Discuss the Moral Considerations Relevant to the Killing of Human Essay

Discuss the Moral Considerations Relevant to the Killing of Human Being - Essay Example According to those who oppose this  practice, they argue that the foetus is a human being or a person from the time of conception. Hence terminating it is the same as killing a human  being  which in itself is not  moral.  The foetus acquires  human  characteristics remarkably early in its  life  such that by the tenth week, it already has acquired a  face, arms,  and also  fingers and toes.  Also, the internal organs and the brain activity can be detected by this time. As every human has the right to life, also does the foetus. Every woman has the right to decide what should be happening in her body, but the foetus's right to life always outweighs her right to  make  a  choice  as to what happens in her body (Thompson 45). Many people who support abortion have  various  premises to support their arguments. One is pregnancy due to rape. They argue that this is reason enough to terminate the pregnancy. However, one cannot say that those who  wer e conceived  through rape have less  right  to live than others. Pregnancy due to rape results in the conception of a  baby  that 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 mother's life  is threatened  by the pregnancy, whether it is morally relevant to  abort  the pregnancy or not. ... This means that abortion is morally permissible in some situations while in others it is not (Thompson 58). Judith's considerations on the  morality  of human  killing  are similar to the argument of Dan Brock who argued about the  morality  of voluntary, active euthanasia. Provision of  relieve  from suffering is among the many ways doctors take care of the patient`s wellbeing (Brock 30). Yet from a third-person point of view, it  is not known  whether an individual`s quality of life is extremely low that it  is burdensome  for the individual. Hence an  individual  might  regard  the continuation of his life to be unbearable because of the severity of his suffering; and  want  a doctor to end his suffering  immediately  by ending his life. This means that an individual acting on his values is morally permissible if his doing so is consistent with permitting others to the same freedom. This is  mostly  self-determination and the  value  of  equal  liberty. Hence an individual`s  choice  of  voluntary, active euthanasia is  more  consistent with permitting others the same freedom. Therefore, an individual  choice  of  voluntary, active euthanasia and the doctor's fulfilment of this request are morally permissible. However, voluntary, active euthanasia involves the deliberate killing of individuals, which is wrong. Hence voluntary, active euthanasia is also wrong. Removing life-sustaining  treatment  also amounts to deliberate killing of innocent people yet it  is thought  as morally permissible (Brock 32). This  is only done  when it is  consistent  with the well-being of the patient and his  self  determination. Hence voluntary, active euthanasia is morally permissible when it is  consistent  with the autonomy and the well-being of the patient (Brock 35). According