Abortion in the First Trimester Only Essay -- Pregnancy Ethics Essays

The argument that has torn the nation apart for ages is abortion. Each individual needs to take the time out to research every aspect of the ideals behind abortion. The two main sides to abortion are pro-choice and pro-life. Both sides make strong arguments to support their side. The main question behind abortion is whether the act is murder of an unborn child or the right of the mother to choose what happens to her body. A lot of research is needed before an individual can make a rational decision about what side of the abortion issue they take. This paper focuses on the argument that abortion is a woman’s choice in her first trimester of her pregnancy only, and after that time period is over the unborn child has the right to life just like any other human being. "This middle ground is what a lot of people believe these days, the right for a woman to choose in the first trimester only" (Baird 179). People who believe this are stuck between the two sides of abortion. These peo ple are just to be named as the middle ground, where both sides make good points, but they only agree with a few parts of the arguments. The basic idea is that a woman has the right to choose until the first trimester is over and from then on the unborn child has the right to life and should be carried to full term and delivered. The pro-life movement believes that the killing of any child, abortion or not, is murder and the dead, unborn child should be protected by the laws of the states just like any other victim of murder. "Pro-life advocates declare that the fetus is a person with the same rights and interests as a born person, therefore the mother does not have the right to privacy if by doing so they murder another person, their unborn child" (McDonagh 47). The advocate’s state that their argument is in the idea that an unborn child has the rights as the mother and that the unborn child would choose life, just as the mother would choose murder as her choice. Although the pro-life advocates make an argument that seems reasonable, what they are not stating is that under law the woman has the right to privacy, freedom, and the right to choose what actions happens to her body. The woman has control to do what ever she likes to her own personal body. Therefore, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, she may be able to in the first trimester of her pregnancy only. The developi... ... facts state that an abortion is the woman’s choice in the first trimester and the unborn child’s right to live in the second trimester and on. This belief is known as the middle ground in the abortion issue and many people believe in this kind of action. Although the abortion issue will be an on going dispute, the middle ground is a reasonable and logical answer to the abortion problem. This is why the mother has the right to choose in the first trimester only and after that the fetus has the right to life, like anyone else. Works Cited Baird, Robert M. and Stuart E. Rosenbaum. The Ethics of Abortion. New York: Prometheus Books, 2001. Johnson, Robert V. Mayo Clinic Complete Book of Pregnancy & Baby’s First Year. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1994. Mason, J K, and R A McCall Smith. Law and Medical Ethics. London: Butterworths, 1994. McDonagh, Eileen L. Breaking the Abortion Deadlock. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Reiman, Jeffrey. Abortion and the Ways We Value Human Life. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC., 1999. Solinger, Rickie. Abortion Wars. Los Angles: University of California Press, 1998.

Motorcycle Helmet Laws Essay

The NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) estimates that helmets saved 1,784 motorcyclists from death in 2007. If all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 800 lives could have been saved. As an avid motorcycle operator, I have been in a few close calls of my own. Luckily for me, if something would have occurred, I would have at least been safer due to my motorcycle helmet. It is safe to say that thousands of lives could be saved each year by national adoption of universal helmet laws. From 1984 through 1995, helmets saved the lives of more than 7,400 motorcyclists. However, more than 6,300 additional deaths could have been prevented if all riders had been wearing helmets (tntrafficsafety. org). There are minor debates about one not feeling comfortable while riding with a helmet because of to the weight of it. However, manufacturers make carbon fiber helmets that have virtually no weight. On average they weight around two to three pounds. They are a bit more expensive than your average helmet. However, one can’t put a price on life. Safety should definitely be the underlying factor, especially since riding a motorcycle is already considered dangerous in itself. The analysis of fatal crash data from 2008 to 2010 showed 12 percent of motorcyclists in states with universal helmet laws were not wearing helmets, but 64 percent of riders were not wearing helmets in states with partial helmet laws and 79 percent weren’t wearing helmets in states with no helmet laws. According to CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden, â€Å"Increasing motorcycle helmet use can save lives and money. In 2010, more than $3 billion in economic costs were saved due to helmet use in the United States. Another $1. 4 billion could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (www. ohsonline. com). † Annual cost savings in states with universal motorcycle helmet laws for motorcycle riders and passengers were nearly four times more per registered motorcycle than in states without them, according to a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report study. Annual medical, productivity, and other costs ranged from a high of $394 million in California (which has a universal helmet law) to a low of $2. 6 million in New Mexico (which has a partial law). Studies comparing hospital costs of helmeted and un-helmeted motorcyclists involved in crashed have found costs for un-helmeted riders to average $3,000 more than for helmeted riders. And, riders who don’t wear helmets are less likely to have health insurance, resulting in the cost of their care being forced on to taxpayers.. Not only does wearing a helmet save lives, it also saves the rider money. The financial burden for treatment and care of uninsured motorcycle crash victims is placed on the government and taxpayers. In 2005, Maryland estimated that a repeal of its all-rider helmet law would increase Medicaid expenditures by $1. 2 million in the first year and annually up to $1. 5 million thereafter. All-rider helmet laws will increase motorcycle helmet use, decrease deaths and injuries, and save taxpayer dollars. This is why all states should have a helmet law. Another reason that helmet laws should be passed in all states is because according to the Office of Highway Safety Planning, riders without helmets are 40% more likely to suffer fatal head injuries than those with helmets, and are 15% more likely to incur nonfatal head injuries. This is why it is imperative that each state adopts a helmet law. A rider already has a disadvantage because they are not protected as they would in the cabin of a car or truck with seat belts and airbags. There is nothing holding the rider down on the motorcycle at the point of an impact. So if, and when an impact occurs, the chances of a fatal brain injury are higher in an individual who rides without a helmet on. Every state should adopt a helmet law for motorcycle drivers. Simply put, motorcycle helmets save lives. Point. Blank. Period. Death rates from head injuries are twice as high among motorcyclists in states without all-rider helmet laws. Motorcycle helmets are 37 percent effective in preventing motorcyclist deaths and 67 percent effective in preventing brain injuries (tnttrafficsafety. org). A helmet can possibly save the life of the rider, and any future suffering caused to their family due to possible death and costs in medical bills. Making helmet laws mandatory will be a win-win situation for everyone. References Motorcycle safety (Rev. Oct. 1999. ed. ). (1999). Washington, D. C. : U. S. Dept.of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Highway safety NHTSA’s motorcycle helmet activities. (1997). Washington, D. C. : The Office. Chenier, T. C. , & Evans, L. (1984). Motorcyclist fatalities and the repeal of mandatory helmet wearing laws. Warren, Mich. : General Motors Research Laboratories. Motorcycle helmet use laws. (1999). Washington, DC: U. S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Http://saferoads. org/files/Top%20Ten%20Reasons%20for%20Helmet%20Law%20091107. pdf Http://tntrafficsafety. org/sites/default/files/motorcyclehelmets1. pdf.

Nigerian government Essay

1: Could the alleged payment of bribes to Nigerian government officials by Jeffrey Tesler be considered â€Å"facilitating payments† or â€Å"speed money† under the terms of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Answer: After this all came out in June 2004, Halliburton promptly fired Jack Stanley and severed its long-standing relationship with Jeffrey Tesler, asking its three partners in the Nigeria consortium to do the same. The United States Justice Department took things further, establishing a grand jury investigation to determine if Halliburton, through its KBR subsidiary, had been in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In November 2004 the Justice Department widened its investigation to include payments in connection with the Nigeria fertilizer plant that Kellogg had been involved with during the 1980s under the leadership of Jack Stanley. In March 2005, the Justice Department also stated that it was looking at whether Jack Stanley had tried to coordinate bidding with rivals and fix prices on certain foreign construction projects. As of mid 2007, the U.S. investigation was still ongoing. 2: Irrespective of the legality of any payments that may have been made by Tesler, do you think it is was reasonable for KBR to hire him as anintermediary? Answer: Tesler’s involvement in the project might have remained unknown were it not for an unrelated event. Georges Krammer, an employee of the French company Technip, which along with KBR was a member of the consortium, was charged by the French government for embezzlement. When Technip refused to defend Krammer, he turned around and aired what he perceived to be Technip’s dirty linen. This included the payments to Tesler to secure the Nigeria LNG contracts. 3. Given the known corruption of the Abacha government in Nigeria, should Kellogg and its successor, KBR, have had a policy in place to deal with bribery and corruption? What might that policy have looked like?Answer: It is not known whether a bribe was actually paid. What is known is that in December 1995, Nigeria awarded the $2 billion contract to the KBR consortium. The LNG plant soon became a success. Nigeria contracted to build a second plant in 1999, two more in 2002, and a sixth in July 2004. KBR rehired Jeffrey Tesler in 1999 and again in 2001 to help secure the new contracts, all of which it won. In total, Tesler was paid some $132.3 million from 1994 through to early 2004 by the KBR consortium. 4. Should Kellogg have walked away from the Nigerian LNG project once it became clear that the payment of bribes might be required to secure the contract? Answer: The KBR consortium was one of two to submit a bid on the initial contract, and its bid was the lower of the two. By early 1995 the KBR consortium was deep in final negotiations on the contract. It was at this point that Nigeria’s oil minister had a falling out with the country’s military dictator, General Abacha, and was replaced by Dan Etete. Etete proved to be far less accommodating to the KBR consortium, and suddenly the entire deal looked to be in jeopardy. According to some observers, Dan Etete was a tough customer who immediately began to use his influence over the LNG project for personal gain. Whether this is true or not, what is known is that the KBR consortium quickly entered into a contract with the British lawyer, Jeffrey Tesler. The contract, signed by a Kellogg executive, called on Tesler to obta in government permits for the LGN project, maintain good relations with government officials, and provide advice on sales strategy. Tesler’s fee for these services was $60 million. 5. There is evidence that Jack Stanley, the former head of M.W. Kellogg and KBR, may have taken kickback payments from Tesler. At least one other former Kellogg employee, Wojciech Chodan, may have taken kickback payments. What does this tell you about the possible nature of the ethical climate at Kellogg and then KBR? Answer: This turn of events led French and Swiss officials to investigate Tesler’s Swiss bank accounts. They discovered that Tesler was â€Å"kicking back† some of the funds he received to executives in the consortium and subcon-tractors. One of the alleged kickbacks was a transfer of $5 million from Tesler’s account to that of Albert J. â€Å"Jack† Stanley, who was head of M.W. Kellogg and then Halliburton’s KBR unit. Tesler also transferred some $2.5 million into Swiss bank accounts held under a false name by the Nigerian oil minister, Dan Etete. Other payments included a $1 million transfer into an account controlled by Wojciech Cho dan, the former Kellogg executive whose extensive hand-written notes suggest the payment of a bribe to General Abacha and payment of $5 million to a German subcontractor on the LNG project in exchange for â€Å"information and advice.† 6. Should Halliburton be called into account if it is shown that its KBR unit used bribery to gain business in Nigeria? To what extent should a corporation and its officers be held accountable for ethically suspect activities by the managers in one of its subsidiaries, particularly given that many of those activities were initiated before the subsidiary was owned by Halliburton? Answer: In early 2005, however, Halliburton put KBR up for sale. The sale was seen as an attempt by Halliburton to distance itself from several scandals that had engulfed KBR. One of these concerned allegations that KBR had systematically overcharged the Pentagon for services it provided to the U.S. military in Iraq. Another scandal centered on the Nigerian LNG plants and involved KBR employees, several former officials of the Nigeria government, and a mysterious British lawyer called Jeffrey Tesler. The roots of the Nigerian scandal date back to 1994 when Kellogg and its consortium partners were trying to win an initial contract from the Nigerian government to build two LNG plants. The contract was valued at around $2 billion. Each of the four firms held a 25 percent stake in the consortium, and each had veto power over its decisions. Kellogg employees held many of the top positions at the consortium, and two of the other members, Technip of France and JGC of Japan, have claimed that Kellogg managed the consortium (the fourth member, ENI of Italy, has not made any statement regarding management).