1. Conventional wisdom holds that a) all terrorists seek to acquire WMD; b) terrorist acquisition of WMD equals certain use. Assess the likely validity of that wisdom as a universal set of truths; is there a clear and singular wisdom here?
600 WORDS
1. Conventional wisdom holds that a) all terrorists seek to acquire WMD; b) terrorist acquisition of WMD equals certain use. Assess the likely validity of that wisdom as a universal set of truths; is there a clear and singular wisdom here?
600 WORDS
How much involvement should our government have in social programs and personal rights? Does the government have a duty to provide social programs for Americans in need, or would this create a ‘socialist’ state? Is our current government and polices too influenced by corporate funding? You will write an essay on one of the two topics options listed below. Support your answer with evidence from the selections readings this week, as well as a minimum of one other scholarly source.
Your paper needs to be a minimum of 500 words.
Do pro-life supporters address the reality of bringing a new life into the world in their arguments? Can it be argued that the choice not to have a child is as morally correct as bringing an unwanted child into the world? U.S. law allows “justifiable homicide.” What constitutes justifiable homicide in the legal sense? Can this concept be extended to abortion? Finally, address if abortion should be allowed to save a woman’s life.
Part of the reasoning behind the Affordable Care act is that without it, those without health insurance are still required to be treated in emergency situations. The cost of stabilizing the uninsured is passed on to those who pay taxes and who do pay insurance premiums. With the new plan, the cost is distributed and Americans are more likely to have insurance in the case of an accident or unforeseen medical event. If Congress required that hospitals provide care in an emergency, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay for such care, is also fair for them to require Americans to have insurance in the case of such emergencies? Why or why not?
Part of the reasoning behind the Affordable Care act is that without it, those without health insurance are still required to be treated in emergency situations. The cost of stabilizing the uninsured is passed on to those who pay taxes and who do pay insurance premiums. With the new plan, the cost is distributed and Americans are more likely to have insurance in the case of an accident or unforeseen medical event. If Congress required that hospitals provide care in an emergency, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay for such care, is also fair for them to require Americans to have insurance in the case of such emergencies? Why or why not?