Please answer to each post ( 9 people) check your spelling and grammar. Cite your work.

1-Carlee’s post

The Affordable Care Act allowed for women's reproductive health to be covered by insurance without discrimination of pre-existing conditions. This has even allowed them to expand who can get birth control and even emergency contraception. When the ACA was enacted, it was determined what would be considered preventative care for women's health. This included birth control, emergency contraception, education and counseling for women who are of the age to have children.

I personally believe that having emergency contraception widely available for anyone is a good thing. These pills were meant to be taken anywhere from 1-3 days post unprotected sex and it reduced the chance at becoming pregnant. I am a religious woman, but I am Pro Choice as we do not understand what may be happening between a woman and the father of their baby. It is not my place to judge, and I firmly believe that these women take the emergency contraceptive for a reason and their reason may be that they do not want a child, are not in the position to have a child, and any other reason that is valid enough for them.

2-Rachel’s post

The Affordable Care Act of 2010, also known as the ACA, falls under federal jurisdiction, and the act aids people in obtaining health insurance, based on their income for tax credits or federal subsidies (Harris, 2014). Due to this method of purchasing insurance through the ACA, people objected to the act stating that it would result in the federal government funding abortions. Congress responded by stating the ACA would reflect the Hyde Amendment, which excludes federally funded abortion procedures, with limited exceptions (2014).

Businesses owned by religious affiliations also had concerns over the ACA. They did not feel it was right to be mandated into giving insurance coverage for contraceptives due to their religious beliefs (Harris, 2014). The religiously affiliated business owners did not want to provide or pay for services they did not believe in or agree. The federal government responded by creating exceptions in cases of religious employees of churches, but not for any church-affiliated organizations (2014). This level of compromise was not satisfactory to certain groups and litigation was still pursued.

3-Professor’s post (question for me)

Genesis,

Are you in favor of Emergency contraception only in certain circumstances as you stated in your post or do you think that women should be able to make that decision on their own. If applicable, in what situations? Why or Why not?

See below ⬇️ about the post that I made, then the Professor asked me the above ⬆️ questions.

Emergency contraception is a safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex. It is a vital service for women who may have been sexually assaulted or who have had unprotected sex. I believe that emergency contraception should be available to all women, regardless of their insurance coverage

4-Amy’s post

With patients having the ability to determine their healthcare treatments, they also should have the right to decline them. Some patients refuse certain treatments on the basis of religion,(this is prevalent with blood transfusions) while others refuse them based on their quality of life. Some argue that certain illnesses may prohibit the patient from being of sound mind enough to make a decision that the majority may not make (Harris,2018). So would this really be their wish?

5-Erin’s post

The decision to refuse treatment is complex and personal, religious, and ethical beliefs need to be considered. The right to refuse treatment is based on the principle of informed consent. Informed consent requires that a patient knows the risks, benefits, and alternative treatments available. There is no validity to informed consent if the patient is unable to refuse the treatment offered.

Some patients may refuse a procedure because of the risks that are associated. There are other patients that are unwilling to accept blood transfusions because of religious beliefs. There are at least four significant variables to evaluate when considering the outcome of this decision (Harris, 2014, p. 293)

6-Haefoi’s post

I think "therapeutic cloning" should be pursued but "reproductive cloning" is unethical.

The difference between these two topics is: "Therapeutic cloning" is repair but "Reproductive cloning" creates new. "Therapeutic cloning" a line of embryonic stem cells genetically identical to an individual. "Reproductive cloning" creates a new organism genetically identical to an individual."

As the article "Morality in a high-tech world" mentioned, if given the choice between having a nearsighted child and child with perfect vision, very few parents would choose to saddle their child with a vision problem. If myopia could be genetically eliminated.

However, "Reproductive cloning" if the chromosome can determine gender and we are able to manipulate height genetical these certain benefits to genetic manipulation cause unacceptable problems.

7-Professor’s post

Imagine reproductive cloning has already been perfected, but has been kept a secret. Imagine 10 years from now you learn that a long time friend of yours was "produced" by reproductive cloning. Imagine there is nothing in his or her behavior that distinguishes them from anyone else. Would this have any impact on how you felt about reproductive cloning?

If therapeutic cloning gets pursued full tilt, will the wealthy be able to eventually just keep swapping out worn out body parts for new ones?

8-Megan’s post

If we had the technology to make a Penfield Mood Organ, I wouldn't use one. As much as I like to have full control of my emotions and moods, I don't think skipping through sad or tough times would be a good idea. I think these moods and emotions teach you how to cope with certain things and also teach you how to manage certain situations or environments. I would be worried I wouldn't be able to get myself out of a certain mood as I am able to do without a Penfield Mood Organ. I feel like caffeine functions as a mood organ in my life. I can wake up feeling tired, sluggish, lacking ambition, etc. Once I have my morning coffee, I feel awake, energized, and ready to take on the day. I think the difference between this and what is described in the book is that I can't always guarantee that my morning coffee will put me in a good mood.

9- Professor’s post

Alcohol is probably the oldest Penfield known to humans. And it is overwhelmingly used to alter one's mood, to put one in a certain state. The same can be said for most licit and illicit drugs. Take caffeine for instance. What about this drug of choice? A fairly powerful mood enhancer, pick me up. Widely used. Legal. Effective. Many people are utterly dependent on it to get going in the morning. Why are alcohol and caffeine OK, but not a Penfield? Is there a relevant difference?