Arranging arguments for English persuasive oral presentation

[Jcp34]

Hi guys. A Few weeks back at school, I have a persuasive oral presentation due for English. In my oral, I am suggesting that voluntary euthanasia should be legalised for the terminally ill in Australia (with strict regulations of course). I have done a heap of research and developed seven arguments. Yes, seven arguments is a lot, but some of them will only be three or four sentences and some may combine into one argument when I write. I will also shortly rebut a few arguments against euthansia before concluding. I'm here because I was hoping for some advice on arranging my arguments. Very briefly, and in no particular order, my arguments are:

1. Those in the late stages of a terminal illness, and their loved ones, can suffer tremendously (and unnecessarily).
2. Euthansia is already being preformed by doctors regularly in Australia. If euthanasia were legalised, it could be regulated.
3. Our objection to death is largely based on the fear that it can happen at any time and in a manner not of our choosing. This is not the case with voluntary euthansia.
4. The right to death is implicit in our right to live.
5. It is hypocritical that medicine can be used to prolong life, sometimes at the expense of its quality, but not end life.
6. The decision to die is a private one; it is no business of the state when it does not directly physically harm anyone else.
7. Legalising euthansia makes economic sense. (Is it appropriate to discuss money?)

Also, I'm opening my oral presentation with the story of Chanal Sebire - a woman who had a very rare form of cancer that left her with almost no sight, no sense of smell or taste and a disfigured face and who fought the courts for physician-assisted sucide but was refused. She committed suicide not long after. If you search her, her face towards the end of her illness is quiet confronting.

So, how do you guys think I should arrange my arguments? I am having trouble deciding, so any advice would be appreciated. I was thinking about putting argument 2 first because then I can go straight from my contention to discussing regulations that would be put on euthansia in Australia. And I was thinking about putting argument 7 last, since it is probably the least persuasive. I can elaborate on any of my arguments if that would help.

Thanks in advance.

[Soph932]

Personally I would go
(1) Briefly, as it follows on from your example. It's a really strong point, but most of it would be implied in the example, so you don't need to go into it too much except to sum it up.

(5) As it follows on from (1), and you can include details from your example

(3) and (4) together. It will (hopefully) lead from the emotional/sad approach to the 'we're being taken advantage of'/angry approach.

And I would finish with (6) as it will be one where you can be really strong and really make people feel like their rights are being violated and get them directly involved.

I wouldn't go into (2) unless you had a substantial and credible amount of information. We did this topic in religion last year and I got quite the opposite impression (that some doctors wanted to but didn't as it was illegal). And while I don't think it's 'inappropriate' to discuss the financial benefits of the situation, it doesn't really sit right with me personally. When it was mentioned last year I could understand it logically, but it still made me a bit angry to think about. I wouldn't risk it, but if you want to go for it 

It really just depends on your style of speech and what you feel most comfortable talking about and actually want to talk about. For example, if you felt really passionately about the last point you'd end up doing a great paragraph on it while I don't really like the last point so I'd write something terrible   Good luck!!

[Jcp34]

Thanks Soph932.
I like you're idea about putting argument 1 first and finishing with argument 6. I think I will leave the economic stuff out of it, considering I have many other points to raise. However, I'm going to keep argument 2, as I have evidence for it and I do need to discuss the regulations I would have on euthanasia and it ties in well with this argument.

Thanks so much again for your advice.