The correct statement which best illustrates the cause and effect is:
“At this time, it was considered culturally unacceptable to deface the dead; therefore, physicians did not know much about internal anatomy.”
<span>Due to tradition and religious belief, and moral reasons, it was considered to be a sin to do experimentations with the dead. And because of that, there was only few knowledge about internal organs and internal diseases back then. </span>
This is in my opinion one of the aspects that makes the central courts and the different lines of thought within a single subject so interesting. The clash of ideas that we have in this case is a perfect example.
On one side we have those who look at the current 30 million uninsured Americans, which include millions in Texas, and the undeniable success it had in Massachusetts. Most of them conclude that this mandate is a government success.
On the other hand, we can find those who believe that this is a terrible invasion of the government to the citizen's free will to choose their own healthcare options, they see government overreach, and at the same time an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties to which there is no justification.
Unfortunately this is something that millions of Americans have been forced into. It's evident how they refused to create a public health care system, and instead give more power to the private sector.
After this short debate of ideas, I will give you one question to ponder on: Which principle is more important? Your freedom, your civil liberties, and your freedom from the government line of thought, or the possibilty of providing health care to millions of uninsured Americans?
I hope this solves your question!
A citation of specific events that had an effect on Jurgis’s feelings
a consideration of whether it was fair that the company took no responsibility for the accident<span>
an analysis of the effect Jurgis’s injury had on his household</span>
The greatest impetus for Oklahoma statehood<span> began after the Land Run of ... Before the passage of the</span>Oklahoma<span> Enabling Act (1906), </span>four statehood plans<span> evolved. ... </span>Indians<span> in O.T. were held in trust by the federal government for twenty-</span>one<span> ... Indian leaders and whites in Indian Territory (I.T.) </span>favored<span> double</span>statehood.<span>The Territory of </span>Oklahoma<span> was an organized incorporated territory of the United States that ... Until this point, </span>Native Americans<span> had exclusively used the land. ... was </span>one<span> of the main supporters of the opening of </span>Oklahoma<span> to white settlement. .... due to the growing idea of </span>statehood<span>, which had originated in Indian Territory.</span>
