Euthanasia is acceptable

[First, a lot of Con's contention is quoted word for word from his source, a blog (I believe) by one Bill Muehlenberg.[1] Here's the thing, it gives no source of it's wild assertions. It is merely a wall of text making bold claims to degrade EPAC's stance[1]. No source at all. Con's whole case is a source less quote. It is not reliable and is also an ad hominem of: EPAC did this bad thing, therefore, euthanasia is bad.]How can you say that it was meant to degrade EPAC? Haven’t you read that it was about euthanasia? Prove to me that it was ad hominem against EPAC! Don’t just say that it was without any support. Can you show me that euthanasia does not degrade human life? Because all you have done is to attack my source by saying that there was a bias against EPAC- this begs the question on how can that be an ad hominem against EPAC which in fact, the whole statement in my source was about euthanasia, and EPAC was just mentioned as an example.You have the burden of proof! Don’t just attack the status quo but please provide compelling reasons as to why euthanasia should be acceptable."Life is very sacred, accepting euthanasia destroys that sanctity. It may be your life but according to God, you don’t have the right to take it." This is religious bias and thus invalid. ((Even if it were true, so much for free will, eh?)) So, you don’t believe that life is sacred? Free will huh? So you think that each person has the right to take another’s life because of free will? Whatever you say euthanasia is still killing. Free will should not infringe the right to life!Here, my opponent puts forward a vast array of fallacies and implied fallacies. It is a series of court cases in the USA that found euthanasia to be unacceptable. Here are the fallacies:Ad populum: The majority thought that euthanasia is wrong, therefore, euthanasia is wrong.Appeal to authority: The supreme court itself thought that it was wrong, therefore, it is wrong.If that holds, I argue that the Belgian courts found it was OK, therefore, it's OK.That can only be appeal to authority if the supreme court is not entitled or expert to give its opinion. But it has the right to do so, therefore, your appeal to authority contention is invalid.Can you show me a case that support your claim? You should counter my contention with a case.The problem with my opponent's second contention is that it is just a court ruling and not an actual argument. Court rulings came from actual arguments and supported by law and the constitution. Do you think court rulings are not decided from arguments from both parties? So where did it came from? Outer space?Contention One: HumilityHere's a scenario: An old man, a war veteran, is terminally ill. He is dying, in constant great pain; he is also paralysed and cannot move. Day by day, more of his muscles lose control; he's already lost control of his bowels, legs, arms etc... He is also poor with no family and has to be attended to by doctors and nurses every single day. He wants to die.But he can't.Euthanasia is to preserve humility of a person who cannot do anything, who wants to die, who cannot do anything, in great pain, and immense suffering. It is a way out - a final way out. Con presents a case where this cannot happen and thus far, he has given no reason as to why it shouldn't be so. I'll pass the ball over to Con, then.Is this your only argument? You have the burden of proof because the status quo is against euthanasia. You just presented a hypothetical scenario, without even presenting any evidence- like expert opinion, documentary, and among others. You solely relied on your example which does not prove anything. You only presented one point. You should have elaborate your case and have presented pieces of evidence.Do you think just because people are already suffering and they want to die, that we should support euthanasia? So what if all the broken hearted people, extremely poor people, demoralized soldiers, and other hopeless people want to die? Would you support them just because they already want to die and that they have free will? Clearly, you haven’t shown enough in this debate. You just presented a very weak hypothetical example not even supported by any evidence. You failed to realize that you have the burden of proof. You just relied on your rebuttals which do not even effectively countered my claims.Thanks!