I said done is done. Leave it lay.
I see that for a few of you guys euthanasia and matters of death are very close to you at the moment, I wish you all the best for that. I didn’t want to address any personal issues because I knew that’s how it can get (you’ll notice in the debate too I did everything hypothetically…Tab’s more personal approach was also very effective!).
But we still have to settle this debate. So bloody well do a vote. Base it on the power of argument mainly, try not to be biased in your approach folks, read it as if you’re a teacher!
I make it 1-0 to myself so far I think, but it’s first to 10 so…
[size=200]VOTE![/size]
Interesting debate, and good points on both sides. What I missed was any discussion about the systems as they are already implemented - in Holland and Switzerland, at least, it’s possible to arrange it with the necessary safeguards.
I disagree with cheegster insofar as trusting state appointees with the power of life and death over citizens. And I disagree with Tab that no child should have to choose to kill their parent. Well, not with that, but with the converse; that nobody should have the right to end their loved ones’ suffering under any circumstance.
The current state of affairs in the UK and most of the US is that a veterinarian would be prosecuted and struck off for cruelty if found keeping an animal alive in the conditions that a doctor is legally obliged to keep a human alive. There’s something there that doesn’t seem right. On the other hand, I think personal choice over one’s own living is a fundamental ingredient to a good life, and neither of the positions seemed to back that. So I’d have to split my vote down the middle, or withhold it altogether.
Awesome, yeah a trick was missed with the vetenarian, it’s a good clear analogy - particularly when I was fighting solely for the reduction of suffering.
Cheers OH, Your comments appreciated as always.
Cheers OH.
Medical students in most parts of the world no longer take the Hippocratic Oath since, amongst other things, it forbids surgery.
Could that be construed as a tacit vote for myself? Hmmm… 
Last chance to vote before this (so far) sham of a ballot ceases guys. Any input? Whatsoever?
As the closest thing to a veteran of these debates Mr. C, this is probably as good as it gets.
Forget the score, the writing and the thinking are the thing, if you put your heart into your argument, then you did good.
Looks like it was 1-and-a-cryptic-maybe to nothing in your favour anyway. Well done.
It makes me not want to debate again to be honest. We put a good 4000 words each in there. I’m reluctant to take a win by such a small and dubious margin.
Anyway, I think we both did real real good. 
My input is this – I disagree with Tab on a personal level, and his argument didn’t change my mind.
Tab, you know how fond I am of you, but I have to cast a vote for the cheegs, if they’re still being accepted.
Sorry Tab.
I didn’t want to vote.
But I will.
I’ll throw it to C.
Tab’s arguments, while well structured, tended to argue the difficulties of implementing euthanasia as opposed to arguing against euthanasia. Normally, I’m pretty sympatico with that sort of reasoning, sure, it is a fine idea but we can’t really implement it, so let’s not. But the debate wasn’t about that so from the get the argument was pretty much ceded. If the subject had been, “Should enact a Eugenics program?” Tab’s arguments would have been incredibly strong. If he had pandered and argued that Eugenics represent a lack filial piety. Something.
But overall C presented the better argument given the topic. Tab’s objections were either irrelevant or countered. The same doesn’t apply in the other direction.
Sorry tab.
I’ll read it on Thursday night and render a judgment if you guys are willing to wait.
I read it two days ago, actually, and was thinking about judging it, but I wanted to have it be somewhat detailed, so was waiting until I had a free hour or so.
Thanks guys. Some interesting comments too.
Pav, of course you can take as much time as you want.
No biggies people. Trouble with this one is, the right to end your life when you want, as you want, is to me pretty much a given. It is our life after all. So I was forced to play the ‘emotional appeal’ card along with the ‘unfeasable in practice’ card, to have any hope at all.
Would have worked with any other audience, but ILP’s a tough crowd, emotionally speaking.
I still see a huge difference, morality-wise, between the DIY solution of suicide, and the forced complicity of a second party with euthanasia, but then it seems that’s just me. Oh well.
See, I don’t think that is a given more importantly, to just cede that from the get-go means you’ve got a pretty big problem from the standpoint of the debate, you know?
Good arguments though. I liked the wanting to kill the parents bit. Very effective.
I’m ceding it here, not there - and the debate’s over so, what’s the harm…?
From that thread:
Hmm. Dubious. In the question of ownership, if nothing else, I own my body, and whatever investments may have been made by interested parties during its construction and maintainance… Were all done without legally binding contracts. And the question of legality is moot anyway - you may repossess my car, but removing my physicality from the possession of my consciousness would prove somewhat harder.
A grey area perhaps. Ownership to me must involve adequate defence. You do not truly own that which another can take from you or destroy. If I was enslaved, then to some extent the ‘ownership’ of my body would pass to another and presumably they would act to defend against my theft by another slaver, however, they would fall down on the “or destroy” clause, as I could still successfully assault my own body, with a high likelihood of complete destruction, at whatever time I wished. They only own me for as long as I remain unwilling to employ the final veto.
I suppose a suicidal slave could be prevented from killing themselves forcibly, through immobilisation and intravenous nutrition, but that would negate their worth economically, which could be counted again as a ‘win’ for the slave regarding ownership. The ultimate ‘power of goodbye’ to quote Madonna once more.
Your life is your own, only its comfiness varies.
I dunno. It just felt in the argument that you were ceding territory from the get-go. Territory that could have effectively been fought over.
And, no. Your life is not your own. Your friends, family, nation, community, work, and all that all have a stake in it.
Aye, but it’s less than 51%. If I bankrupt the company, they can reclaim their losses after I go into receivership. Shylock would understand.
I disagree.
Why do you think it is less than 51%?