Euthanasia

Hello socratits. Thanks for joining me in this. I think it shows a lot of courage and creative thinking to argue a Con-Side to something oneself is not absolutely Con to. I am going to start tough but after reading what I've written I know at least one point were you can really cause me trouble and I will spent the next hours thinking about how to argue if you find a certain weakness in the following...I am also terribly sorry if I occasionaly forget a word or put it in twice - it's a thing of mine and it's really embarrassing.I am starting to clarify the core points of my position for the Con-Side, which is not only, that Euthanasia is not killing, but also that these people should not be treated like murderers and that it's important to allow people to engage in or use Euthanasia.This means, even if we can clarify the line between killing, murder and whatever one might call supporting another persons suicide, we still have to interpret that in terms of whether these people should also be treated like murderers legally, because I don't see any point in judging someone a murderer if they are not sentenced like murderers. In terms of definition I am going to go for the Oxford Dictionaries as that's probably the most common source for definitions and quote [1] Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another[2] Killing (as a noun): An act of causing death, especially deliberately / killing (verb): Causing deathAs Euthanasia certainly leads to death there is no doubt that in some form there is always killing involved. Depending on how the Euthanasia is carried out it's either the patient who is executing the killing (when he takes fatal drugs that someone else provided) or the person helping him (when someone administers the drugs). But this does not make it murder itself. Using this definition, the act of providing someone with substances in doses that will kill them, cannot be murder at all, because the one executing the killing and the one getting killed are identical. It does not fulfill the definition of a murder at all.In the case that a doctor, friend or relative is administering the drug, I will focus on the word unlawful. It's going to bring us in a vicious circle because it is murder, if the law states it as such and the law only states this, if the society decides to phrase the law like this. Which directly links to the question, if the society regards this as murder. So if I prove that people should have the right to kill someone that wishes to be killed, the law conclusively should follow this deduction and that would free said human beings from being murderers as it would not be unlawful any more. (A/N I sincerely hope that isn't written too twisted to understand) Therefore my argumentation why people should be allowed to kill someone that wishes to be killed: Personal freedom can be fully granted in cases were no one else (human, animal, nature) is harmed than the person claiming the personal freedom. This is the case for most types of suicide. For active euthanasia we have one person killing another and one committing suicide; as they know they are getting killed and have given their consent to this. As the killing-part has already been stated as secondary relevant, the central point here is that the suicide-part is therefore legitimate from the point of personal freedom. Even considering that (from some religion's point) one person might go to hell for committing suicide it's still their own decision and they are free to do it as they don't cause any harm with that. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...