People have the right to be euthanized.

My opponent starts off by trying to defend their statement that "one's life belongs to one's own person." They quote Thomas Bowdon to prove their point. The problem here is that Jefferson literally said that "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (https://www.google.com...). In other words, the Declaration is quite clear that the right to life comes from a creator. And the same source my opponent uses to show that one's life is their own says that "Assisted suicide in the U.S. and Europe, and euthanasia in Europe are not Constitutionally-protected. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 ruled unanimously that assisted suicide is not Constitutionally-protected, but up to the states to decide" (http://blog.seculargovernment.us...). So my opponent's source recognizes that the right to die is not protected by the constitution. My opponent says that the right to die is corollary of the right to life. Okay, my opponent can believe that but they can't argue it from a constitutional standpoint. There own source even acknowledges that the right to die isn't supported by the Constitution. So this opinion of my opponents is respected but it is ultimately meaningless in order to show that people have this right. My opponent then mentions that not everyone believes in God. That is also fine but if there is no God, that would take away the existence of meaningful/objective rights. In other words, if there is no God, their would be no right to die or a right to life. Rights would be based on the preferences of people. So this would mean that there would be no real rights and my opponent's argument would fall apart since they are asserting that people have the right to be euthanized. Also, I never mentioned that rights came from the Christian God specifically. I didn't even describe the God that supposedly gave humans rights. I just stated that the founding fathers believed in God-given rights and so did I. Though, it should be noted that Christians pretty much agree with each other on the basic Biblical principles (including rights). But that is sort of a red herring my opponent brought up so I will not go into it too deeply. My opponent then states that the United States government does not base its concept of rights on religion. It just so happens that Thomas Jefferson and the majority of the founding fathers disagree with her. Jefferson said that rights were endowed by God and he wrote the Declaration of Independence. So my opponent is just completely wrong here. The rights our founding fathers believed in were ones they believed came from God. My opponent states that my argument violates the "separation of church and state", but the "separation of church and state" is never mentioned in the constitution so my opponent doesn't have an argument here. My opponent also says that Congress can't make a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That is true. That said, the point is irrelevant to the conversation since this doesn't mean that rights didn't come from a God and this doesn't mean that the country can't be a Christian nation. Though again, I never really focused on Christianity in my original argument. My opponent states that the founding fathers believed that black people and women had little to no rights so therefore their moral standards should maybe not be the ones we use now. While I don't think this is completely true, this is a really good point. In order to solve this issue, we would have to determine who the right God is. I would argue that it is the Christian God but that is another debate waiting to happen. You would have to prove that the Christian God exists in order to prove that rights come from that specific God. That said, my original point was not that rights came from the founding fathers, but that rights came from a creator. And that is what the founding fathers thought as well. My opponent says that me claiming that the right to life is protected by the constitution is patently false. Okay...well the 14th amendment says that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (http://americanrtl.org...). So my opponent is wrong about that. My opponent tries to again to prove their point by bringing up a supreme court case about abortion...but this debate is about euthanasia. And my opponent has already admitted that "euthanasia is not necessarily a constitutional right." So they have no argument here as well. The case about a patient being able to refuse medical treatment does not negate the fact that euthanasia is not a right given by the constitution. My opponent then says that I wrongly accused them of using a double standard. I disagree. They originally said and I quote "Those people's lives can be ended through non-voluntary euthanasia in good conscience, as their 'personhood' status would be challenged given certain criteria of personhood (they lack consciousness) and therefore their legal right to life is no longer recognized." A person and a human are the same thing (https://www.google.com...) and my opponent was clearly saying that their personhood is challenged when they lack consciousness. I accused her of using a double standard since she claimed that not allowing people to be killed is somehow violating their freedom and bodily rights (which they still have not yet objectively established as actual rights). But then they turn around and say that they can kill humans in certain cases since their personhood would be challenged. Sounds like a double standard to me. That claim that they never said that "a very ill person was non-human." But actually they did say that the personhood would be challenged (since they are ill) making it alright to kill them. The statements are the same and my opponent has some explaining to do. Then my opponent goes on saying that other peoples opinions are not relevant to a person's freedom and etc...They mention that people can get tattoos and have children without their parents permission. I never really argued that other peoples opinions should prevent people from having children or etc...So I have no idea where my opponent is going with this. That said, they did add that "I have that right the way I have the right to control what medicines I take, how I eat, and how I live my life whether it makes me sick or not. If I have diabetes, I can choose to eat sugar until I die." These things aren't really rights (though the medicine thing is considered one in the United States). Sure, you have the ability to eat whatever you want, but this doesn't mean you have the right to. Although, that is kind of a silly example for obvious reasons. So lets discuss euthanasia again. Sure, people have the ability to kill themselves, but this doesn't mean they have the right to do that. And my opponent still hasn't given a good reason for euthanasia to be legalized. Nor have they objectively established a single right they keep mentioning. Running out of characters...so quickly I'll add three points. a. Animals get killed because they have no rights. They don't die at the hands of humans because they have the right to die. b. Murder is unlawful killing. Euthanasia is basically banned in the United States. Therefore I can call it murder. c. As for the money issue, the cost of a persons life is not good enough reason to kill them. I feel like I have addressed this enough though. Thanks for a good round and hope the last one is interesting.