Three sides of abortion debate Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Three sides of abortion debate - Essay Example The legal right of a woman to undergo an abortion has not resolved many ethical issues that surround the procedure of abortion (Fry, Veatch and Taylor, 2010). There are three stances people have on abortion include pro-abortion, middle ground that abortion can be accepted, and anti-abortion, and the arguments for these stands are discussed. There are individuals who support abortion on the basis that it is not wrong, and does not need the involvement of undesirable consequences. To look at this argument in another way, it tends to neglect the rights of the fetus or even acknowledge the fetus as a person. There are individuals who consider abortion as the right of a woman hence she is solely liable to the way she controls her body. Moralists who take part in judging actions argue that abortion is simply a deliberate failure to conceive a child, and with availability of contraceptives in mind, abortion should be too. By contrast, there are those who think that the fetus being a person, has limited rights that has no significant weight on the interests of the people already born who include the parents and children of that particular family. All the same, people supporting abortion do so on the fact that the overwhelming principle behind abortion is the woman and her rights to choose what to happen to her body.

Employment law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Employment law - Coursework Example In the case of Davis and his company management, the decision to dismiss may appear malicious but it was meant to protect the reputation of that institutions. However, if an employee has been found in contravention of the laws governing their employment, they still have rights to fair trial and access to a lawyer. A free and fair disciplinary committee hears and determines the case based on evidence gathered1. In the event an employee feels that they were unfairly treated, they can seek assistant from their trade unions or employment tribunals. Petitioners are encouraged to ensure they exhaust all possible avenues of justice before filing their cases at the tribunals2. The latter take a long period before the hearing and making any determination of the case. The following discussion focuses on a case involving dismissal of Dave from his work under some controversial circumstances. The main aim is establish if he is qualified for any remedies if the employment tribal rules on his beha lf. Statement of the case The case involves a Dave who was a manager at the Pamper. He had been in the company for a period of more than 11 years. His dismissal occurred on 26 May 2012 under certain controversial circumstances. He had entered a shop to purchase some goods when he saw his friend. He left the queue while still holding the items but let the till assistant know about it. It is at that time that the store detective, acting on the perception that he was a thief, decided to arrest him. His case was dismissed immediately for lack of sufficient evidence. However, his employers did not take the matter lightly and therefore decided to constitute a disciplinary committee. After gathering information from the store detective and Janice who was Dave’s assistant, they dismissed him. Anomalies in the determinations of the case From the analysis of the case, there were various legal anomalies. Firstly, Dave was denied the right to a fair trial. He was denied permission to be represented by his lawyer. This is against the Article 6 of the constitution, which requires defendants be represented by such legal experts3. In R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment case, the judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The dismissal was unfair due to discrimination against the plaintiff. Dave was also discriminated and treated unfairly by being denied right to an attorney. This was unfair for him from a legal point of view because he appeared overwhelmed. All other members were against him including the disciplinary committee, which relied on biased information. Secondly, the evidence was gathered in a hurry and was not analyzed to ensure it was reliable. Some of the witnesses such as Janice is said to have had some disagreements with Dave several times. It is therefore possible that her testimony was biased and malicious. She might have wished Dave away so that she could take over his position. It appears that the employers were determined to dismiss Dave. They were only focused on information that supported the fact that he had purposed to steal. However, this is unrealistic since he had never done that before, and his status at his job did not allow him to behave that way. These gross anomalies should form a basis for seeking redress to the employment tribunal4. Dave, should be free to file his petition immediately with the employment tr