You should respond to someone who wrote on a different topic than your own. Provide respectful and constructive criticism regarding their application and areas of disagreement. You are expected to incorporate the textbooks and outside academic sources in your reply.Be sure to carefully define your terms. You are expected to support your position with rational arguments, fitting examples, and expert sources. Any quotes or information used from sources other than yourself must be cited using footnotes in current Turabian format and will not count towards the total word count.You will be penalized for falling short or exceeding the word count. This is a university-level writing assignment and therefore it must be carefully proofread, free of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Do not use slang, emoticons, or abbreviations (as if you are texting or sending an email to a friend). Reply to this discussion board below In DB 1, I argued that Christian ethics is truly the right way to view the foundation of our moral compass, versus the idea of Natural Law being how our morality is governed. To me, the idea of being good and pure and living a life to achieve such virtues comes from our loyalty to God’s word, and not a place of happenstance. For Christians, living a life that is good, helpful, pure, and honest towards others seems to be the path that we all want to follow. It is difficult at times, though, to immediately discern what is right or wrong in our lives, and that is when we turn to God’s word for guidance.In some of the theories discussed in this course, I have found myself searching for answers about what Christians would believe is right, because it’s not something I have encountered in my own lifetime, yet. The topic of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is very interesting to me, and it is what I have chosen to explore in this assignment. At first, I thought I knew where Christians stand on this debate, but as I read more of our reading these past two weeks, I learned much more. I will still attempt to identify the position of Christian ethics versus Natural Law using this topic, but I admit that I am most definitely still interested in learning more.Christian ethics would say that any form of euthanasia is inherently wrong, because of God’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill” and the fact that he is forbidding all types of killing, whether it is premediated or otherwise (Rae. According to Talking About Ethics, “The point is that life has been given by God, and we do not have the right to take it into our own hands. So, any form of suicide or intent to end one’s life would be considered wrong” (Jones, page 77).In my understanding, since Natural Law determines morality in absolute circumstances, that would mean that this ethical standard would hold euthanasia to be immoral as well. On the surface, that would make sense, as Natural Law says that good actions naturally produce a good life (Jones, Ch 1), and that the moral absolutes should never be broken, no matter what the circumstances could be. One could assume this means that killing, in any form, would not be moral, which is very similar to Christian ethical view. However, Natural Law ethics also could also excuse euthanasia from an immoral status if it can be determined that it was purely intended to relieve suffering or such pain that a human could not lead a quality life otherwise. In that case, although Christian ethics would still not agree, Natural Law ethics may consider the act to be moral in support of the person.For me, Christian ethics always lays the foundation for my beliefs. I believe that if God intended for us to be here, as He created each one of us in His image, then he has a plan set forth from the very beginning. Euthanasia, in my opinion, even though I sympathize and understand the position of ending suffering and pain, is only meddling with God’s plan.