The Morality and Politics of Justice Project In order to treat unborn human beings with true equality, we can’t just limit our abortion laws, but instead must create a comprehensible solution that would make it illegal.
Project Reflection In the Morality of Politics and Justice project, our junior class had to choose a political issue that involved a conflict between the three approaches to justice (security, liberty, and equality) and write an op-ed about their position on the issue and what they believe is the most just course of action. In order to prepare for this project, we learned about Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Jr., moral philosophies, the constitution, doublespeak, and rhetoric. Learning about Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr. set the stage on what defines a just or an unjust law. It made us question what makes something truly moral. This led into the moral philosophies that we learned about. The main philosophies were utilitarianism, libertarianism, John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, and deontology. Utilitarianism says that the ends justify the means and the most just thing is whatever leads to the most overall increased pleasure and decreased pain. Libertarianism believes in self-ownership and that the most just course of action is not interfering with people’s personal liberties and letting them follow their will as long as it doesn’t cause harm to others. John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness believes that justice means ensuring people’s needs are met in order for everyone to start on an equal level and have an equal chance at success. Deontology defines justice as something that respects human dignity for the sake of human dignity, not for other means or inclinations aside from it, and that it can be universalized to fit all people and still remain just. In my first draft, my argument seemed a little vague or unsure. But I fixed this and made my position stronger and clearer by improving the thesis statement and revising sentences about abortion limitations in the 9th paragraph. I also improved and integrated deontology and immanuel kant better by giving it a better definition. In my first draft, the definition of deontology was a bit unexplained and not very comprehensible, which I improved by using more concise wording. I made numerous changes in my sentence craft. Many of my sentences were too wordy, unnecessary, and phrased awkwardly. I made changes to these to make them flow better as well as fit within my word limit. This made my final draft more impactful and straightforward. In my final draft, I added more of my ideas for solutions and things that we could improve to get us on the right track to a more just society. My art piece was a political campaign poster that showed my position on what I believe about abortion and used ideas and phrases from my op-ed. My position was clear through the symbolism of the unborn baby being weighed on a scale to measure his humanity. His umbilical cord is attached to the Y, which represents his humanity. In my piece, I incorporated pathos by appealing to a sense of justice and reasoning through the words “Humanity does not come in Degrees”. I also used ethos by including a quote from a philosophy professor from New England University. The tone of my art piece isn’t necessarily angry or dark, but more a call to justice and a strong belief in doing the right thing. I represented this through how I made certain words look. For example, the words “Humanity” and “Degrees” had a larger, more distinct look to show elegance and dignity. They were larger because I wanted to emphasize their importance. The words in red are emphasized in order to show that they are connected to the issue of dehumanization. They match the red of the scale that measures humanity, which represents that we must change the way that we talk and think in order to stop dehumanization. I also used white and blue to represent purity and peace. If I had, for example, used red as a background color, it would’ve conveyed an angrier tone. I’m very proud of my art piece because it’s both thought provoking and visually appealing.
Through this project, I’ve found that I’ve personally grown so much. I was honestly scared of doing this sort of project, nevertheless this sort of topic. It’s a sore subject that’s been over debated, and I wondered if I could contribute anything new or positive to the conversation. However, I found that after I spent many tedious hours on my op-ed, I had a final draft that I was very satisfied with. The next scary part was the actual exhibition. My project wouldn’t amount to anything if my op-ed was great, but I failed to communicate my points to other people. But instead of mumbling and stumbling my way through it like I expected I would, I had some amazing conversations that really made me think about the opposing view as well as find confidence in my own. This seems a little contradictory, because it is in a way. That’s what I’ve learned; that finding justice is a constant tug of war between what you believe and what you’re challenged by. I’m constantly challenged because now I see that the issue of abortion isn’t black and white. However, I do know that I will stand by my view because I believe that it is the most just course of action. When my view is challenged, it’s just an opportunity for me to reevaluate what I believe and refine it to become better.
“...The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch...The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.” This description was given by Brenda Pratt Shafer, an assisting nurse in a partial birth abortion on a baby over six months old. Partial birth abortion is legal in many states, including Colorado. The Supreme Court will once again rule on abortion, and it will determine if Texas’s laws go against Roe v Wade, which established that it’s legal for women to abort before a certain time.
While Texas is adding restrictions, nobody seems to notice the lack of restrictions in Colorado. In our state and others, there are no gestational limits for abortion. Translation: abortions are legal at any point, for any reason. But remedying this by creating restrictions isn’t enough. In order to treat unborn human beings with true equality, we can’t just limit our abortion laws, but create a comprehensible solution that would make it illegal.
But what about the necessity? What about if the mother’s life is in danger? These concerns are legitimate, but more solvable than we think. Reasons such as the mother’s life being in danger, rape and incest, and fetal health issues account for about 2% of all abortions, according to studies done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and state statistics agencies. The other 98% of abortions are elective. So why shouldn’t abortion be limited to that two percent or less? In cases of rape, the unborn baby shouldn’t be made to pay for a crime they didn’t commit. Although this isn’t easy, the alternative is to kill. The mother doesn’t have to commit to raising the child, but can put them up for adoption. As for life-threatening cases, it’s not morally wrong to trade one life in order to preserve another. After all, that’s what we must do everyday in war.
Another pro-choice argument is that if women can’t get legal abortions, they’ll turn to unsafe methods. However, as the article “Pro-Choice Questions, Pro-Life Answers” in the New York Times says, we can compare the United States to similar western countries. Ireland, for example, has banned abortion and hasn’t had the illegal abortions or lives being risked as expected. Their abortion rates are lower than similar countries like the UK, even including the women who travel outside of the country for abortions.
Most people would agree that all people are deserving of equal rights because we share something in common, which is being human. We base our equal rights off of our humanity. When we determine equality based on our differences, discrimination is created. Humanity does not come in degrees. It does not come in levels of ‘humanness’; you are either human or you’re not. Therefore, determining the point at which we are human, drawing the line for when an unborn baby is truly a person, is morally unsound. Drawing the line of humanity, consciously or unconsciously, is a way of justifying our own reasons and desires. It dehumanizes a child by saying that a baby is a baby when we want it to be.
Immanuel Kant, an influential 18th century German philosopher, developed a theory called Deontology that defines moral decisions and actions. According to Deontology, a decision has to respect the individual’s human dignity for reasons that don’t depend on our own bias. It is only moral if it respects human dignity. The consequences of an action cannot make it moral because the ends don’t justify the means. Treating a human life as a means to an end is the antithesis of respecting individual life.
As Kant said, “[m]orality is not properly the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourse lves worthy of happiness.”To be frank, abortion is, many times, an act that brings the most short-term happiness. It brings about the most happiness for the woman who could not or did not want to raise a child, and for society as a whole because we don’t have to deal with a colossal problem. Abortion is the easiest solution. But snapping the neck or suctioning the limbs off of a baby, no matter their stage of development, is not what we call right or moral. We can’t just hold ourselves accountable to do what makes us happy in any given moment. Rather, we have a duty to do what is right no matter the cost. And doing the right thing isn’t out of reach. We aren’t so unkind that solutions like adoption are impossible. Think of how many pro-life advocates would be willing to adopt children who would otherwise be aborted. What about homosexual couples? According to lifelongadoptions.com, 2 million LGBT couples are considering adoption. That’s just the LGBT community alone. It’s better to give a child a chance at living, a chance to have a good life, than to take away that choice completely.
And adoption isn’t the only way. In order to truly create a solution, we have to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies. Methods like contraception are effective, especially if we start using the right kind of birth control. According to the CDCP, condoms and pills have a failure rate of 9% to 18%, whereas IUDs and implants are 0.2% to 0.5%. Increasing the availability and use of IUDs in women would decrease unplanned pregnancies drastically. Granted, this solution still isn’t easy. It’s not an overnight fix that will abolish all abortion and unplanned pregnancies. But what matters is that we fight to find a solution. Our nation has a problem with unplanned pregnancies. But abortion is not the long-term answer that we should look for. We should strive for the best solution, to find the best way to preserve all life, no matter how different. As a nation, so many of our resources can be directed into saving millions of lives, if only we can see the worth of doing so. Ending abortion is something we should care about because it isn’t living up to our full potential as human beings or as a country. Abortion is not the best that we can do.