Euthanasia should be legalized with requirements

"pain makes you" That shows that pain is the cause. Your stating that pain is causing people to act differently. By my opponents rationale pain from some illness is one of our bodies methods of protection so therefore it is a natural phenomenon whereas pain induced from torture is not a natural pain, it is caused by the intentions of another person. Therefore it is irrelevant. My opponent seems to be in a fairy tale where reality simply does not exist. He seems to believe that people do not live in perpetual pain for the rest of their short lives. True we cannot determine exactly how much longer they will live but that is one of the greatest benefits of medicine and science today, we can observe and record people with conditions and predict rather accurately the outcome of those with the same illness. So you contend that depression is widespread but what if a person in perpetual pain had never had signs of depression until the pain began? Yes sometimes pain can be relieved but you simply cannot deny that sometimes every option available still does not work. Sometimes there is no relief medicine can offer. That is a fact of life 2. I never stated that it was euthanasia I stated that she was essentially allowed to commit suicide because she did not wish to be kept alive by machines. She had made the choice to die rather than live by machines, much like a person suffering perpetually opts for euthanasia. As I said in the previous round children and euthanasia would be an entirely different debate. Gallup poll Again euthanasia is a unique situation, it only involves the person opting for it. If a physician did not wish to participate in euthanasia that would be there right to refuse such as some refuse to do abortions. There would be those that would participate in it. "If tomorrow a poll revealed that 80% of people agreed that citizens over 60 should be euthanized to reduce medical cost" This was an incorrect use of the word euthanized as it is a choice. By your phrasing the people over 60 would have no say in the matter. 3. More and more states are legalizing things that were once taboo such as gay marriage or marijuana. The views of the individual are beginning to gain more weight as we've seen in recent years. The fact remains that euthanasia is a personal choice. It's not forcing anything on the nation as a whole. It was overlooked because the power of law lies with the few and they did not uphold their duties and respect the voice of the people. It is not their job to protect people from themselves (please cite a source if you disagree) and no where in law does it state that if they disagree with the masses that they have the right to act against our decision and yet they do anyhow. Murder is taking away a persons choice, euthanasia is the choice of an individual. Vast difference It shows that the taboo is loosing its impact. People are beginning to break down the walls of myths that surround subjects that were once taboo and they're finding that it was not as horrible as they were made to believe. Gay marriage, marijuana, things like that. People have lived in ignorance on these subjects but the more they actually educate themselves on the issue the more their views have changed. Like the gallop poll on euthanasia for example or marijuana. Two decades ago these were still taboo subjects, especially gay marriage and now the military even allows it to some degree. "In 2010, two federal courts ruled the ban on openly gay service personnel unconstitutional and on July 6, 2011, a federal appeals court suspended the DADT policy.[1] In December 2010, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and under its provisions restrictions on service by gay, lesbian, and bisexual personnel ended as of September 20, 2011." http://en.wikipedia.org... To put it bluntly people are beginning to loosen up and see things for what they really are. After this debate feel free to start another debate on those topics if you wish. "Your logical fallacy was an appeal to authority" Clearly you've had trouble understanding the context in which you've spoken and how it applies to your logical fallacy to authority. "Slippery slope" Must I define euthanasia and genocide for you? gen"o"cide /G2;jenəG6;sīd/ noun noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides 1. the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation eu"tha"na"sia /G6;yoV2;oTHəG2;nāZHə/ noun noun: euthanasia 1. the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The practice is illegal in most countries My opponent seems to have trouble understanding the difference of the two so I shall attempt to break it down. The Nazis operated under the guise of a euthanasia program that had already existed but the methods used to do so were illegal but at this point they had complete control of the government therefore rendering anyone virtually powerless to stop them. My opponent refuses to admit his proven fallacies despite being caught red handed. The Nazis operated under a dictatorship under a man named Adolf Hitler who attempted the Jewish Genocide. America does not operate under a dictatorship, this is a country where the president is elected by the people and we have elected officials that represent us. Are you suggesting that America could be converted to a dictatorship which would make your scenario plausible? Nazi Germany is the only country to attempt using "euthanasia" as a means to commit mass murder. "any sooner than would naturally" naturally being the key word in the phrase. This correlates to your statement in round one. Refusing medical treatment is ignoring the "pain" meant to keep us alive and therefore immoral by your standards as the person is choosing to allow their life to end. If someone dies by jumping off a skyscraper is it suicide? Yes, if someone refuses medical treatment that would save their life is it a form of suicide? Yes, they are choosing death plain and simple. The person chose to not save their life which is immoral by your stance. From round 1 "1. Immoral One of the most famous philosophers of ethics was Immanuel Kant. He came up with a system of figuring out if an action was moral or not called the Categorical imperative. The Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In using the this method Kant condemned all forms of suicide by saying the purpose pain is to protect one"s life [1] , such as taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one"s life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral. We usually strive to be moral beings, so we should avoid from having immoral acts." 3. Right to Die Unfortunately she did not leave a declaration as to her intentions on the issue so the husbands word was all they had to go by. "non-voluntary euthanasia" again you have misused the word. Euthanasia is physician assisted suicide, Terri was removed from all forms of life support allowing her to starve to death. According to your previous rounds she died naturally as no one euthanized her. She starved to death.