia, if there is no clear indication that the person has given consent, is highly situational and not generally to resolve.I could end here, as I have shown that the example is not a suitable one to for euthanasia and therefore the conclusions Con draws from it are not relevant, but I will go further.4-2 Con states that all types of killing are equal, but this wrong, even according to his own Definition/Premise ("P1) Murder is premediated killing of one human being by another and is immoral"). There are many situations in which the premeditation is not involved in the killing of another human being, mainly for accidents that result in death ("P2) Killing is an act causing death"). A good example is drunk driving; the driver did not intend to kill someone yet he choose to drive drunk (act) and caused death. Human error in terms of software programming causes death in hospitals, space and often is involved in the average "household accident".We therefore have at least one good example where killing is not equal murder because it fulfills neither on of the definitions provided by Con and me. As Con stated that all types of killing are murder, I regard his point as disproved.(Personal Note: I never understood why people wish someone good luck for a debate, as it doesn't have anything todo with luck, I thought. Considering my stupid mistake in the last round, I going to rethink the concept of "bad-luck" ;D) [3] Amnesty International Summary, Statistics p.2 http://www.amnestyusa.org...