Euthanasia

"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."Yes I do agree with Oxford's defintions, but I am a little confused as to the defintions given is refering to the Oxford defnions or your premise. I agree with the former, not the latter because you gave the premises without support. Sorry I cant seem to understand your argument in these points: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) I argued that killing is considered murder in the case of euthanasia. You deduced that from my defiintion, that I should then agree with your point 3) which is: {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. I am confused as to the fact on what you are trying to prove. Rachels's example was to show that killing and murder are the same thing (will come back). Additionally, we agreed on the definitons provided, you agreed with me in 2) that Euthanasia is premeditated, and that the defintion of murder is the "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." I do not see where your argument stands nor do I see how you deduced that I agreed to your point 3). I will drop it for now. As to your unlawful statement, I did not purposly drop "unlawful" for the argument. My concern was that I didn't know what unlawful was refering to. The problem I saw was addressing "laws" at the different levels. One should agree with me, since you refered to Western countries, that there are different kinds of laws, there are Federal, State, By-laws, and religous laws. When you say unlawful, which one are you refering to? It complicates the debate because there are many laws that contradict each other. A given example in the case of this debate is Federal and State laws. Oregon Washing Vermont and montana are states that allow assisted sucide (http://euthanasia.procon.org...). You argue that "the different "actual laws" for euthanasia are not a different perception of murder but different development and age of the related law." This contradicts your thesis because 46 states consider it illegal, aka unlawful, while 4 states do not. It should be noted that the 4 states listed do not recieve federal funding, for the federal government does not support sucide. The fact that those 4 states are being penalized by not receving federal funding suggests that the differences in laws are a factored that needs to be considered. I want to be clear that the laws are not behind the times as you suggested. Lastly, you make some good points about my bathtub experience, but unfortuantely, your statements doesnt pertain to my argument. You stated that the passive killing wasn't premeditated and I wanted to clarify this. The slipping was not planned, but the killing was. The slipping of the child can be thought of as dumb luck on smith's part. His intention was to kill, but it jsut so happens that an environmental factor facillated in his killing and he just refused to actively help. Thus, my example still holds. As to drunk driving and human error, they are irrelevant to this debate, because both examples are deemed to be manslaughter, not murder. We both agreed to use my defintion of killing as: "Killing is an act causing death." In no way shape or form did I say that killing is premediated. Murder is premeditated, not killing. Euthansia and murder are premeditated. The fact that you can prove to us that there are different types of ways to die does not mean that euthanasia or murder are premeditated nor does it poke any holes in my premise when I did not state any premeditation to begin with. So it is now my duty to demonstrate that euthanasia does harm the individual and the community (because you change your thesis in this current round compared to your starting round, which is fine cause ill address both.) The problem with leagalizng Euthanasia is financial burdens can make a patient chose euthanasia. Specifically, the financial burdens placed on the patient in a way that under many circumstances, a terminally ill patient might think that he should die earlier because death is inevitible and why place uncessary burden on my family? Secondly, it hurts the community and the public conscience when euthanasia is legalized due to the fear of a type of cost effective treatment for terminally ill patients. Additionally, it goes against the Hypocratic Oath. Doctors save lives, not take them away. Lastly, we should also consider the friends and family of the patient. While it is a patients right to choose what to do with his own body, euthanzing oneself against all others opinions brings pain and suffering to 3rd parties who oppose euthanasia. One of the simplest rebuttals to my argument is strict law regulation on this practice. The problem is creating effective laws that can properly regulate instances where euthanasia is permissible. It can be a huge financial burden on the already growing cost of healthcare. Moreover, if laws were even enacted, regulations won't deal with people who want to implement euthanasia for bad motives.