* For: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1....
* Against: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.sh...
If the opposite of a statement is just as valid as a statement, it is not an argument. For instance, I could say it is God’s will that we do euthanize people so that they don’t suffer, and God gave us the intelligence to find ways to die that are significantly less painful. My argument has no less logic than theirs.
If “nuh uh” is a substantial rebuttal, your argument isn’t sensible.
* There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia
* Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives
* Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
* Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary
are not primarily religious and you will find them repeated several times here in various wordings. The argument "Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life" may be based on religious belief but I don't think it's a uniquely religious standpoint that life has some form of sanctityIf I said “euthanasia leads to long lines at the grocery store“ it would be a no weaker of an argument than most of those.
Arguments like these may not all be directly religious, but they come from the same place.
I realize it’s just my opinion, but I’ve still never heard one intelligent argument against it.