CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I do believe that each person should be in control of their lives and thus I believe that each person should be able to choose death if the option is deemed as fit to them.
It seems rather strange to me that a woman can legally kill a fetus because "A woman should have control over her body!!!" but she cannot legally kill herself. ;)
To be fair, one can legally kill themselves via suicide. Death with Dignity is more of a doctor assisted suicide situation, hence the more iffy legal aspects to it.
While independent suicide is no longer illegal anywhere in the U.S., under common law a family may be incapable of recovering certain financial entitlements. Also, in some parts of the country you can still be criminally prosecuted if your attempted suicide fails. Which is pretty messed up.
I always felt like the right to die is something we should be granted. If I heard a convincing reason as to why it shouldn't then I'd be all ears, but until then I'm very supportive.
Arguments I've heard so far were how it could be misused to have innocent people killed, how a person could escape their debt or leave a child orphaned suddenly, or maybe the best one was how people with psychological issues who weren't fit to be making that decision could end up making that decision. The problem with most of the nay sayers' arguments would only be validated if euthanization centers were like convenience stores, where you could just go in get what you wanted and... never leave again. When the centers could be created with all sorts of regulations in mind that would prevent people from making this decision on a whim. Regulations like several processes of agreeing to the procedure in document and video form, coupled with a waiting period after agreeing to ensure this decision is final, and another few forms of agreement to sign. A medical professional performing the action, and a legal professional on standby making sure it's all done by the books, only after a judge has signed off on the whole ordeal. The judge of course would only be signing off on this if the guy's legal finance history, and relationship status was all checked and in order.
So you always agree with the law, so according to you:
-the NSA should use a spy system that doesn't work for what its meant for (i.e. the Boston Bombings and all of those school shootings that didn't get stopped)
-the population should be "neutralized" (killed, ah hem ah hem)
-corporations should be allowed to make the fucking law
-racist police officers should hit black people for being black and shoot them for doing nothing (i.e. Fruit Vale Station)
-corrupt police officers should shoot dogs
-liberalism and peaceful protests should only exist against corporations, who pay the government to make the law for them (mentioned above)
-Obama should be allowed to execute people without due process and cover it up
Alright, I'm a hypocrite for saying this based on other debates but... You weren't clear about that statement. I think you really meant, "I agree with the law in this particular regard," in which case that's fine. It should be illegal to kill people. You should go to jail for it.
So if that's the sort of thing your saying, I agree with your argument more so. At least, I think it's more reasonable.
-the NSA should use a spy system that doesn't work for what its meant for (i.e. the Boston Bombings and all of those school shootings that didn't get stopped)
Ah but how many of those incidents were stopped because of the spy system?
-the population should be "neutralized" (killed, ah hem ah hem)
Yeah it should actually the world is very overpopulated.
Ah but how many of those incidents were stopped because of the spy system?
Less than the amount that actually got away with it, far less. More criminals who do that type of thing get away with it than before. It takes so long for the NSA to focus in on someone. That's because technically it's in their database, but someone has to look at all of the possible major crimes at once. By the time they get it through the system to focus on and deal with one, a fuckton of other criminals have already gotten away with it. The system doesn't work, in fact it gives criminals a higher statistical chance of getting away with what they are doing.
Yeah it should actually the world is very overpopulated.
No, killing people is killing people. Killing innocent people is killing innocent people. If anything, we should try to colonize other planets or something. If you neutralize the population, you risk killing people who could be a huge benefit to society. I think your saying "overpopulated" because that's what the government came up with to tell you. Just because the world is overpopulated doesn't mean that the solution is to kill everyone. Maybe get less women pregnant somehow, in order to reduce population growth.
Also, depopulating earth isn't necessarily the government's job. I think your giving nature's responsibility to the government. A species runs out of, or gets very low on resources. Then it has enough to stay at the same level for a while because the amount of people dying and the amount of resources are equalized. When resources get too low, more of that species dies than is born because there isn't enough food, wood, etc. to satisfy its needs. That's when Earth depopulates. Again, not their job.
All the government is doing is using a bad excuse to kill people when they don't really want to tell you the real corrupt reason. That reason may vary, but I'm sure the government knows it's not supposed to do nature's job for Earth.
There's a difference between assisting something (like nature if that's what your going to argue) and trying to force change it. It's a lot like the English major telling the Math major how calculus works, when the Math major knows better. See what I'm saying?
And when you look at the government's answer to the public for all of this, which is not what I've posted thus far, they bullshit you. They lie and say it's stopped a total of 50 terrorist acts (threatening to hit someone if they don't do something is terrorism) but refuse to name examples. On the other hand, between those three articles alone, there are a fuckton of examples that prove my point. A lot of them are pretty big fucking crimes.
They also say Snowden has it wrong when he was a top NSA spy. There's also a contradiction between what the chief of the NSA admits and their claim, which is another article I can cote if you want.
I concur with his statement too because I think that's the clear and rational solution to this political issue, unless someone can guarantee that tomorrow there will be a cure for all diseases, paralyses, etc. and that there will never be a point in even having euthanasia.
But, since that won't happen, I think it's a safe bet to allow it if the reason is approved by an official. I see no corruption in someone interviewing the person and making sure they're telling the truth about it and that they do have a terminal illness, so the death can be kept track of.
But I do think it should be allowed, absolutely. So long as someone isn't able to beat the system by faking a problem so they can legally commit suicide, it should be okay. And frankly, since I've never heard of that happening either (I don't think our problems will end soon), euthanasia should be legal.
Yes, and if it's a legally approved good reason, then it's a good reason to have it be allowed. If a paralyzed person wants to die, they should be allowed to fucking die. If someone who's going to do in six months of cancer wants to die, then let them fucking die. I didn't mean a reason that's only good to them. I meant a legally approved reason. There's a lot of illegal stuff that you can get a license to do, and with good reason, it is then legal.
Or do you not believe that anything under the category of that last sentence exists and that no one is ever licensed by the government to do anything?
'Legally approved good reason". So the state comes up with a list of illnesses so bad that they feel you should have the right to be killed if you have them. Can you imagine how scary it would be to be diagnosed with a condition that the government suggest is that terrible? That thought would make me suicidal in itself.
So the state comes up with a list of illnesses so bad that they feel you should have the right to be killed if you have them. Can you imagine how scary it would be to be diagnosed with a condition that the government suggest is that terrible?
Obviously. And its also obvious that those conditions exist: paralysis, polio, lung cancer, blue waffle? I guess blue waffle is supposed to be a hoax, but still STDs like that... And your implying that such conditions aren't that terrible.
If a condition is that fucking bad, it should be deemed as that fucking bad.
Your list of conditions tells me you don't understand any of them. Nevermind.
The point is it is impossible to form a list of illnesses that are so bad that you should consider topping yourself if you have them. Everyone judges the value of their own life differently and we should be assessing each of euthanasia on a case by case basis depending on the subjective suffering of the patient. It shouldn't be dependent on a list.
You know something, I'm usually all for case by case basis. You know, I think my mind's changed a little bit. I kind of agree with you a little more.
I still think there should be someone to assess when it's a reasonable death, so that some depressed teenager, who isn't paralyzed, doesn't have cancer, etc. doesn't just use it as an excuse to die.
But I agree with the case by case basis thing now. That you've changed my mind on, especially since that's how I look at a lot of things.
I would also like to add in something Atrag. It's one line and I'll make it quick, after I describe the line. I mean, because your statement is a correct one, but it's not exactly that best argument. There is a magical sentence that describes yet another problem with that as a statement, and it's a very rational, very descriptive, very intellectual sentence:
Suicide is already part of our society. Last week all the trains on the bay area peninsula were delayed 2+ hours when someone jumped onto the track. Why can't we face suicide in a dignified manner rather than trying to shove it under the rug. If life and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights in the US, why shouldn't death be as well?
