Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active Euthanasia: a positive action is taken to bring about someone’s death e.g. the administering of a deadly injection or the assisting in preparations for a suicide
Passive Euthanasia: involves a refusal to intervene to change the course of events, where the result is the death of the person e.g. the refusal to treat or the withdrawal of lifesaving treatment

Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement.

Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos.

Pro-choice vs Pro-life
Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light ("Pro-choice" implies the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life"). Similarly each side's use of the term "rights" ("reproductive rights", "right to life of the unborn") implies a validity in their stance, given that the presumption in language is that rights[11] are inherently a good thing and so implies an invalidity in the viewpoint of their opponents.

Ritual suicide is the act of suicide motivated by a religious, spiritual, or traditional ritual.
An extreme interpretation of Hindu custom historically practiced, mostly in the 2nd millennium, was self-immolation by a widow as an assurance that she will be with her husband for the next life. Other rituals of self-immolation or self-starvation were used by Hindu, Jain and Buddhist monks for religious or philosophical purposes, or as a form of extreme non-violent protest. In China, some groups would practice suicide for similar reasons. In Japan, rituals of suicide like seppuku were practiced.

DEATH PENALTY *_* -a deterrent or pure murder?

The DEATH PENALTY, the one thing that all criminals fear. In today's society, the death penalty is what you deserve when you commit a crime, especially when you have taken someone else's life for your own benefit. At the top of the capital punishment crime list lies first degree murder, followed by a trail of other terrible crimes, including drug trafficking, terrorist activities and treason. All these crimes usually threatens national security, and so they have to be dealt with severely.
In Singapore, there are various ways of executing the criminal. For example, the most common methods are hanging and electrocuting them in an electric chair. I feel that for first degree murder, the crime is too severe to be dealt with lightly. If other people were to know that murderers are just sent through rehabilitation, this might encourage copycat crimes, because other convicts are not afraid of the consequences.
But is the death penalty the right choice for dealing with a convict? Do we really have to take the criminal's life just because he took one? From the deceased family's point of view, they would agree that the convict deserves the death penalty. But is this a case of justice or revenge? Humans are not very rational, especially at a time when their loved one has just been murdered by a criminal, and they are filled with rage and sadness. Thus, a third party, like a judge, is needed to determine the severity of the crime and if the criminal deserves a second chance.
In my view, i support rehabilitation over capital punishment as i believe in second chances. However, this consequence only applies to certain crimes, like drug trafficking and rape. Crimes like first degree murder, terrorism and treason are too severe! Rehabilitation allows the criminals to reflect over the reason for committing the crime and may help jerk them back into reality. They might be able to experience guilt and sadness for the victim, unless they are really inhumane. After being given this second chance to be "reborn" again, if they don't make the best out of the opportunity given to them, then they will deserve capital punishment if they commit the same offences again.
Will 2 wrongs make a right? What if it doesn't? It will definitely be much too late to turn back time. The methods of execution that we use today are not any less cruel and inhumane than the ones practised in the past. I feel that every person has the right to die peacefully, and not forced to die just like that. Also, a point that was brought up in class was the irreversibility in miscarriages of justice- where it is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn innocent people. When a guilty suspect has been executed, there is no chance for it to be undone. So, the law should really consider if a guilty person deserves to be "murdered" or given a second shot at life. All in all, humans really should not play God. Rather, humans should take that first step to give others a second chance. If they were the criminals, i'd expect them to want a second chance too.
Therefore, i am AGAINST the death penalty.