Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill

My opponent keeps stating that I have made an error by focusing primarily on the terminally ill people who suffer. However, what my opponent is not doing is actually responding to it. I will provide an example just to make this clearer: let's say that we are discussing animal rights and Pro brings up animal testing. Con cannot then say, ‘this is irrelevant because animal rights is not just about animal testing’ and then leave it at that. They must still respond to it since it is still relevant to the debate. According to my opponent, my acceptance of government intervention ruins my libertarian framework however it does not. My libertarian framework does not include anything to do with government intervention. If somebody says that they are conservative you cannot assume that they believe so strongly in every typical conservative belief. It is absurd to think that somebody who believes in a political ideology believes everything that the ideology refers to. Since, there is no reference in my libertarian framework regarding me not accepting government intervention this is an insufficient rebuttal. My opponent didn’t understand my argument regarding why euthanasia is preferable to assisted suicide so I will elaborate and simplify what I actually said. Euthanasia is preferable to assisted suicide because in assisted suicide the final act is committed by the victim and therefore the act is considered to be suicide. Suicide is against the rules of Christianity and Islam. Euthanasia, on the other hand is allowing doctors to ultimately end the patient's life. There are 2 major advantages of euthanasia over assisted suicide. Firstly, due to the fact that the doctor is ending the patient’s life this means that they are not actually killing themselves. This means that euthanasia is not actually suicide. This is preferable to religious people since they will not go to hell for euthanasia but they will for assisted suicide. My opponent has gone back to referring to the slippery slope argument regarding there being a risk of severe abuse and error. I will use a more relevant example for the flaw in this argument. If I am walking to school, there is a risk of me falling onto the road. Does that mean that I shouldn’t be walking to school even when it is just across the road? The same could be applied to euthanasia. There are risks but there is a risk of error in nearly every action. Jumping, skipping, walking, running. (1) Suicide I never said that suicide should be punished. I said that failed suicide is punished for in countries across the world that are strictly religious. The reason that I brang up suicide is because you stated that patients have the right to commit suicide if they are in pain. I merely stated that there are countries that do not allow suicide and severely punish those who fail to commit suicide. Since this debate is not country specific this argument provided by my opponent is not valid. I am Pro-suicide in case you are wondering however that doesn’t mean that suicide is legal everywhere. All I am saying is that suicide is not always an option. (2) Assisted Suicide I will just expand on what I have said above on my paragraph regarding assisted suicide. My opponent misses my point when they say that this debate isn’t about personal preferences. It is about religious restrictions. Personally, I am an atheist but even as an atheist I accept the fact that people are religious. Humans rights should be applicable for the majority and I am prepared to argue this separately if my opponent contests with this (since this is the final round I will be unable to respond to my opponent's final round). Since the 2 biggest religions (Christianity and Islam) are against assisted suicide (but not necessarily euthanasia, depending on how they interpret their scriptures), this means that euthanasia will be applicable and suitable as a human right. 84% of the world’s population believe in God and to deny such a large percentage of this is a violation of human rights itself. Human rights should be applicable to the majority and the only way to do this is to legalize euthanasia. Assisted suicide is not an option. As a fellow atheist I understand what your argument is based on and why you would be persuaded regarding assisted suicide however most people wouldn’t be. (3) Suffering I refuted the freedom of suicide above but I will reiterate this again. This debate doesn’t say where euthanasia should be legalized and since human rights are supposed to be universal rights this must be realistic for everybody. In Singapore anybody who even attempts to commit suicide can be sentenced to jail for a year. In Japan attempting to commit suicide is also illegal. My opponent’s alternative to euthanasia is suicide but this is not an option in many countries and in our 2 biggest religions. Involuntary euthanasia goes back to the slippery slope argument. There are always risks with everything you do. It won't be easy to prevent it but i9t will happen. Just because there are laws against murder that doesn’t mean that everybody stops murdering. It also isn’t a valid reason to remove laws against murder because people kill other people. This is according to your logic. You have stated that this could lead to involuntary euthanasia but anything can lead to anything. This is a weak argument. This debate is not about legalizing involuntary euthanasia because that is illegal everywhere. Despite the fact that euthanasia is illegal in the UK, there are still cases of involuntary euthanasia whereby doctors have been sentenced. If euthanasia is not legalized that isn’t a reason to think that doctors will not kill their patients. With euthanasia at least the doctors have access to a painless option. If a doctor wants to involuntarily kill their patient and euthanasia is illegal, it is unlikely that they will have the correct equipment to provide their patient a painless death. Therefore whilst this point was originally used against my point, this has been reversed and has now been used against my opponent’s case. (4) Religion Christianity can be interpreted to be against euthanasia by some but this is an indirect reference and most Christians accept euthanasia. Assisted suicide on the other hand is not accepted since the Bible does refer to suicide and due to the fact that assisted suicide is ultimately the patient killing themselves, assisted suicide is condemned by the Bible. Since Islam is an Abrahamic religion it is also against suicide and assisted suicide for the similar reasons. (5) Discrimination This is a major misunderstanding by my opponent and I will explain this in case any readers make the same misunderstanding that my opponent has made. FT said that there is discrimination and provided statistics to prove this. My response was that this argument is invalid because it is specific to certain places. I use the fact that it was in specific places as my argument. I used that as a reason to show that your argument was invalid. (6) Corruption My opponent doesn’t really respond to the torture point. All he says is that it is necessary for doctors not to kill their patients and that is their only requirement. (7) Equality Right, this is another misinterpretation by my opponent that I will have to explain. I said that everyone should be offered the same rights. That right is as follow: If any human being is terminally ill and has had the correct mental checks, then it is okay for them to have their doctor kill them painlessly with permission. That is the same right that applies to everyone. It is equal. Just because everyone doesn’t get the right to euthanasia that doesn’t mean that they don’t have equal rights because they do. They have the right that I presented above. If at any point in any human’s life they become terminally ill and will most likely die then they will receive this right. Since anybody can receive the right under those circumstances they receive equal rights. Sources in comments.