In the United States, voluntary euthanasia should be legal for anyone who wants it.

"Therefore, you're agreeing that this is suicide! I believe this is wrong." A. Just because you believe this is wrong, means nothing when it comes to law, your subjective opinion on the matter, does not counter the opinions of thousands who would want to be euthanized. "...this is a rejection of the importance and value of a human life." A. No, it is a person saying, sh1t I guess I had a good run and I'm ready to go, but I don't want to put a bullet in my head. To so many people, they don't want to shoot themselves or whatever, but to them euthanasia is a peaceful and dignified way to die. "... but they miss the point that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life- either their own or someone else's. With euthanasia no one's life is being saved." A. However, this just does not explain why the government should get into the lives of people who do not want to live. With euthanasia, it is a personal choice. "But it increased usage" A. Why is this so bad?" B. Logically, it would also decrease suicide numbers, as more people would do this, which they find a more acceptable way to die. "Yes, many people would like to opt for it, but it isn't available. Therefore, it encourages people to death with it and fight on." A. No it forces people who want to die to shoot themselves or OD or something that they simply do not want to do. Give me a single example of some one who wanted to be euthanized but kept on living just because they couldn't. "The rich kid... since it's an easy way out, the rich kid would opt for it." A. Why does he want to die in the first place? In any case so what, this does not mean euthanasia is a bad thing. "As for the poor boy... he has to deal with the problem, in this case, studying." A. No he does not, since he could kill himself. You are under a false assumption that the only way to commit suicide is through euthanasia, but this is obviously false. "It teaches people to solve their problem, instead of giving up. Would you like a society where people rather give up than facing their problems?" A. Again, a false assumption not having assisted suicide gets rid of suicide. This is completely false, without euthanasia people commit suicide through other methods not preferable to them. "However, many people are afraid of pulling the trigger, and choose to face their problem, and ended up solving it." A. Evidence? B. So then many people overdose on drugs, or many other things. Yeah, so this is kind of void, as in the U.S each year, average 42,773 Americans die by suicide. http://afsp.org... "First off, I can sign a consent on impulse, too. Paying for it wouldn't be a problem either, if I'm gonna choose death anyways." A. The point I was making there overall, is that kids or the mentally disabled would not be able to be euthanized, as with regular medical treatment. B. Also, tell me a medical treatment where you walk in and then they take you right into the room to get it done without authorizing insurance, verifying information, all of that. It doesn't exist. "Since you're referring from kids, this would be no difference from children running away from home. They'd use their parents money." A. How would they obtain their parents money. Again, if kids are failing tests and going to get themselves killed, lets face it, these kids are legally incompetent in some aspect, in which case, they could not sign off on medical treatment. B. They will not be able to give any financial information that is not included in the immediate bill. "... if euthanasia would be legalized, there will be competitors. People will fight and fight to offer cheaper solutions to opt out." A. Under my definition, there must be a consenting doctor, so if you are saying people will pose as doctors and then euthanize people while failing it, that would still be illegal, in which case, that would already exist today. B. You mean some doctors would offer it cheaper? Okay, this is capitalism, the service would be improved and made cheaper, this is not a bad thing by any stretch. "I said thanks, because you praised me." A. No, in your example, you implied a mother taking all her sons money so she could live another couple days is not selfish, and I said you could make a good case that it was. "Because people can make impulsive and bad decisions." A. As with anything, this includes sex, playing a sport, choosing a career. But we do not ban these things, because then you have a government that controls the lives of all people almost fully. This is very dangerous, as it limits the freedoms of all people in the U.S to almost nothing, same goes for euthanasia. "Euthanasia is one decision you can't overturn." A. Same goes for playing a sport that maybe gets you injured, or having sex with some one who has AIDS. And different from these, with having to sign off, pay, wait for a certain period of time, actually going through with euthanasia is something that you can't do on impulse. Maybe you could sign off on impulse, but then you have to wait, that is just how it works. "I'm saying that the grandmother opted for euthanasia, because she deemed herself a burden, but little did she know, her life has brought much happiness to her family, happiness that meant way more than money." A. After thinking this through, this example is invalid under my definition. Under your example, the mother can not pay for the treatment so the son does, and as I states first round, some one has to pay for euthanasia. Due to this, the son would have to consulted first, which in yours, he could not since he did not want to. So, your example is actually invalid since the son did not want it, and he would be the one that would have to agree to pay for it. "Then wouldn't that be against your argument, since you stated anyone should be able to opt for it. And I already explained that he'd be able to use his parent's cash." A. No, since it is obvious that euthanasia, would not override established medical laws. This is just how things work. B. He wouldn't be allowed to sign off, so being able to pay wouldn't matter. "why not just rob someone and commit euthanasia and commit euthanasia? That would't face any charges. In fact, you might as well go crazy for a night before visiting the clinic to get your shot." A. Do you have a shred of evidence that legalizing euthanasia would increase robberies? B. If they are really that depressed, and somehow legally competent, then they should be able to, if they can afford it. "sure, some, or many, might like it, but majority of the people would still view it as undignified." A. Con forgets here that what dignity is, is not for him, or the government to decide. It is completely subjective to oneself, that is why when some one believes it is for them dignified to be euthanized, that is undeniable for them, as it is a completely subjective and personal choice. "They may think it is dignified, but through the definition, it doesn't fit in. Pro might be using the wrong set of words." A. Do not be fooled by the logic con is using, what they are saying is, since they do not believe and many people do not believe, euthanasia is respectable/dignified it is factually not. However, whether something is respectable is a 100% personal and subjective thing. If some one believes euthanasia is respectable FOR THEM, it is for them, and in effect the opinions of the government or people with a different opinion, is subjective to them as well.