Making Euthanasia Illegal is Selfish

Regarding Con's BOPIn order for my opponent to prove that euthanasia is not inherently selfish, he must prove that making euthanasia illegal does not ignore the needs of others. We have both agreed on the definition of selfishness, therefore if pro is saying that making euthanasia illegal is selfish, con must prove that making euthanasia illegal is not selfish by proving that the reality is the opposite of what the pro is stating. This is quite obvious and I do not understand his objection. My opponent says that he will be arguing that it is not necessarily selfishness for all actors of banning euthanasia; hence he must prove that selfishness is not directly linked to banning euthanasia, which he has not been able to thus far. To prove that selfishness; (concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits etc. ),is not directly linked to banning euthanasia; he must prove that banning euthanasia doesn't have qualities of selfishness; (concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits etc. )There is no reason why my explanation of Con's BOP in round 2 should be ignored. I will give an example. If my resolution was 'euthanasia is bad', my opponent must prove that it is not bad, by proving that the qualities attributed to bad are not linked to euthanasia. No matter what other points he has, my opponent must;"In order for my opponent to win this debate, he must prove that making euthanasia illegal does in fact acknowledge the needs of EVERYONE. Since selfishness acknowledges only the needs of the self, my opponent must prove that making euthanasia illegal does not ignore the needs and values of others. "However I apologize for not stating this in round 1, but this is quite obvious and it should not in anyway be ignored, because in order for my opponent to win the debate, it is a naturally contingent thing that he must prove. ----------RebuttalsThe main reason of my rebuttals will be to prove that his arguments intending to prove that banning euthanasia is not selfish, do not in fact do that. They might prove other things, but his arguments do not prove wrong the resolution which he is opposing. ---------Rebuttal 1------------"Whether a case can be affirmed as selfish is entirely contingent on the conext in which the case occurs, because the motives, desires, and interests of individuals are not inherently homogeneous. "homogeneous: relating to a differential equation in which a linear combination of derivatives is set equal to zero. What my opponent is saying here is that a case can only be considered as selfish, according to how the case occurs, because of the interests of individuals which cannot in anyway equal eachother. This is false, because interests of individuals can be homogeneous, and in the case of euthanasia, the legalization of euthanasia, provides the ability to be euthanized to the 'pro-crowd' and gives the people who oppose euthanasia the chance not to, if they choose not to. In some situations interests in individuals cannot be homogeneous, but with euthanasia this is absolutely false. -------Rebuttal 2---------"It is true that individuals often share fundamental interests, such as seeking food, shelter, and a mate, but the case of euthanasia does not appear to fit within the realm of these basics. "My opponent is saying that euthanasia does not fit within a realm of basic fundamental interests. Freedom of choice is a fundamental basic interest, actually. If freedom of choice was not a fundamental basic interest, we would not live in a democratic society. It is absolutely wrong to say that a mate, food, and shelter is a fundamental basic interest and that freedom of choice is not a fundamental basic interest. Later on my opponent goes on to say that this interest is not a survival value, rather it is only a ideological value. My reply is that, yes it is an ideological value rather than a survival value, but it is a fundamental ideological value, since our society is built on 'the choice of the people'. --------Rebuttal 3--------"Consider, for example, two people: a libertarian and a socialist. Suppose that they happen upon a magic welfare machine equipped with two buttons. One button causes all welfare to cease and never return--the goal of the libertarian. The other button causes welfare to expand, covering the needs of all in a perfectly-organized redistribution of wealth--the goal of the socialist. Clearly, it is selfish of each to pursue his ideological agenda, especially where it is easy enough to maximize personal utility at the push of a button. However, the contexts of each sort of selfishness differ: for the libertarian, ending welfare is selfish, and perpetuating it is unselfish. For the socialist, the opposite is true. "His main argument thus far is that ideological values aren't basic interests, such as food and shelter, therefore they aren't particularly selfish. However, in this paragraph above, he finishes of by stating that selfishness exists within socialist agendas and libertarian agendas, which are ideological. So now his contradiction, and my acknowledgement of it, completely refutes this argument of his. ---------Rebuttal 4---------- "For a terminally-ill patient who has the de facto option between euthanasia and months of suffering before being taken by the disease, it is clear, assuming that the patient's self-interest lies in euthanasia, that advocating such a ban would be unselfish. "If the patient values the emotional condition of his family more than the eradication of his own pain, it may very well be considered "unselfish" by Pro's definition by virtue of taking others' needs and values into account. "In round 2 I urged my opponent to find a situation where banning euthanasia does not have 'selfish' written all over it. I found this in his text and I will gladly point out how this is not a situation where somebody is making euthanasia illegal, and are not selfish. First of all, he says that a terminally ill patient, who is interested in being euthanized, and would advocate a ban on euthanasia is unselfish. It is unselfish in a sense that he is ignoring his own need, for others. However what about all of the other people who are interested in euthanasia? This is not unselfish, it is still selfish. In his second example, he says that if someone wants euthanasia to be banned because he values his families emotional state rather than his own need to ease the pain, he is unselfish, because he wants to put ahead others needs before his own. It is selfish, because he values his families need more than his own, but what about all of the other people who would value their need to ease their pain rather than their families emotional condition? Just because he doesn't want his families emotional condition to be bad, doesn't mean that every other person should not be allowed to the same choice of importance which my opponent gives. i) emotional condition of family ii) eradication of his own pain--------------------------Through his main points, my opponent was unable to prove that making euthanasia illegal is not selfish. His arguments were easily refuted, and he still has not given a good situation where making euthanasia illegal is unselfish. My opponent is con to "making euthanasia illegal is selfish" therefore he must prove that it is not selfish, by proving that selfish qualities are not attributed to making euthanasia illegal. He has not been able to do this yet.