Running head USA, THE LAND OF UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES... 1USA,.docx

Running head: USA, THE LAND OF UNLIMITED
POSSIBILITIES... 1
USA, THE LAND OF UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES... 2
USA, The Land of Unlimited Possibilities...
An argument for the return of our humanity
Students name
University -
Journey with me into a land of possibilities: imagine, if you
will, that you are in bad condition, really bad condition, due to
no fault of your own: a life or death situation. You happened to
have been in the wrong place at the wrong time; a place you
actually didn’t have any say about being at in the first place.
You are bleeding, mangled, in unspeakable pain, perhaps even
lost a limb or two. Fortuitous for you, you are in America! You
are in the hands of an educated, legally acknowledged medical
provider that has the knowledge, ability, and has sworn to
provide medical care to all. Presumptively, this person has the
skills to save your life. But, they don’t. You are just left there:
cold, naked, and bleeding; you are left there to die. You have
been “deemed unviable” and therefore they are not required to
administer health care – let alone any life-saving medical care
(Smith).
Not in the USA, you may say; that’s not legal under our noble
constitution! Our agencies of humanity preach respect for all
life; our progressive, understanding, “all lives matter”
government would not allow such a thing. That simply does not
happen in one of the most advanced medical systems in the
world! Think again.
On February 25, 2019, the United States Senate voted “to block
consideration of a measure” that would enable legal charges to
be brought against any medical professional that does nothing to

help a child that was born alive after a failed abortion (DeBonis
& Sonmez, 2019). This is the U. S. A.; this is the “land of
unlimited possibilities” where brand new babies are abandoned
to die (H., n.d.). The bill, S.311 - Born-Alive Abortion
Survivors Protection Act presented by Senator Ben Sasse, did
not receive the required “60 votes to proceed” (DeBonis &
Sonmez, 2019; 116th Congress, 2019). The bill reads as
follows: “Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a
hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the
protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for
any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for
screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within
its care” (116th Congress, 2019). This bill outlined the
“requirements for health care practitioners,” the expectation of
“reporting of violations,” and the possible penalties that
violators could face (116th Congress, 2019). If one examines
the social contract that is the constitutional rights given citizens
of the United States to life, the philosophical and psychological
necessities to maintain human dignity and what it means to be
human, and the natural rights that humanity expects humans to
give other humans, then one will come to the conclusion that
the bill, S.311 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
needs to pass, but also should be seen as ethically fundamental
to maintaining the social construct of our nation.
The obligation of the humans living within the borders of the
United States of America to deem unjust and punish acts of
murder by neglect is philosophically universal. The basic right
to life is recognized as given to all citizens of the United States
via its very own Constitution. Article 14, section 1of the Bill of
Rights states that “all persons born . . . in the United States . . .
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside. No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty . . .
nor deny to any person . . . equal protection of the laws”
(Constitution). This makes the abandonment of newly born
babies by anyone, let alone educated and legally acknowledged
medical providers, an ethical and legal degradation of the

society of the United States of America and an offense to all
who are living under the social contract that is the USA. The
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that an
individual’s “moral and/or political obligation” to the society
that they are a populous of is often regulated by an agreement,
written and/or oral, known as the theoretical “social contract”
(Friend, n.d.). This is such a fundamental understanding of
societies that the legendary philosopher Socrates argued in
support of why this is so. He proclaimed that the laws of the
land in which one resides is the contractual agreement that the
person accepts by the mere fact that the person has chosen to be
living within that land (Plato, n.d., p. 42- 47). Socrates staked
his own life on this obligation to the society that one is born
into, educated by, protected within, or is otherwise chosen to be
a part of by the act of living within it (Plato, n.d., p. 40- 47). In
the writings by Plato in Socrates’ Defense (n.d.), Socrates said
“But wrong-doing and defiance of one's superiors, whether god
or man, that I know to be evil and shameful” (p. 26, Line 29b).
Socrates is stating that acts of social disobedience are unjust
and unethical. These acts of “wrong-doing and defiance of one's
superiors” are still considered ethically questionable, and often
punishable, even with in our modern society. The United States
was founded within this principle of social obligation. The
second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (1776), in
which the social contractual agreement that the United States of
America is based, reads: “We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” John Locke, a
famous philosopher of the seventeenth century whose views on
politics and ethics were radical in his time and yet has become
“commonplace and widely accepted,” declared in his Second
Treatise of Government (1821) that the reason mankind unites
“into common-wealths [sic] and [puts] themselves under
government" (p. 6, sect. 124) is for the preservation of their
lives, liberty, wealth, and general well-being (Connoly, n.d.; p.

7, sect. 95-98). Even within the USA, it doesn’t take but the
mere effort of looking around and listening to the people to
realize that the individuals that reside within its borders expect
protection and provisions from the government they are under.
John Stuart Mills, a distinguished philosopher of the nineteenth
century, eloquently defended the utilitarianism way of life. This
predominantly atheistic view preached a political orientation
that rejected the concept of social contract and believed that
laws and policies should be based upon the happiness of the
individual. Even within this mindset, there is an expectation
that the individual owes obedience to its society especially
when it comes to the conduct between the individuals within
said society. In On Liberty, he wrote “... every one [sic] who
receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit,
and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that
each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct
towards the rest” (p. 69). He is acknowledging that actions of
anyone within a society are morally right or wrong dependent
upon their effects “towards the rest” (pg. 69) and he goes on to
acknowledge that it is “necessary that general rules should for
the most part be observed” (pg. 71). Even under this
individualistic way of doing society, it is understood that, “as
soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the
interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it” and the
offender “may then be justly punished” (Mills,1859, p. 69). The
act of refusing medical care is a socially and legally recognized
act of injury to a member of the society known as the United
States, and even Mills acknowledges that such infractions are
not acceptable. To be a human, that can be happy within a
society, is to know and accept that there are crimes that should
be and will be punished.
United States of America to reject murder by neglect is a
philosophically universal necessity, if they are to maintain their
human dignity. Human dignity, as explained by Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is “a foundational commitment to

human value or human status” that is discussed and debated in
several fields of intellectual conversations (Bos, n.d., par. 1).
Philosophical attitudes toward human dignity underscore the
distinctive uniqueness that is a living persons and that this
solidary fact calls for definite, inflexible, ethical criterion (Bos,
n.d., sec. b.i., par. 2). John Stuart Mills, in his utilitarian
perception of a society, his live and let live ideology, validated
the justice in valuing human life. Mills expresses this sentiment
for individuals to act when injustice has occurred when he
states “acts, of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause,
do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases
absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable [sic]
sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of
mankind” (1859, p. 52). Mills argued that every individual has
the ability to make a choice and this is a basic aspect to being
human. Within this ability to choose, Mills explains that “all
human beings have this sense [of dignity] in one form or
another, and how strongly a person has it is roughly
proportional to how well endowed he is with the higher
faculties” (Mills, 1861, p. 6). The rational, reasonable human
acknowledges the dignity within every human and should
respond accordingly by deliberately choosing to be happy
within the actions that do no harm to others. Mills asserts that
one’s choice and dignity should never be taken away from them
unless that liberty infringes on the liberty to life and dignity of
another human being (Mills, 1861). This sentiment is echoed
even within the existentialist philosophy of the
twentieth century French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre. In his
lecture titled “Existentialism Is a Humanism,” he declared that
“Man simply is” claiming that mankind exists to create his
purpose (1946, p. 3). He defends the existentialist theory as
being the only theory “compatible with the dignity of man”
explaining that existentialism denies the “kinds of materialism
[that] leads one to treat every man including oneself as an
object” and promotes the power and humanity within the
absolute freedom and responsibility of choice (1946, p. 9). Even

within this only me and only now philosophy, the most
important aspect of personal integrity and the backbone of being
human is authenticity; the obligation of each and every person
to rationally, judiciously, and logically analyze the social
circumstances and hold themselves accountable for the choices
made in the situations. Sartre would acknowledge that each and
every one of us is responsible for the irrational justification of
murder by abandonment; “one thing which permits him to have
life is the deed” (1946, p. 8). He pulls no punches in outlining
the position of an individual that refuses this responsibility:
“Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free
choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes
refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some
deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver” (Sartre, 1946, p. 10).
Another influential twentieth century political philosopher John
Rawls wrote in his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), about
his conception of how a proper society could go about “defining
the fundamental terms of their association” as he renovated the
social-contract idea (Rawls, pg. 207; Richardson, n.d.). His
writings explain the fundamental necessity that individuals must
maintain their humanity, must recognize that human life is
valuable within itself, and that the ideal social structure must
“accept certain moral principles” while setting aside all of the
preconceived ideas and expectations that one would have with
their society (Rawls, 1971, pg. 211). The first of the “two
principles of justice” that he purposes as necessary asserts
“each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive
basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”
(Rawls, 1971, pg. 213). What human doesn’t recognize their
liberty to life? In America, the human infants that have survived
an abortion procedure don’t have that liberty.
United States of America to uphold the natural rights of humans
and to give that same natural right to other humans is a
philosophically universal. Socrates championed “living well and
finely and justly” as being the truest state of being human, and

recognized the sanctity of life in all even when some harm or
suffrage is perceived as received from the other (Plato, n.d., p.
42-43). The founding fathers of the United States believed that
life is a right that is unquestionable: “We hold these truths to be
self-evident . . . all men . . . are endowed . . . with certain
unalienable Rights . . . Life” (Declaration of Independence,
1776). Locke asserted that natural law obligates all of humanity
to a standard of respect for all human life; “no one ought to
harm another in his life” (Locke, 1821, p. 1). Mills defended
life, particularly new human life, as being “the most responsible
actions in the range of human life” (1859, p. 99) that an adult
can take on, and declared that it would take a mindset that is
completely void of morality to make choices without “paying
[any] regard to others” (1861, p. 23). Sartre’s perspective on
life culminates on the individual’s ability to live, to choose, and
to do. It would be unthinkable to Sartre that someone would
strip another human being of the opportunity to find his own
purpose; “life is nothing until it is lived” (1946, p. 10). Rawls’
justice is grounded in blind fairness. Life’s value is an
elemental part of the nature of being human; every individual
instinctively values his own life. “The intuitive idea is that
since everyone's well-being depends upon a scheme of
cooperation without which no one could have a satisfactory
life,” is his way of saying that living in a mindset of
togetherness is the only way for the individual to truly live a
good life (1971, p.210). In the mist of everything that these
great minds cannot agree on, the significance of the life of any
individual human is a prevalent notion that is undeniable.
On February 26, 2019, Denise Grady for the New York Times
and Anna North for Vox.com reported on some of the ongoing
claims by the antagonist of the bill that Senator Sasse authored,
the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. They
explained that two of the reoccurring rebuttals are that this bill
is needless “because a similar law already exists” and that
“infants are rarely born alive after abortion procedures, and if
they are, doctors do not kill them.”

The law that they are pointing to is based upon the Born-Alive
Infants Protection Act of 2002 that was signed into law by
President George W. Bush. This bill set out to amend the
federal document “1U.S.C.” to include the parameters of what is
acknowledged as “words denoting number, gender, and so forth”
to include “born-alive infant” and to define what is meant by
“born-alive infant” in order to give recognition of the social
status of these children born within the United States (107th
Congress; United). This bill clearly states that “nothing in this
section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract
any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the
species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive' as
defined in this section” (107th Congress). The bill merely
declared what is legally recognized as a “human being,” a
“person”. This bill however did not carry any legal disciplinary
action upon medical providers who do not administer proper
care nor did it detail what type of treatments would be expected.
The expectation was that it was not needed. There are others
laws and regulations that are supposed to be the guidelines as to
what should, or could, happen to those that are responsible for
ending the life of another human being. Even the ethical
promise of educated physicians caries no weight in the favor of
life. The modern version of the Physician's Oath no longer
contains any “promise by the physician to “do no harm” or
never give a “lethal medicine” as it was in the original
Hippocratic Oath” (Hajar, 2017). Every decision that a
physician makes, acts upon, is responsible for and is supposed
to fall under the signed consent of the patient (Hajar, 2017).
Yet, year after year the continual manipulation of legal jargon
has allowed some medical providers to disregard the
expectations that most Americans have regarding the physician's
oath and legally get away with murder. The dying infant does
not have the ability to consent: physically or legally. According
to American law, that right is left to the parents. There are laws
and agencies that are supposed to intervene when the parent or
guardian is deliberately or passively allowing harm to come to

any child. And yet, our society condones the murder of the
innocent in the name of convince. The medical providers that
are present at the time of an infant that is born alive and
choosing to set the child aside knowing that they will pass away
without any medical intervention is not only allowed to do so,
but is socially defended by some to be an acceptable action. The
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is necessary not
because there aren’t already legal provisions for such
protections; the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
is necessary because there needs to be stronger parameters
placed upon individuals who breach the laws that protect life.
The claim that failed abortions resulting in an infant that is born
alive happen so infrequently and that it is not an act of killing
that these doctors are doing by their neglect are valid enough to
warrant the disposal of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors
Protection Act is defended by Denise Grady specifically.
Sartre -- “There is no such thing as a cowardly temperament ...
A coward is defined by the deed that he has done.” “there
cannot be any other truth than this, I think, therefore I am,
which is the absolute truth of consciousness as it attains to
itself.”
The bill S.311 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
presented by Senator Ben Sasse should not need to be
necessary. The basic understanding that there is a natural value
within
did not receive the required “60 votes to proceed” (DeBonis &
Sonmez, 2019; 116th Congress, 2019). The bill reads as
follows: “Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a
hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the
protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for
any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for
screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within
its care” (116th Congress, 2019). If one examines the
constitutional rights given citizens of the United States to life,

the philosophical and psychological expectations of what it
means to be human, and the natural rights that humanity expects
humans to give other humans, then one will come to the
conclusion that this bill needed to not only pass but is ethically
fundamental to maintaining the social construct of our nation.
Conclusion
a) Restate the importance of your issue
b) Paint a picture of the world depicting what would happen if
your argument is (or is not) implemented ..Utilitarianism John
Stuart Mill..During all that time, mankind have been learning by
•experience what sorts of consequences actions are apt to have,
this being something on which all the morality of life depends,
as well as all the prudence...p 16
REFERENCES
107th Congress (2001-2002). Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
of 2002 (H.R.2175). (2002, August 05). Retrieved March 20,
2019, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-
congress/house-bill/2175
116th Congress (2019-2020). Born-Alive Abortion Survivors
Protection Act (S.311). (2019, February 25). Retrieved March
20, 2019, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-
congress/senate-bill/311/text
Bos, G. (n.d.). Human Dignity. Retrieved April 6, 2019, from
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-dign/
Constitution of the United States. (1789, revised 1992). The
Constitution of the United States The Bill of Rights & All
Amendments. Webmaster: Baltzell, G. (last modified, 2017,
March 12). Retrieved March 20, 2019, from
http://constitutionus.com/
Connoly, P. J. (n.d.). John Locke (1632-1704). Retrieved April

6, 2019, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke/
Daly, J. (2019, February 26). It's True: U.S. Senators Voted to
Allow the Killing of Infant Children. Retrieved March 20, 2019,
from https://jimdaly.focusonthefamily.com/its-true-u-s-
senators-voted-to-allow-the-killing-of-infant-children/
DeBonis, M., & Sonmez, F. (2019, February 25). Senate blocks
bill on medical care for children born alive after attempted
abortion. Retrieved April 6, 2019, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-bill-on-
medical-care-for-children-born-alive-after-attempted-
abortion/2019/02/25/e5d3d4d8-3924-11e9-a06c-
3ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.26abe3d1af08
Declaration of Independence (1776, July 4): A Transcription.
(2018, December 14). Retrieved April 6, 2019, from
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
Friend, C. (n.d.). Social contract theory. Retrieved April 6,
2019, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
Grady, D. (2019, February 26). 'Executing Babies': Here Are the
Facts Behind Trump's Misleading Abortion Tweet. Retrieved
March 20, 2019, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/health/abortion-bill-
trump.html
H. (n.d.). USA, the land of unlimited possibilities... Retrieved
March 20, 2019, from https://www.garyjwolff.com/usa-the-land-
of-unlimited-possibilities.html
Hajar R. (2017). The Physician's Oath: Historical Perspectives.
Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association,
18(4), 154–159.
doi:10.4103/HEARTVIEWS.HEARTVIEWS_131_17 Retrieved
March 20, 2019, from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755201/
Israel, M. (2019, February 21). The Necessity of the Born-Alive
Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Retrieved March 20, 2019,
from https://www.heritage.org/life/report/the-necessity-the-
born-alive-abortion-survivors-protection-act
Locke, J. (1821). Second Treatise of Government. London: R.

Butler. SophiaOmni, 2003. Retrieved March 20, 2019 from,
https://blackboardent.csupueblo.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-625958-dt-
content-rid-3211303_1/courses/19SPRING0_6790/Locke%20-
%20Second%20Treatise%20on%20Government.pdf
Mills, J. (1859). On liberty. Kitchener, Ont.: Batoche Books.
(2001). Retrieved March 20, 2019, from
content-rid-3211303_1/courses/19SPRING0_6790/Locke%20-
%20Second%20Treatise%20on %20Government.pdf
Mill, J. S. (1861). Utilitarianism. (J. Bennett, Trans. 2017).
Retrieved March 20, 2019, from
content-rid-3157505_1/courses/19SPRING0_6790/mill1863.pdf
North, A. (2019, February 26). A Republican-backed bill to
protect "abortion survivors" just failed. It still matters.
Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.vox.com/policy-
and-politics/2019/2/25/18239964/born-alive-abortion-survivors-
protection-2019-sasse
Plato. (n.d.). Socrates of Athens: Euthyphro, Socrates’ Defense,
Crito, and the Death Scene from Phaedo. (C. Woods & R. Pack,
Trans. 2007). Retrieved March 20, 2019, from
content-rid-
3062077_1/courses/19SPRING0_6790/Plato%20on%20Socrates.
pdf
Rawl, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge (Mass.):
Harvard University Press. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from
content-rid-3244409_1/courses/19SPRING0_6790/Rawls%20-
%20A%20Theory%20of%20Justice.pdf
Raymer, B. (2019, February 26). Pro-Abortion Senators Kill the
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Retrieved March
20, 2019, from
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/life-issues/pro-
abortion-senators-kill-the-born-alive-abortion-survivors-
protection-act

Richardson, H. S. (n.d.). John Rawls (1921—2002). Retrieved
April 6, 2019, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/
Roll Call Vote 116th Congress - 1st Session. (2019, February
25). ). Retrieved April 6, 2019, from
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_
vote_cfm.cfm? congress=116&session=1&vote=00027#position
Sartre, J. (1946). Existentialism is a Humanism. (P. Mairet,
Trans.). Retrieved March 20, 2019,
content-rid-
3278211_1/courses/19SPRING0_6790/existentialism%20is%20a
%20humanism%20-%20sartre.pdf
Smith, K. (2019, February 27). Senate rejects "born-alive" bill
as anti-abortion advocates reignite "late-term" abortion debate.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/born-alive-act-senate-rejects-
born-alive-bill-anti-abortion-advocates-reignite-late-term-
abortion-debate-2019-02-27/
United States Code. (2012). Chapter 1 - rules of construction.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2012-
title1/html/USCODE-2012-title1-chap1.htm
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro-life
Pattakos, A. (2018, February 03).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-meaningful-
life/201802/life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-meaning
Author Note
Argumentative Essay Outline
(To save a copy for yourself choose “file>download as” or
“file>make a copy”. Cheers!)
1) Intro
a) Hook
b) Background information
c) Thesis- It is moral and ethical to have the right to choose to
when the quality of life is diminished and there is no possibility
for improvement.
2) Develop Your Argument
a) Make a claim 1(use evidence and support it from a famous
philosopher and explain why they would support the argument)
i) Evidence 1a
ii) Evidence 1b
iii) Evidence 1c
b) Make a claim 2(use evidence and support it from a famous
i) Evidence 2a
ii) Evidence 2b
iii) Evidence 2c
c) Make a claim 3(use evidence and support it from a famous
i) Evidence 3a
ii) Evidence 3b
iii) Evidence 3c
3) Refuting Opponents’ Arguments
a) Opposing view 1(use evidence and support it from a famous
philosopher and explain why they would refute the argument)
i) Refutation 1

b) Opposing view 2(use evidence and support it from a famous
philosopher and explain why they would refute the argument)
i) Refutation 2
4) Conclusion
a) Restate the importance of your issue
b) Paint a picture of the world depicting what would happen if
your argument is (or is not) implemented
For more information on how to use this argumentative outline
for your next essay, readHow to Create a Powerful
Argumentative Essay Outline. Also readThe Secrets of a Strong
Argumentative Essay.
www.kibin.com

Running head USA, THE LAND OF UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES... 1USA,.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head USA, THE LAND OF UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES... 1USA,.docx

Similar to Running head USA, THE LAND OF UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES... 1USA,.docx (8)

More from todd521

More from todd521 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head USA, THE LAND OF UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES... 1USA,.docx