Euthanasia

Hi Schachdame,Thanks for letting me do this debate with you and for your kind words. Your Burden of Proof (BOP) is to: 1) demonstrate that killing, as you defined it, is not in any shape or form murder (assuming I interpreted that sentence correct, if not please correct me.)2) The Power of Attorney (POA)-who does the physical act of euthanizing-should not be considered murderers.3) Euthanasia has both positive social and personal (or is it just personal?) effects.Since your argument consists of three BOP, you need to defend all 3 of them successfully to win this debate. For out of the three, if even one fails, I would win the debate due to your overall argument not being reasonably sound. 1) As Euthanasia certainly leads to death there is no doubt that in some form there is always killing involved.The way you worded this phrase seems like you are conceding to the fact that euthanasia is killing, which goes against the thesis you made the paragraph before, "I am starting to clarify the core points of my position for the Con-Side, which is not only, that Euthanasia is not killing..." It is not the only time you conceded to my point. The whole last paragraph talks about killing and suicide. These concessions alone demonstrates that Pro doesn't even fully acknowledges her own argument.2) Euthanasia is not murderMurder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.Killing (as a noun): An act of causing death, especially deliberately / killing (verb): Causing deathPremeditated: Think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand (Oxford)Premeditation can happen in any instances that needs planning. Euthanasia is premediation of how to carry out one's death. You even agreed with me when you said, "...as they know they are getting killed and have given their consent to this." So Euthanasia is murder when we agree that the act is planned out accordingly and the ultimate result is death. One thing that I will address later is unlawful, however, I will wait until Pro responds back with her term, unlawful so that we can stay on topic. Please note Pro that law is a whole new cateorgy of debate. For the purpose of this debate, please try to remain as simple as possible. ** I will address the other issules later in the debate when Pro expands on her argument.**It can be seen that Pro had a weak start with this debate when she starts off contradicting herself. I believe that Pro realizes that her whole problem in this debate lies within the term, "killing." To resolve her defintion of killing would resolve her of some of the problems inherent in her argument, however, I understand what she will do in R2 and I will correct it now. 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 will be using one of Jame's Rachels article on Kiling and Letting Die taken from the book Ethics by Thiroux (This article is really about active and passive euthanasia and how they are equivalent, but I will only use his example to explain that there are no differences between the types of killing." In Rachel's article, he defines Killing as an active prcoess of withholding treatment. Letting die (passive killing) is witholding treatment so that nature can take it's course. Prima facie, it seems that letting die is more morally sound because of the inaction of actively killing, however there is no difference and this can be seen with parallel cases given below:"Smith knows that if his little cousin dies, he will receive a large inheritance. One night, Smith sneaks into his cousin’s house while the cousin is bathing and drowns his cousin. Conversely, Smith knows that if his little cousin dies, he will receive a large inheritance. One night, Smith sneaks into his cousin’s house with the intention of drowning his cousin. However, when he opens the bathroom door, he sees his cousin slip into the bathtub and knock himself unconscious. Smith could easily lift his cousin from the bathwater and thus save his life, but instead he just watches his cousin drown." Ethics pg. 86Most people will say that both of these examples are immoral. If there are only two forms of killing, active and passive, and if we both agree that there are no differences between the two, morally, then we can justify that killing is immoral. Premise as follows:P1) Murder is premediated killing of one human being by another and is immoralP2) Killing is an act causing deathP3) Euthanasia is an act of killingC Euthanasia is murder, which is immoral. Lastly, I am going to drop the religous argument because thats a whole new topic.