Discuss the Moral Considerations Relevant to the Killing of Human Essay

Discuss the Moral Considerations Relevant to the kill of Human Being - Essay ExampleAccording to those who oppose thispractice, they argue that the foetus is a homophile beings being or a person from the time of conception. whence terminating it is the uniform as killing a humanbeingwhich in itself is notmoral.The foetus acquireshumancharacteristics remarkably early in its conductsuch that by the tenth week, it already has acquired aface, arms,and alsofingers and toes.Also, the internal organs and the brain natural process can be detected by this time. As every human has the right hand to life, also does the foetus. every(prenominal) woman has the right to decide what should be gambleing in her body, but the foetuss right to life ceaselessly outweighs her right tomakeachoiceas to what happens in her body (Thompson 45). Many people who run miscarriage havevariouspremises to support their arguments. One is pregnancy due to rape. They argue that this is reason enough to termi nate the pregnancy. However, one cannot say that those whowere conceivedthrough rape have lessrightto represent than others. Pregnancy due to rape results in the conception of ababythat also has the equal right to life just like all the other conventional methods of conception (Thompson 56). Hence Judith wonders what will happen when the mothers lifeis threatenedby the pregnancy, whether it is morally relevant toabortthe pregnancy or not. ... This means that abortion is morally permissible in some situations while in others it is not (Thompson 58). Judiths considerations on themoralityof humankillingare similar to the argument of Dan Brock who argued about themoralityof voluntary, active mercy killing. Provision ofrelievefrom low is among the many ways doctors take care of the patients wellbeing (Brock 30). Yet from a third-person nous of view, itis not knownwhether an individuals quality of life is extremely low that itis burdensomefor the individual. Hence anindividualmightreg ardthe continuation of his life to be unbearable because of the severity of his suffering and hopea doctor to end his sufferingimmediatelyby ending his life. This means that an individual performing on his treasures is morally permissible if his doing so is unchanging with permitting others to the same freedom. This ismostlyself-determination and thevalueofequalliberty. Hence an individualschoiceofvoluntary, active euthanasia ismoreconsistent with permitting others the same freedom. Therefore, an individualchoiceofvoluntary, active euthanasia and the doctors fulfilment of this request are morally permissible. However, voluntary, active euthanasia involves the deal killing of individuals, which is wrong. Hence voluntary, active euthanasia is also wrong. Removing life-sustainingtreatmentalso amounts to deliberate killing of innocent people yet itis thoughtas morally permissible (Brock 32). Thisis only dowhen it isconsistentwith the well-being of the patient and hisselfdeterminatio n. Hence voluntary, active euthanasia is morally permissible when it isconsistentwith the autonomy and the well-being of the patient (Brock 35). According