“The Christian community should at least seriously consider euthanasia as a legal and moral possibility.”(17-1) This is the comment Wennberg made at the end of “Historical Comments”, and I believe it is what he wanted to say the most in this paper. As most Christians believe euthanasia is prohibited by the Sixth Commandment, they do not even take a consideration on the morality of euthanasia. The author, Robert N. Wennberg supports euthanasia as long as it is voluntary, but he questions the validity of the euthanasia by non-terminally but incurably ill patients. There are three reasons that make me believe his position is fundamentally for euthanasia: amount of evidence, argument structure, and the author’s comments on evidence. First of all, the amount of evidence presented to support euthanasia is much greater than those to against euthanasia. There are 28 evidences Wennberg provided the detailed information in the endnotes, and 22 out of 28 evidences were for euthanasia and the rest of them were explanation for the history, circumstance and definitions of terms. Although Wennberg introduced some negative aspects of euthanasia and doubted the reliability of the resources in “Posing Problem” and “Public Opinion”, he neither had quantitative data nor testimony. …show more content…
He quoted the statement from Marvin Korl, who approves euthanasia as a moral activity, for the beginning of the introduction which usually express the author’s opinion. He also puts the negative aspects of euthanasia between positive ones, and he reaffirms for opinion after introducing against-opinion that is the same way to put counter arguments. For an instance, he disproved the conviction of the Sixth Commandment after introducing it as a primary reason against euthanasia. The for-opinions seem more strengthened by introducing negative