Explain the central arguments for readings on the topics of abortion and healthcare. Apply each of the theories to a scenario to “test” the feasibility of their normativity.

TW: The abortion question involves a scenario that includes sexual assault and abortion.

Assignment Goals and Objectives
This assignment is designed to test your ability to explain AND apply the theories you’ve been learning about over the past 4 weeks.  To succeed on this assignment you should be able to:

• Explain the central arguments for readings on the topics of abortion and healthcare.
• Apply each of the theories to a scenario to “test” the feasibility of their normativity.
• Formulate objections to philosophical theories and consider possible solutions.

Assignment Instructions

• There are two questions listed below you must answer BOTH. Each question is worth 12.5 points for 25 points total. Your assignment must be uploaded in Canvas by 11:59pm on November 21st. Thoroughly answer all parts of the questions.

1. Explain the case at hand back in your own words.
   1. This should be no more than one paragraph.  It’s just a quick summary so I know how you’re understanding the case.
2. Explain the theories of two of the philosophers that are assigned to that topic.
   1. This should be where you show that you understand the arguments of the philosophers that are covered in a particular topic.  So if you’re writing on the Healthcare Case Analysis, you could chose to explain the arguments of Peikoff and Bradley.
   2. This should be completely neutral — just a succinct presentation of the arguments that isn’t influenced by or that mentions the case.
   3. This should be at leasttwo paragraphs, and probably more like four.
3. Present an argument applying the philosophers’s arguments to the case at hand.
   1. Here you should take the work you did in task two and apply that to the story.  So if you were writing on Healthcare, you might say that Peikoff’s theory would put Jim in world X because of reason Y and then justify that.  You’d then do the same with Bradley.
   2. This should be at leasttwo paragraphs, and could easily be four.
4. Present an argument explaining why one philosopher has a better solution to the case at hand.
   1. Do to this you need to explain what you think a successful solution to the case would demonstrate and then show how one of the philosophers does this better than the other.
   2. This should be one to two paragraphs.
5. Explain what you would do and why.
   1. This should be exactly one paragraph.

• Although the assignment is like an essay, you DO NOT need an introduction or conclusion.

HEALTHCARE QUESTION

In this essay you have 5 tasks:

1. Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand.
2. Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of two philosophers covered in the healthcare section: Peikoff, Bradley, Daniels, and Engelhardt. (Click herefor some tips on how to do a successful exegesis.)
3. Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying in which world each philosopher would place Jim and why.
4. Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
5. In no more than one paragraph, explain what solution you would propose for Jim.

Consider Jim. Jim has worked in middle management his entire life.  He had the option of paying in to his company’s managed healthcare system, but decided he wanted to keep the money instead and invest it in case he ever needed acute medical treatment.  Unfortunately, on his 40th birthday, Jim decided to buy a red Corvette with that money.  6 months later, Jim went to a doctor to see why he was feeling so awful.  The doctor diagnosed Jim with emphysema, diabetes, and kidney failure.  All three of these conditions are the result of Jim’s lifestyle choices: smoking, poor eating and exercise habits, and excessive drinking.  These conditions are chronic and will require treatment for the rest of Jim’s life including cutting-edge lung and kidney treatments and weekly meetings with a nutritionist, endocrinologist, cardiologist, etc.

Here are the two possible healthcare “worlds” for Jim (he must be “placed” in one of them):

1. A) Participate in a universal healthcare system, paid for by income taxes, which doesn’t provide Jim with the latest-and-greatest medical technology but does meet basic standards of care.

—-OR—-

1. B) Participate in a pay-for-service system, which allows Jim to pay for whatever treatment he wants and/or can afford but will not treat him unless he pays for the service.

ABORTION QUESTION

In this essay you have 5 tasks:

1. Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand.
2. Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of two philosophers covered in the abortion section: Thomson, Marquis, Noonan, and Harman. (Click here for some tips on how to do a successful exegesis.)
3. Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This would involve arguing for what Thomson would say about Susan’s and Tammy’s decisions and what Marquis would say about Susan’s and Tammy’s decisions.
4. Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
5. In no more than one paragraph, present an argument of your own regarding the moral status of Susan’s and Tammy’s decisions.

Let’s consider the story of Susan.  Susan was an avid fan of Bon Jovi, so much so that she traveled around the country and attended every single Bon Jovi concert in the US.  Tragically, after leaving one such concert, Susan was sexually assaulted and became pregnant. After much contemplation, 11 weeks into her pregnancy Susan decided to get an abortion. Since she lived in an informed consent state, she went to meet the gynecologist 2 days before she planned to have the procedure. As mandated by law, the doctor performed an ultrasound and discovers that the fetus’s cerebral cortex is malformed to such an extent that if the fetus were to be born she (it is a girl) would never develop the cognitive capacities beyond those of a two year old.  Although Susan had planned to have the abortion, this bit of knowledge further strengthens her decision.

Now consider Tammy.  Tammy’s situation is identical to Susan’s expect that Tammy had decided to carry the pregnancy to term (Tammy didn’t want an abortion, so she didn’t have an informed consent meeting; however, through the normal course of pre-natal care, she had an ultrasound that revealed the fetus had the same condition as Susan’s did).  She was quite happily preparing for the birth of the child when she realized that the due date was during the week long Bon Jovi-fest far, far away from where she lived.  Upon realizing this (well into her 6th month of pregnancy), Tammy elects to have an abortion.