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 were 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