1、legalize

legalize發(fā)音

英：[?li?ɡ?la?z]　　美：[?li?ɡ?la?z]

英：　　美：

legalize中文意思翻譯

常用釋義：使合法化

vt.使合法化；公認(rèn)；法律上認(rèn)為…正當(dāng)

legalize變形

第三人稱單數(shù)--legalizes；現(xiàn)在分詞--legalizing；過去式--legalized；過去分詞--legalized。

legalize雙語使用場景

1、The decision to legalize land trades may really be a way to break the power and corruption of these village chieftains .───這一決定令土地交易合法化，可能成為打破村莊首領(lǐng)權(quán)力和墮落的途徑。

2、West Germany , by contrast, will not be able to legalize any form of euthanasia for a long time to come .───與之相反，西德在未來相當(dāng)長的時間里都無法使任何形式的安樂死合法化。

3、A proposal to legalize marijuana in California was defeated, but a measure to streamline the state's dysfunctional budget process passed.───在加利福尼亞，大麻合法化的議案被否決，而精簡州不良預(yù)算卻獲得通過。

4、To legalize private space explorations.───使私人空間探索合法化。

5、I think your husband should legalize immigration. Please put a statue of me in Echo Park. Thank you. No, really. I want a tuxedo on the statue.───我認(rèn)為你的丈夫應(yīng)該使移民合法化。請在回聲公園給我立個雕像。謝謝。不，說真的。我希望雕像是穿一身禮服的。

6、The "small property" is essentially the problem of collective construction land use right transfer the question of whether to legalize.───“小產(chǎn)權(quán)房”的問題實質(zhì)上是集體建設(shè)用地使用權(quán)流轉(zhuǎn)能否合法化的問題。

7、It has been 16 months since Australia's Northern Territory became the first place in the world to legalize voluntary euthanasia.───自從澳大利亞的北方區(qū)成為世界上第一個將自愿安樂死合法化的地方，至今已有16個月了。

8、ALBanY, NY (AP) -- The top courts in two states dealt a setback Thursday to the movement to legalize gay marriage.───奧爾巴尼，紐約洲（AP）--兩個洲的最高法院周四挫敗了要求同性戀婚姻合法化的運動。

9、He wants to legalize drugs, ban involuntary commitments to mental institutions, and replace state schools with online education.───他想要使毒品合法化，禁止非自愿向精神病院提供服務(wù)，用在線教育取代公立學(xué)校。

legalize相似詞語短語

1、legalised───v.使合法化（legalise的過去式和過去分詞，等于legalize）

2、legalizer───法律判定者

3、delegalize───vt.使失去法律效力

4、illegalize───vt.使成為非法，宣布……為非法

5、legalise───vt.使合法化（等于legalize）

6、legalized───合法的

7、legalizers───合法化者

8、legalizes───vt.使合法化；公認(rèn)；法律上認(rèn)為…正當(dāng)

9、legal-size───法定規(guī)格

2、英語辯論賽，安樂死是否合法化

給您一點

參考資料：

Those who are against euthanasia state that euthanasia is morally andethically wrong, but this is not the end of the argument. The argument alsoincludes that euthanasia is not necessary when palliative, a medical specialtyfocused solely on pain, stress, and symptom relief, is so advanced (Center toAdvance Palliative Care, 2009). In most cases, the desire to die or suicidalthoughts have been shown to be clinical depression which is treatable. Attemptsto legalize euthanasia did not occur until the 20th Century, and history doesnot provide an adequate example to why euthanasia should be legalized. Theargument against euthanasia includes the slippery slope, that once the door ofeuthanasia is open, it becomes increasingly easier for ethics and laws to beedited, changed, and "updated" to become increasingly liberal indefinition and application. By definition, euthanasia is illegal and immoral.Euthanasia is the ending of a person's life and presents a threat to all peoplewith disabilities, chronic physical and mental illnesses, the elderly, andother vulnerable portions of the population (Euthanasia Prevention Coalition,2006).

One of the misconceptions put forth by the "right to die"proponents is that those against euthanasia and assisted suicide believe that aterminal patient must be kept alive by any means available, which is not true.The Catholic Church (1994, 1997), states that: "Discontinuing medicalprocedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionateto the expected outcome can be legitimate...the refusal of"over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death;one's inability to impede it [death] is merely accepted. The decisionsshould be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by thoselegally entitled to act for the patient...Even if death is thought imminent,the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. Theuse of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the riskof shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity ifdeath is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and toleratedas inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. Assuch it should be encouraged. "

Some supporters of euthanasia will make the claim that the terminally illare a burden to their family or to society. Illnesses such as quadriplegia,Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other physical and mental disabilities do createemotional and financial burdens, because the person is dependent on others forcare, and for now, these "burdens to society" are safe in ourcountry. The Netherlandsare already known for having legalized euthanasia. The practice has beenquietly expanding from 'just' the terminally ill and elderly to includeinfants. Worse yet, Dutch euthanasia rules do not require the patient to beterminally ill, but judged only on whether or not a "livable life" isattainable. The guidelines for making this determination are known as theGroningen Protocol. According to Smith, (2006),

The subsequently compiled Groningen Protocol--which is expected to form thebasis for the official approval of Dutch pediatric euthanasia--similarlycreated categories of killable babies: infants "with no chance ofsurvival," infants with a "poor prognosis and are dependent onintensive care," and "infants with a hopeless prognosis,"including those "not depending on intensive medical treatment but for whoma very poor quality of life... is predicted." In other words, infanteuthanasia is not restricted to dying babies but can be based on predictedserious disability.

Proponents for human euthanasia claim that restrictions, laws, andgovernment oversight will provide the necessary guidelines to preventeuthanasia from being abused; however, one look at euthanasia in the Netherlandsproves that this is far from the truth. Euthanasia has been legalized for morethan a decade in the Netherlands, and according to Hendin (2000), doctors therehave become complacent about the use of euthanasia, and numerous incidents arecited in which euthanasia was used against the patient's will.

Being alive is not equivalent to living: on this premise, both sides of thedebate about euthanasia can agree; however, the right to decide when deathtrumps life is not man's decision to make. The physicians in the Netherlands aretaking liberties and playing God with the lives of patients, often without thepatient's knowledge or consent. The example set forth by the Netherlandsclearly demonstrates that euthanasia does not provide balance to the medicaladvancements that can postpone death via life sustaining machines; instead, ittips the balance in favor of physicians, nurses, and families, who are tired ofcaring for the patient, believe the patient's life is of no value, and in whichpatients are given no choice. The Netherlands is the example of why eventhough euthanasia may be legal, sanctioned by legislators, and performed bydoctors, it can, is, and will continue to be abused.