Euthanasia should not be illegal

Rebuttal and ConclusionMy opponent says that I cannot be reasoned with in the case of the law and the government, therefore he doesn't want to go further into the debate.It's not that I can't be reasoned with, my opponent still has not proven that euthanasia should be illegal.Before I dig into his text, I would like to point that he copied and pasted his points from a website, and therefore he doesn't deserve to win the debate. "To legalize assistance in suicide is also inconsistent with the same fundamental tenet of a just legal system The decriminalization of suicide (and attempted suicide, therefore) makes sense if we contemplate the plight of people having to face criminal proceedings after failed suicide attempts. Decriminalization motivated by the desire to ease the plight of such people does not, however, imply that the law takes a neutral view of the choice to carry out suicide. Those who attempt suicide are clearly moved by the (at least transient) belief that their lives are no longer worthwhile. Since just legal arrangements rest on a belief in the ineliminable worth of every human life, the law must reject the reasonableness of a choice which is so motivated."In this paragraph my opponent (the site he copied and pasted from) is basically saying 'euthanasia should be illegal because it is illegal.' He is saying that since the law rests on the belief of inalienable (not ilneliminable) worth of every human life, the law must reject the reasonableness of a choice which is motivated because of a bad condition resulting in euthanasia. The inalienable worth of every life, is inalienable because we are all equal, which makes our choices equal, which should make euthanasia a legal choice. No, the law shouldn't reject a choice which is motivated by a bad condition, just because we are all humans... that is an argument that doesn't make sense."Hence the law must also refuse to accommodate the behaviour of those who effectively endorse the choice of the suicide: for they too are acting on the view that the person they are helping no longer has a worthwhile life.Their behaviour would not be sufficiently explained if one were to say that they were acting 'out of friendship' or 'out of compassion'. For how could the motives of the person assisting in suicide be described as 'friendship' or 'compassion' if they were not informed by the thought that the person intending to kill himself would be better off dead? If one thought this person could continue to have a worthwhile life it would hardly be an act of friendship, for example, to help him kill himself."In this paragraph my opponent shows why he is not open to other peoples choices. He says that people who help others in euthanasia shouldn't be considered friends. Anyway, this doesn't prove why euthanasia should be illegal."They promote the view that many human beings lack the 'moral standing' (what is here called 'basic dignity') in virtue of which they enjoy basic human rights; so they cannot be wronged even if the motive for killing them is merely the convenience of those human beings who do have 'moral standing'. The whole exercise of drawing a line between human beings who do and those who do not possess 'moral standing' is utterly arbitrary"This statement from my opponent states that people who want to be euthanized lack 'moral standing'. It then says that people who are pro-euthanasia, want to draw a line between human beings who are not and are moral. NO, this is not what pro-euthanasia people think. Coming from a mouth of someone who is against euthanasia, it shows that anti-euthanasia supporters automatically consider people who choose euthanasia immoral, and therefore it should be illegal. Pro-euthanasia supporters acknowledge that everyone has different morality, and that they have the right to exercise it when making decisions about their own lives."But if we cannot make sense of the claim that euthanasia is a benefit to the person to be killed without relying on the thought that that person no longer has a worthwhile life, then supporters of voluntary euthanasia are buying into a larger package-deal than they perhaps realise."My opponent is basically saying that just because a life is doomed to death, it should not be euthanized, and that people who support it are 'buying into a larger package-deal than they perhaps realise'. Once again, according to my opponent, everyone who is for euthanasia is not thinking properly. Anti-euthanasia supporters are close-minded. This is not a reason to make euthanasia illegal, therefore this is not a valid point.My opponent showed us the website he used for his 'Germany proof'. This website is concerning the holocaust and the euthanization of people, without their choice. The Germans used this to kill people who were not their 'master race' This is murder, and this is not what we're talking about. And, you can't compare my statistics from modern day Oregon, to the holocaust.To conclude, vote Pro because my opponent was unable to prove why euthanasia should be illegal. His points were copy pasted off of a site, and his statistics were from the holocaust. As pro, I was able to prove that euthanasia should not be illegal, because it's every individuals choice and nobody elses. My opponent is unable to prove that the freedom of choice, should be diminished in the situation of euthanasia.