Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly

Firstly, in your list of the things that we agree on, I never stated that euthanasia is murder (read carefully) but instead the opposite. If a suffering person has consented to a medical professional peacefully ending their life, as in the case of Brittany Maynard, then I fully support this. Now to answer your questions, yes you are correct in saying we are unable to choose the time of our birth. But how do human beings reproduce? Through sexual intercourse between a man and a women, not through God. God does not choose the time of our birth, it is our parent"s actions that determine this. Secondly, to say society never condoned euthanasia until the modern century is a generalisation, but assuming that this was the case, you must recognise that society"s values change over time! In the 20th century, it was generally considered acceptable for parents to physically beat their children, and nowadays it is not. In the early 20th century, homosexuality was illegal in most countries, and nowadays, only a small number of countries still regard this as a crime. As we have moved into the 21st century, our values have evolved, hence why many people now view euthanasia (under appropriate conditions) acceptable. I suggest that you allow your values on the subject to evolve as well. In fact, your originally statement was incorrect anyway, as in the sixties which was a time of social change, the public began to support euthanasia. http://listverse.com... "It would be corrupt and morally evil to believe that lighting one on fire is a good thing to do" Have you ever heard of Thich Quang Duc? A Buddhist monk who in protest to the Vietnam War lit himself on fire while meditating. Not only was this in protest against the capitalist ideologies of America and South Vietnam, he used mediation techniques which are part of his culture and religion so he would feel no pain. Given that practically all of your arguments revolve around religion, I don"t think you can afford to make comments about this when he was acting on his personal beliefs. "It is the duty of medical practitioners to uphold the Hippocratic Oath" (do no harm) You mentioned this earlier in the debate, however wouldn"t a doctor be doing more harm by keeping them alive and suffering, instead of alleviating it? As for comparing Jesus" death to euthanasia, I am not comparing sacrifice with euthanasia but the fact that humans can choose when they want to end their life to euthanasia, due to our FREE WILL which I mentioned in the previous round. Apologies if I sounded "aggressive" towards your religion, and I fully respect that you can believe whatever you want to believe, however it is SUBJECTIVE and therefore not a reliable way to back up your argument. You mention that you see no logic in my arguments, though I don"t understand why. I have clearly outlined my view and don"t have to rely on my religion to do it. "In fact, the act of killing a person would be an act of false compassion and love. The fact about euthanasia is that it is an act which completely contradicts love and dehumanizes the person who is killed because of it. It also cheapens the love between the subject and his killer in the way that it is merely conditional and is not a love worthy of a human being. It is important to realize that Brittany"s husband is actually degrading her to the point where Brittany does not feel worthy enough of a human to live as she suffers in front of him and her family. Whereas Brittany"s husband believes he is loving his wife by allowing her to make the decision to die, he is actually dehumanizing her, and failing as a husband (ultimately as a man)." Throughout the entirety of this debate, you have used your personal religious beliefs to make judgements such as the one above. How is the act of killing out of mercy false compassion? If anything it is the complete opposite, if you really loved somebody, you would want to end their suffering. In no way is Brittany"s husband dehumanizing her or failing as a husband, he is instead respecting her choice and holding her hand until the end, letting her go on her own terms. This issue in its simplest form: 1) Let the person continue suffering until they die 2) End their lives early to stop suffering and to cause a slow, painless death which is inevitable anyway There is the option to suffer, or the option to die on your own terms, and I know which one I would choose. To conclude this round, I ask you this question, when somebody is left in a vegetative state after say a heart attack; families often make the decision to turn their life support machine off. Is this any different to the case of Maynard and if this happened to somebody around you, would you let them live of a machine while being brain-dead just to abide by God"s divine plan and a book written thousands of years ago?