Two effects an action of killing can have are whether the one doing the killing foresees someone’s death or intends for someone’s death. Foreseeing what will happen to someone is what the one who’s doing the doing can predict, or can infer what the outcome will be such as an indirect action. Someone who intends for someone’s death, or of something, is what the individual wants to accomplish, in other words, it is their means in which they are wanting to reach such as a direct action. The debate between what distinguishes the act of someone intending and foreseeing someone’s death is familiar to how people also distinguish their moral views between abortion and pro-choice. My view is simply this, because both debates are not set in stone in the sense of moral standards. There is no line to draw that specifically distinguishes the difference in ones intentions to be morally significant in determining the actions of an …show more content…
In a pro-choice case, the mother’s intention is to not solely get pregnant and abort a growing fetus. It is not morally acceptable with aborting a twenty eight week old fetus in her eyes by means of basically dissecting it to pull it out of the womb. However, the mother of the child does not wish for this, but the mother may simply have an ethical view that her rights are of greater importance than that of a fetus. Therefore, this case of foreseeing someone’s death by a means of indirect killing is morally permissible while a case in which a means of direct killing is not permissible. I propose the bases of my claims to be that there is no exact specific distinction whether ones intentions are morally permissible solely by the individual’s actions on the case in thus, will alter with the given morality that a fetus does or does not have a right to human