Euthanasia

I am Not quite sure about my opponents burden.... I presented a Burden in the first round that Con didn't address.... Also My burden is more fair as it gives both Pro and Con equal ground whilst my opponents Burden tilts the scale in favor of Con so that it is almost impossible for pro to argue. Under My Burden we each have to prove our point as a General rule, under the con burden she can instantly fulfill by creating a hypothetical scenario. Obviously my Burden is better and more fair to the debate. Lets also look at the definition of Euthanasia, as my opponent definition suggests Euthanasia implies a painless killing, so for the purpose of evaluating morality we must assume that Euthanasia is A) Painless and B) is in fact done for reasons of mercy and C) the person will die in the Near Future. CON Arguments then PRO Arguments 1. My opponent essentially makes the claim that killing is wrong because we say it is. I have to say this is an oversimplification, obviously some people don't think it is wrong. Also how do we react naturally when we talk of Euthanasia. By my opponents Logic, whenever someone is killed in an accident, a War, or even by personal choice; the action that led up to it is inherently Immoral. My opponent fails to understand the Massive Logical Fallacy of this contention. Euthanasia does not Justify killing in general, it has to fall under the specific generation. If I broke into a house and shot someone because they were fat, it would not be Euthanasia, because A) they have no Terminal Injury or Illness by which they will soon die, B) it was been ordained and proven that physical Harm via shooting or stabbing is painful. Euthanasia would justify only one thing, Euthanasia. This Whole point is a Logical Fallacy and thus should be discounted. a. My opponent makes a claim that essentially a person has no moral control over his/her body. if we were to continue her train of logic... If I asked someone if they wanted Personal Autonomy, they would say yes. Euthanasia is respecting this personal Autonomy. If hurts no-one and is thus not a burden to society either. b. The first argument my opponent makes is that Euthanasia is killing because it takes life. However this argument is based purely on which words are used. Killing bears a Negative connotation. If I were to ask a person if they wanted their money taken for societies use and whether they supported taxes I would very probably receive two different answers. As my opponent frames this debate "Euthanasia is Moral in a Medical Setting. In a Medical setting express consent must be given OR the person must not have the functioning Brain power to make a decision. If this happens it is the decision of close relatives. It is not as if anyone can commit Euthanasia... in 999/1000 cases consent will be required the exception is essentially when the patient is a Vegetable. If it escalates as my opponent argues, it will cease to become euthanasia and therefore outside the parameters of the debate. We must respect personal Autonomy, taking this freedom for societies use is Immoral I address this is my case. PRO All my arguments stand un-attacked so please extend them through the round. Conclusion: Euthanasia is a very specific Term, much of con's arguments would create a situation where the action is not euthanasia as she defines it. Her Arguments regarding killing are fallacious. In order to protect personal Autonomy I urge Affirmation