Analysis Of The Book Three Little Words By Ashley...

Introduction The book I read was ‘Three Little Words.’ It is written by Ashley Rhodes-Courter. This book was published in 2008. It was published in New York, New York. The book was published by Atheneum Books for Young Readers Company. It has a total of 336 pages. Three Little Words is organized in chapters. It has a total of 13 chapters. This book is a memoir so it is all about Ashley’s life in the foster care program. Each chapter talks about the hardships she went through at all the different foster homes. Ashley was taken into foster care when she was only three years old. She was in 14 different homes in a total of nine years. She had a brother, Luke that was also in the foster care program with her. They were separated multiple times, but always ended up at the same foster home together. It was not until Ashley was adopted that they were separated for good. Ashley’s mom was in prison multiple times, she was also a drug addict. She had visitation righ ts, but her visitations were always supervised. At these visitations she always promised Ashley that she was going to turn her life around, and get both her and Luke back. It never happened; as a result, Ashley had a lot of trust issues and a hard time believing people actually cared for her. Ashley was adopted and had a tough first couple of years adjusting to having a family. It wasn’t until about the end of the book where she finally got used to having a real family. Summary Lorraine Rhodes was a single

The Argument of Abortion Free Essays

In On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren discusses a few arguments against abortion, namely bringing into play whether the fetus is actually a person, or â€Å"not a member of the moral community†. She defends that abortion is a morally sound action. Don Marquis, in his essay An Argument that Abortion is Wrong, takes the opposite stance. We will write a custom essay sample on The Argument of Abortion or any similar topic only for you Order Now He claims â€Å"that abortion, except perhaps in rare instances, is seriously wrong†.The first thing we read in Warren’s article is the thought experiment first conceived by Judith Thomson. It’s an analogy that uses a normal person, male or female, and a famous violinist. Let’s say the Society of Music Lovers kidnaps you, and hooks you up to this dying violinist. If you choose to unhook yourself, the violinist will die, but if you let him stay hooked up to you to use your kidneys (for a period of nine months), then he will be cured and both of you will be free.Thomson asks what a person’s obligations in this situation are, and, to be consistent with Warren’s argument, she says it would be ridiculous to be stay in bed with the violinist, and thus you are able to leave at any time. You shouldn’t feel responsible for the death of the violinist. But Marquis, in his essay, points out that, while good for dealing with abortions due to rape, the analogy doesn’t hold up. Thomson draws to our attention that in pregnancy a fetus uses the woman’s body for life-support, but the woman doesn’t use a fetus’s body for life support.Thus, in an abortion the life that is lost is the fetus’s, not the woman’s. This leaves us with a standoff. I think this overall analogy is not significantly helpful for either side of the argument. Warren then discusses whether or not abortion is actually the killing of a â€Å"person†, calling into question when a fetus matures to the point of personhood. She defines the moral community as having some (the more the better) of these six characteristics: sentience (capacity to have conscious experiences), emotionality (capacity to feel sad, angry, happy, etc. , reason (capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems), capacity to communicate (by any means), self-awareness (concept of oneself), and finally moral agency (capacity to regulate one’s own actions). This is clearly very sketchy, because infants and mentally or physically challenged people are still referred to and thought of as â€Å"people†, or â€Å"members of the moral community†, despite a lack of many of these traits. Both articles address this idea of personhood, but neither one really wins.The good thing with defining personhood biologically—saying it’s a person at conception—quantifies it†¦it gives a definitive time, not some subjective date when certain sentient or reasoning qualities are met, and this lessens the confusion. But I still agree somewhat with the view held by Warren that fetuses can’t reason or fend for themselves nor (until cerebral development) do really anything other than exist. So again, I don’t think either side has a stronger case, because both Warren and Marquis have points that basically offset one another. An interesting thing that Marquis then does is go on to talk about FLO, or â€Å"future like ours†. He claims that killing deprives a person of a future that is like ours, and says that abortion is killing a fetus that will have a future like ours. Taking someone’s entire future away from them is the worst of crimes, and he argues that abortion is this kind of deprivation of future. Killing an adult is an awful thing to do because it takes away that adult’s future, a future that is of great value.The same goes for aborted fetuses—they had a future that would be valued but it was taken away from them. Warren also argues that a woman has a right to life, so she can make a decision that she sees fit, since her body belongs to her and only her. In response to this, Marquis says that, except during rape (when he believes it is permissible), a fetus has just as much of a right to life as the woman, and therefore an abortion is wrong. Marquis concludes that abortion is seriously wrong, except in unusual cases (rape, incest, and possible death of the mother).Depriving an FLO shows how wrong killing an adult is, and since fetuses have an FLO, killing them is just as bad. Warren concludes that fetuses are neither persons nor members of the moral community. She does not think that the fetus’s resemblance to a person nor the potential for becoming a person is a good enough claim to say it has an equal right to life. Marquis agrees with Warren inasmuch as the pregnancy is due to rape or other unusual condition, so there is no argument there.The argument over personhood is a much better one, and I think that both sides have a very strong position and arguments. On one side there is the lack of human traits to make a fetus a person, and on the other there is a biological definition of life which occurs at conception. It is nearly impossible to determine who’s argument is stronger, because I can see how both sides can work. As for the woman’s rights, I think again it is two-sided. Neither side really comes away with a clear-cut victory.Warren argues that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body because it is her body but Marquis suggests that that cannot include killing a fetus (with an FLO). Overall I believe that Warren has stronger arguments, although I don’t necessarily agree with them. I think it is morally correct to carry the baby for nine months and then give it up for adoption or something like that, but that is such an unbelievably huge burden to put on someone, so I can understand where an abortion might need to take place.So, I feel that Mary Anne Warren gives stronger arguments only because she explains them in much more detail, allowing the reader to at least understand where she is coming from, whereas Don Marquis just tells us what his views are with li ttle information to back them up. Abortion is a very difficult topic to discuss or write upon, and, even though I disagree with her, I think Warren did a better job to explain what her views on abortion were and where they came from. How to cite The Argument of Abortion, Essays

Law Of ASX Corporate Governance Samples †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Questions: 1.Did the Board of Ardent Leisure recognise and manage the risk arising from this incident? 2.Assuming the Board failed to manage the risk, did the company and the directors breach Principles 7 of the ASX principles of Good Corporate Governance? What is the consequence, if any, for the company failing to comply with Principle 7? Can the ASX take any disciplinary action against the directors and company for failing to recognise and manage the risk in this instance? 3.Could it be argued that the directors had breached their duty of care and diligence or is the significant financial harm suffered by the company sufficient penalty?4.After the incident did the Board review and improve the effectiveness of the companys risk management framework? Answers: 1. It is required by a company listed in the ASX to establish a suitable framework that solely concentrates over the degrees of management of risk in the bounds within the entity, such laws are clearly stated in the Principle 7 of the Corporate Governance. It is required by the laws of the ASX that the said entitys directorial board has to, by all the power bestowed upon it, act to the culmination of various processes and steps that would be taken into action when and only when a risk factor is discovered, in order to solve possible issues[1]. The failure to provide accurate judgment and recognition to the factors of risk may not only lead to the downfall in the goodwill of a company in the society, but will in all cases lead to the withdrawal of investors and potential investments, workers, consumers and every other factor. When the above discussion is taken in relation with the company in the question, that is Ardent Leisure, it is seen that in the Dreamworld incident, the entity had not only refrained to take proper actions immediately, but it is clearly seen that the directorial board had made no necessary measures in the incorporation of a suitable risk management framework. It can be rightfully said that the company in question made no attempt in recognition of risk and tried to resolve it in any way. It is bound by thestringent laws of the ASX that every company has to create a separate committee that would only concentrate its said powers that are bestowed upon it by the directorial committee in incorporation of the will of the Principle 7 and ASX and examining risk factors and creation of precautionary measures. It is willed by the law that such a committee will have three separate directors controlling it. The review and incorporation of such laws are strictly obeyed by the directors. In context to what was discussed in the previous paragraph, it can be clearly said that the company, Ardent Leisure, had had no proper framework for the said management of risk and hence, was unable to take even the slightest action when and after the accident occurred. Not only did the said entity fail to recognizing the factors of risk, but couldnt take a proper step in order to mitigate the damage. Its actions can be clearly blamed upon the directorial board of the company and deserved the backlash that it so strongly received. It is necessary bylaw for company to maintain a good corporate governance, unlike the company in question, Ardent Leisure. Stringent laws are to be incorporated such that the various functions and relationships with its bounds can be taken care of. It helps in keeping accountability of the workers and the ones controlling the processes in the said corporation[2]. Investors are attracted to a company with a strong Corporate Governance scheme. As judged by what was stated in the previous discussions, it can be said that the company, lacking a proper risk management framework, caused the accident and failed to incorporate any measures in order to mitigate it. It is alaw of ASX that the owner/occupier of a property is responsible for any kind of damage done to any human life, whether injury or death that is caused inside his premises and has to take measures in order to mitigate them. But, In the case of Ardent Leisure, the company failed to introduce any such measures as there was no framework to support it[3]. Hence, the avoidable accident turned to a disaster. 2. Previously, it was seen that by the rules incorporated by the ASX, all the companies are bound to create a separate committee that functions with sole purpose of find risk factors and incorporation of the necessary steps that would lead to the desired solution required by the company in order to deal with the risk factors. It was also stated that such a committee is empowered to review and review company information and work accordingly[4]. It is further stated by the ASX, that in accordance to the policies of Australian Security Exchange, the rule of if not, why not was established. It allowed the companies to refuse to follow the laws of ASX, but, in that case, the entity has to provide a valid reason and explanation. If not, then the company will be penalized with an amount of $250000 for not following the rules of operation. A breaching of these regulations cost to a penalty of $1000000. An example can be seen in the case of Sino Australia Oil and Gas limited (Company), which too was penalized by ASX[5]. Judging by what was discussed in the last two paragraphs, it can be said that Ardent Leisure Pvt. Ltd, failed to follow the Principle 7 of Corporate Governance. The company didnt just ignore the factors of risk; it didnt create a framework that would search for the search for the factors and work for its most possible mitigation. The case of Dreamworld was most avoidable one of all but since the company was careless enough, not advancing to the worst case scenario instantaneously, led to the disaster. If the socio-environmental risks were disclosed properly, then the incident might have been avoided. So, it can be rightfully said that the incident occurred solely due to the companys failure in following the said principles[6]. The above series of events that caused due to the incompetence of the Ardent Leisure in order to follow the Principle 7 didnt just leave it financially vulnerable, but also destroyed its social standing and market power when it came to competition and profits. The company suffered a financial depression that also included the huge amount of penalty inflicted upon it by the ASX. Hence, the entity had willing exposed itself to the risk that had might never have happened to the company in the first place. The Dreamworld incident left a scar upon the face of Ardent Leisure and decreased its Goodwill value and Net Worth[7]. 3. It is prudent by the Laws of ASX, that the Directorial board of the will take decisions that are for the sole purpose of the benefit of it and nothing else. It is said that if a director is a person of sound intelligence and rational mentality, he can never make decisions that are wrong, if he wills it[8]. It can be said that the directorial decisions are absolute and are subjected to the common laws of the ASX. The above statutory obligation can be seen in the Section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), that very frankly states the obligations of the directorial board to act with care and earnest toward the sole purpose of developing the organization[9]. Directors who are deemed incapable of organizing themselves according to rules or are held responsible for a possible breach can be held into custody by the section 1317 of the Act as a result of the civil penalties. It is further stated that the director can in no way bring personal interest ahead of the interests of the company and act selfishly. In the case given to us, it can be clearly stated that Ardent Leisure has clearly failed to work accordance to the Section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) of the laws of the ASX and clearly avoided even the creation of the said framework[10]. In order to prove that the incident was directly related to stipulated mistakes of the directors, it can be said that it is essential to prove the fact that the directors committed a breach while being of sound mind and reason that might clearly have not been the case of any other prudent person. Since, the prudency of the directors can confirmed, it can be said that the directors of Ardent Leisure are responsible for the breach of the commonlaw and also the section 180 as it can be clearly stated that any sane person would have taken precautionary measures as advised by the ASX. So, the directors are bound to penalized as per stated on the previous sections due to their failures in dealing with the Dreamworld incident. 4. It was seen that the company, Ardent Leisure Pvt. Ltd took no actions to reach out to the families of the people who lost their lives after what had happened in the Dreamworld incident. It is the first person right of a company to contact the families of the dead or injured when the accident has happened inside the boundaries of its premises. Then again, Ardent chose to completely ignore that in the first place. After much media back lashing, the company took it upon themselves to take necessary precautions. The Dreamworld park remained closed for 45 days and the the situations was thoroughly examined in order to single out the cause and deal with it. Then again, the said situation may not have happened if proper measures were made before hand. Ardent Leisure had proclaimed itself to be an entertainment company and took it upon them to spread the entertainment market across the United States. It cannot be denied that Ardent Leisure was a leading producer in the global economical entertainment market until the Dreamworld incident took made the company take a turn for the worst. The constant criticism and backlashes led to the CEO of the company, Deborah Thomas to take her resignation from her overshadowed by the guilt that was burdened on to her for not taking effective actions[11]. The company faced a considerable decline in its stock post the accident and now, it has turned their attention to involving themselves into the reduction of damage and risk control. The investigation as a prime objective had commenced since the accident took place. The ride that led to the fateful event, Thunder River Rapid was permanently shut down and the company has taken it upon themselves to re-establish their industry and to take precautionary measures with the help of the authorities and few other private sources[12]. A so called risk management committee was formed after the disaster and was given the sole objective of looking into the matter of mitigation and risk management. It was made sure that all the potential risks are identified and dealt with in all caution. Even after such an elaborate incident, the company denies its total fault and says that it still retains the position of a top entertainment company in the industry with the help of government policies. References Booth, Simon A. Crisis management strategy: Competition and change in modern enterprises. Routledge, 2015. Council, ASX Corporate Governance, and A. S. Exchange. "Corporate governance principles and recommendations . ASX Corporate Governance Council." (2014). Council, ASX Corporate Governance. "Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, 3rd edn (ASX, Sydney)." (2014). Hopkin, Paul. Fundamentals of risk management: understanding, evaluating and implementing effective risk management. Kogan Page Publishers, 2017. Pearson, Gail. "Failure in corporate governance: financial planning and greed." Handbook on Corporate Governance in Financial Institutions (2016): 185. Pearson, Gail. "Failure in corporate governance: financial planning and greed." Handbook on Corporate Governance in Financial Institutions (2016): 185. Price, John. "ASIC report: The director's role in corporate governance." Company Director 30.1 (2014): 12. Price, John. "ASIC report: The director's role in corporate governance." Company Director 30.1 (2014): 12. Tricker, RI Bob, and Robert Ian Tricker. Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015. Tricker, RI Bob, and Robert Ian Tricker. Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015. Vakkur, Nicholas V., and Zulma J. Herrera. Corporate governance regulation: how poor management is destroying the global economy. John Wiley Sons, 2013. Whiting, Rosalind H., and Georgia Y. Birch. "Corporate governance and intellectual capital disclosure." Corporate Ownership and Control 13 (2016): 250-260. Williams, Belinda Rachel, Simone Bingham, and Sonia Shimeld. "Corporate governance, the GFC and independent directors." Managerial Auditing Journal 30.4/5 (2015): 324-346. Young, Suzanne, and Vijaya Thayil. "Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance: Role of context in international settings." Journal of Business Ethics 122.1 (2014): 1-24.