<span>It has been said that certain genes often skip a generation. So, if your parents have a particular abnormality a child might not necessarily get the same abnormality. In the case of schizophrenia I cannot imagine that two schizophrenics would even take a chance of having children. Even if they are on medication it does not mean that their life can be even close to normal. After all, they have to take very goodo care of themselves and also their child. Schizophrenia often does not show up until a person hits the approximate age of 20. There is also a factor of something actually triggering the schizophrenia. Going back to my first sentence I can only hope, for Daniel's sake that he does not develop this mental illness.</span>
In order to answer this question, I will use two different perspectives of ethics: the consequentialist perspective, and the deontological perspective.
Consequentialism argues that the morality of an action lies with its consequences. This means that an action with bad consequences is an immoral action, and vice versa. In this case, killing the last remaining Redwood would not have any negative consequence on any being in the world, as no one benefits from it anymore. This means that the act is not immoral.
A deontological perspective states that there are principles that should be taken as rules, and which govern what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, rules and duties are central. For example, a principle might state that "all life is valuable." As the Redwood falls under the definition of life, killing it would be considered an immoral action.
During World War II, women in the United States found great more employment opportunities in industrial jobs (D) because they had to make guns and clothing and even had to help with make the atomic bomb.
It can permanently damage hearing <span />
Hellow the answer is right here i think so
