Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering

FrameworkMy opponent brings up a right to suicide, but yet I would like to bring in the philosophy of Immunal Kant. He used suicide as one of his many example's when he was making his case for the Categorical Imperatives. Here he argued that the whole point of suicide was to create one's happiness by ending one's missery. He pointed out that this is a controversial issue and is something that actually argues for the opposite side as it is simpply arguing for creative destruction and by destroying one's life in an attempt to make their life better or perhaps the lives of others as well. This is shows outright that the people who are attempting to preform AS are not in a rational state of mind and are unable to make these decissions since it would not be for their best interest. Thus any attempt at this type of euthanasia would be a grave mistake. Contention 1: Right to DieMy opponent mentions a key word in this first contention on choosing when they can die. That word is Lucid. Meaning that they are clear on the subject and easy to understand. Though the thing about that is under this situation it is that the individual is actually under an irrational state of mind where they are unable to make a clear decission. Kant viewed Suicide as a lucritive idea as it is a mere Hypothetical Imperitive vs. a Categorical Imperetive. By this we can see that in order for people to make these decissions they must be in the proper state of mind and the state that the person is in inpairs their state of mind. Without the proper state of mind they do not have the right to make that call as the illness that they are under is affecting the individual to the point where they are wanting death in order to create happiness and this is something that he argues should not occur as if the person was in a rational state of mind they would not wish upon themselves AS. [1] At this point we must realize that we have to protect those who are not in a rational state or soceity would fall appart at the seems. My opponent actually brings up a great argument, but it is one that goes on my side of the argument. "By allowing the government to control your death, you are essentially putting your lives in the government’s hands and allowing them to dictate both your life and your death. " I quite agree with this statement, but not in the way my opponent is going about this. We can see that continuously furthering this movement we will give government a new weapon. As I have shown in my previous round, the AS system in Europe has already begun to move towards Non-voluntary and Involuntary euthanasia which is a movement towards legalized murder of another individual and soon enough the government will be able to use this against their citizens in an attempt to silence their opponents or to establish eugeneics. Though I agree that we need freedom, going down the Road to Serfdom is not the way to do this as we will gradually become slaves to the very system we have fought so hard to protect. We can see that not only by legalizing this method we would be destroying soceity due to the care of the irrational people, but giving the government a new weapon. Contention 2: Hippocratic OathMy opponent's attack against the "old" Hippocratic Oath is something that is rediculious and not really needed in this debate and I shall discard it as such, however, there is one point that he has made that is relivant and that is where I will actually refute. My opponent's "pain" argument is quite vague and this plays into the Grim Dark argument as it's vagueness can go towards the side of an oppressive government by getting rid of the homeless and beggers since they are in "Pain" due to their situation. This is something that had actually rattled NAZI Germany as they executed the sick and homeless. NAZI Germany used this as a beginning of their Hollicost and this is a very example of why we shouldn't allow this type of program as it will enslave the public. [2] My opponent even recognizes this vagueness by shifting it to the defense of those in pain from their illness. Though relate this back to the Kantian argument by showing that the individual is irrational and if we accept their plees then their murder will be unjustified since they were not in a rational state of mind and thus the individual is not really in the correct place and ability to make the decission for their own death. Thus by preforming AS we are causing more pain to soceity via the "For whom the Bell Tolls" argument by showing that the constant break down and the murder of this individual is felt by the entire human race and this method harms all of humanity as we are gradually chipping away at the very foundation of humanity. Contention 3&4: Religious Concerns and Living WillsI'll be grouping these two arguments together since they almost deal exactly with the same thing so they'll be addressed collectively. My opponent here makes an interesting case as it is an argument that speaks about an advance notice for euthanasia, however, this still does not escape Kant's argument here. It still shows irrationality of a person as they are still irrational by trying to imagine something they hate of the illness. This is something that everyone hates and fears. Fear in itself is another aspect that creates an individual to not be in a rational state of mind. [3] An example is that of a recent Geico Commerical where it is of that of a scary movie. In that movie it shows the people always make bad decissions. This is something that Kant points out here, so this Petition still doesn't escape the relms of Kant. Contention 5: Social Groups at risk of abuse. Teddy Roosevlt, famed US President, was a strict advocate against birth controlls for whites but one of the number one supporters for birth controll usage by minorities in an attempt to keep "in check" the minorities and the movement has resurfaced today as a push for abortion to start to target African-Americans to do the same thing Teddy Roosevelt pushed for. [4] I have also brought up in Germany that Hitler used euthanasia to begin the Hollicost. We can see that by legalizing euthanasia we will not be helping minorities we will begin a program to erradicate the minorities and this is something that we should not do. Sources1. Cholbi, Michael J. Kant and the Irrationality of Suicide. 2nd ed. Vol. 17. N. p. : North American Philosophical Publications, n. d. 159-76. Print.2. (. http://www.ushmm.org...) 3. (. http://plato.stanford.edu...) 4. (. http://www.politicalresearch.org...)