Euthanasia should not be legalized.

Citations for the previous post. (Unaware that bottom of document was cut due to character count, and could not edit.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.bmj.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... The question that needs to be asked is: What is freedom? My assertion was only that it is not the same sort of freedom given from these libertarian types. Bodily autonomy is a myth in the libertarian sense. (Nowhere did I say that a person's body should not be respected, though the implication is in my opponent's argument) There is no such thing as freedom (or autonomy) without consequence. We are free to attempt to do whatever we please with ourselves. If we physically assault, or rape someone else we are supposed to be punished. (Not sure how my argument was misconstrued as a pro rape one) We can all agree that acts of violence should be recognized as punishable by the state. This is what bodily integrity is. You have a right live without your person being assaulted or molested. There is a balancing act with what you can do to yourself. It is not as black and white as the libertarians claim it to be, and this is because of consequence. Once again, we are not free of consequence, and never have been. Getting a tattoo that your mother disapproves of is much different than the indirect participation in violence caused by buying drugs from criminals. These are two different circumstances, with different moral consequences. What connects them is that these matters are often defended with the libertarian notion that one can do with one's body so long as they think they are only harming themselves. Just because you don't see the violence happen, doesn't mean you are not a party to it. I only make this point to show the weakness of the argument for euthanasia solely based on libertarian principles. (And I'm already sure I'll lose this debate because nothing upsets people more than telling them they can't always do what they want.) My argument does not say that people shouldn't get tattoos, or offend their parents. It's only an appeal to authority in matters of cause and effect. It's the consequence that's important. The libertarian argument as a whole is simple, shallow and based in self interest. There are times when people doing things to and for themselves will have far reaching negative consequences, and it is in these matters that authority may have to recognize it. We don't condone public acts of sex even though no one is technically being harmed. We understand that such a thing would have a negative impact on our culture and the way we value sex, relationships, and the way we teach these things to our children. We have founded a society where we are free to do many things without state intrusion, but we have stopped well short of anarchy. Euthanasia proponents (and revolutionary thinkers alike) tend to start from a position that the compassion and goodness of humanity is in a captive state, like a flower not yet blossomed; while conservative thinkers tend to see human nature as something corruptible and innately blemished. This is why conservatives are sceptical of revolutionary causes and emotional appeals to change long standing structures, because they often start with good intentions and end in something much more authoritarian than the standing structures that conservatives defend. Sometimes society does get it horribly wrong, and my opponent will be quick to point out slavery. But the opposition to slavery was based on the same conviction that all humans possess an innate and unshakable worth by the grace that they are human. It was the faulty and absurdly incorrect utilitarian argument that kept them in chains. My opponent insists on bringing abortion into the argument so I will address it. Before the (English) Abortion Act of 1967 it was promised that abortion would not become "abortion on demand", that it would only be used in special circumstances including rape and threat to the life of the mother. (No libertarian arguments!) Those who fought for this law believed in what they said. Since then the number of abortions have sky-rocketed in England (1), and the original vision has expanded beyond recognition (save the foresight of the opposition who predicted what would come). The point is, is that it's much harder to regulate legal activity than it is to keep it illegal. In 1967, the pro-abortion movement did not condone or even want abortion on demand, but now it is considered sexist to even question whether the movement has gone too far. Con makes the same sort of claims (however well-intentioned) about euthanasia and how it will only be used in the strictest terms. But how can she be sure? Is it not a safer bet to assume what we already know about humans? That when you give an inch, they take a mile. (I don't think this point will phase Con, because while she might not see abortion as a decision to be made lightly, her libertarian principle will override any argument against it, as is the case with most modern pro-choice proponents.) Despite what she says, I do not find it appalling that people have debated standards of personhood, as she and I are doing so right now. What I find appalling is that a so called ethical "expert" is placed in a starting position that gives them the power to end life based on their subjective and politically defined view of ethics. There are no ethical experts. Only ethical philosophers. I'm saying that the idea that we're told society can breathe easy because an ethicist is put in place to ensure us of our moral integrity, shows the lack of thought we have going into this. Con claims that human value is subjective. But that view only works if we all agree to respect each other's subjective claims. She ignores the subjective judgement that one may have for another. If I said that a handicapped person has less value as a human being, I'm sure she would not respect my subjective point of view. This is why we need a universal human standard of unalterable value. Because while she might be able to distinguish between the utility of someone in a vegetable state and someone in tremendous pain (perhaps ungodly pain) who still appreciates their own life, the good doctor may not. How easy is it to ignore the growing reports of elderly abuse and maltreatment in homes, and still believe each sick, or possibly demented person, will always be treated with the dignity and respect they require for their own protection? Again, I have to defend myself (and use up word count) by pointing out another instance that my opponent has twisted my words. I did not claim that I'm unconvinced that people not allowed to opt for euthanasia are actually suffering. I said that I'm unconvinced they are being tortured by the state or by another human being. I won't make the argument again. You can read back to see what I said. I wonder if the government will eventually force all of us to name the persons who are to be responsible for us in our sickness, and how long it will be before those people are told that by keeping us alive they are torturing us? The end result is already waiting, and the road of guilt leading there is already being paved. My argument has never been that people who suffer do not deserve sympathy and compassion, or that wanting to die makes them bad people, or even that an act of assisted dying cannot be a true act of mercy. My argument is whether or not the legalization of the act is a good thing. My opponent claims that I'm calling for a forced extension of unwanted lifespan. I reject that. Words such as "forced" and "torture" used in places where they don't belong will bring about the fraudulent ethical guilt that makes killing another human being as easy as putting down a sick pet. I'm not so sure that is a future we will be glad to have. Thank you. Sources (1) http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...