Euthanasia

Let me start out by saying that it took me all of 11 seconds to figure out that con has absolutely no idea what on Earth he is arguing about.... To prevent any potential readers from losing brain cells from reading con's arguments allow me to explain what is SUPPOSED to be debated here Euthanasia is the act of of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, either by lethal injection from a doctor or by cutting off medical treatment that was sustaining the person in question. http://en.wikipedia.org... There are 3 different types of Euthanasia which con also didnt seem to care to distinguish before making his idiotic scenario's. Here are the three different types of Euthanasia: 1 - Voluntary Euthanasia, which is permitted in many countries and US states where the person who wishes to die has given explicit permission to be put to death 2 - NON-voluntary Euthanasia, which is banned in all countries all around the world and is treated like an act of murder. 3 - Involuntary Euthanasia, which is also considered murder and not only is illegal, but also treated as if someone did in fact murder someone By legalizing Euthanasia, you are advocating for the legalization of voluntary Euthanasia, not non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia...... Idiot That being said, its also painfully obvious that con also has a very idiotic idea of what the word 'common' means.... 'Common' by definition means something that actually happens on a regular basis to the point where when it does happen, its not newsworthy in any way at all since its quite a normal event. That being said, none of Con's 3 idiotic scenarios are even close to what would be 'common' if Euthanasia became a legal practice. Con's first scenario is involuntary euthanasia, which is completely illegal and therefore the daughter would not get away with murder.... Cons second and even dumber scenario is gross mal-practice and mis-use of euthanasia since euthanasia is reserved for those who truly are at the end of their line and are suffering painfully, not for someone who just got (mis)diagnosed with HIV..... Cons final scenario, the stupidest one of all, entails a completely implausible tragedy of a daughter killing her own mother just seconds before the doctor walks in with the good news that the mother is going to be perfectly fine, even though the mother and daughter literally just spent HOURS talking about euthanasia when the Doctor conveniently wasnt around..... ================================================================================= Point is: Euthanasia is perfectly reasonable to legalize FOR ITS INTENDED USE: Which is ending the life of people who are already on the verge of death, are experiencing a great deal of unnecessary and avoidable pain, and have given explicit permission to be euthanized by a doctor or other medical professional...... None of Con's 3 asinine scenarios comes even close to the reality of when euthanasia is even an option, let alone would be 'common', and thus he has not provided a coherent and non-idiotic argument against the legalization of Euthanasia Hopefully in the next round con will give some actual half-decent arguments against legalizing euthanasia, though I wouldnt be surprised if he continued to not get a clue over what he is arguing over, and instead resorted to eating crayons or doing whatever it is stupid people do before arguing about something without doing a shred of research over what he is actually arguing..... Over to you con.