Right To Life

I have thoughts at the oddest times, and sometimes random thoughts connect together in unexpected ways.  Sometimes I feel like Gregory House.  You know how he's talking about something else unconnected but has a sliver of what he needs to solve a medical mystery at the last minute?  It's just like that.   I was watching Jon Stewart and a bit on one of the many personhood bills.  That issue aside for a moment, it occurred to me what the biggest flaw in the pro-lifers argument is (besides the numerous ones already discussed to death.)  This pro-lifer lawmaker said "all life is sacred." OK, I agree, following him so far.  Waiting for it....waiting for it.....he says "Life begins at conception." (Technically not correct as the zygote and sperm are individual but alive components.) We've all heard that argument from the pro-lifers before.  Here is where the light bulb came on which would spark the topic of this note as I walked through the parking lot on my way to work over a day later.  "Every person has a right to life and we want to make sure those rights are protected.  Under the law, a fetus would have the same opportunities guaranteed under our constitution to ensure it has a right to life."  I would agree with that statement if I agreed that a fertilized egg constituted a person.  

The right to life is a pretty basic statement, one in which I fully support, but what does that mean?  You can make numerous qualifying statements about what defines life and what assistance you have a right to in order to maintain your "right to life."  Of course the most basic need to maintain life is food.  Logically speaking, if you have a "right to life," you have a right to the basic materials needed to sustain life.  Right?  Well, it would seem this is where the pro-lifers argument suddenly becomes a great deal less convincing.  This is also where many of the pro-lifers pound terms like entitlements and emphatically stress the parasites of our society who utilize those reviled entitlements and the left wing socialist liberals who used their voting rights to ensure those entitlements where in place for those who needed them.  It would seem everyone has a right to life, but not to the food required to sustain it.  There are a plethora of other examples I could also highlight to emphasize my point, but it would just be repeating the same concept.  How can you purport a belief in "the right to life," but not guarantee access to what humans require to sustain it?  

Let's assume the fertilized egg was duly and appropriately grateful to the right wing conservatives for guaranteeing egg was able to have a life, be born, grow up and become a solid contributing member of our society.  Let's assume egg worked hard, paid taxes and utilized none of those evil entitlements.  Egg has a good life.  One day, egg is hurt at work through no fault of his/her own.  You can really replace any scenario here, so choose worker's compensation injury, car accident, environmental toxin poisoning, disease not otherwise classified as perceptually self-inflicted, hurt by a criminal during the commission of a crime, injured during a natural disaster, or hit by the city transit system.  However it happened, egg's health is now compromised and egg did nothing wrong in the eyes of the conservative view to bring this upon his/herself.  Poor egg.  Well, sometimes bad things happen to good people, that's just life.  Egg has health insurance, so egg is confident about returning to work.  Egg gets more bad news, as egg struggles to regain health. Egg's boss says egg has been sick for too long and so the boss is sorry but it would harm the company's profit margin to continue to provide health care for an employee who isn't able to work for the company any longer.  You see, egg has had some complications and though recovery is still the goal, it will be a long and arduous effort.  Egg no longer has company sponsored health benefits.  Egg has been dropped but his former boss assures egg that COBRA will pick up where the company left off.  Egg is relieved.

When egg investigates COBRA, egg finds it is too expensive for egg to afford without a job.  Fortunately, egg is a member of the good eggs and they band together to help support egg through this time.  Egg moves in with some of the good eggs and is able to afford a steep health insurance premium to maintain coverage.  Then poor egg gets more bad news.  Some of the medications used to save his life have compromised his organs and he now requires a transplant to live.  A transplant is very costly and it is denied by his insurance carrier.  You see, now the "right to life" has been replaced by the "right to profit" and "no entitlements."  Though egg has done nothing to bring this set of circumstances upon himself, he no longer has a "right to life" if he can't pay for it.  Egg files appeals with his insurance company and looks for help in the community to no avail.  The insurance company delays with hearings and denials until egg is no longer a candidate for transplant and dies.  "Right to life" apparently is dependent upon your zip code when it is applied.  

So you see why pro-life and "right to life" are concepts that are great buzzwords for the sanctimonious to thump into the dull brains of the liberals, but at its basic premise is not supported by the people who profess to believe in it so strongly.  Egg's "right to life" had not changed because egg was no longer in utero.  Egg's "right to life" did not change because egg aged out of the proclaimed right.  Egg still had a right to life.  Egg was denied that right to life because company (another personhood) profit was placed at a higher value than egg's "right to life."  Funny, I don't remember a cost/benefit ratio being attached to the "right to life."  It had nothing to do with egg expecting an entitlement, egg was simply wondering why he no longer qualified for his "right to life."  

I may be a dumbass liberal (proudly so) but I know this; I hold all life to be sacred and all life to be regarded with the highest form of dignity to which we can afford it.  Every viable fetus has a right to life.  As a proud feminist and pro-choice advocate I also believe this.  Human life may be initiated at conception, but it cannot qualify as a human life until it can be sustained outside of the womb.  I know things get very gray here, there are many valid reasons for ending a viable pregnancy and I'm not entering that into argument here.  My point is this; if we have determined that a human being does indeed have a right to life, there are basic requirements to sustain life that are by extension also included in the "right to life."  Food, shelter, and healthcare not withstanding, of course an individual has a duty to be responsible for sustaining the life they procreate, but that is not always realistic.  An individual has a duty to be as self reliant as possible to meet those needs for themselves but again, that is not always realistic.  If we maintain as a society it is our value to hold sacred that every human has a "right to life," then it is our duty to ensure what is required to sustain life meets that end.  To fail in providing the most basic of supports to maintain life is not holding the tenement of a human being's "right to life" as a value.  We cannot say that every human being has a "right to life" and then start by defining which humans have more of a "right to life" than others.  There is an old saying "you can't be a little bit pregnant, you either are or you're not."  Humans either have a "right to life" or they do not.  

Pro lifers and conservatives shout endless moral high grounds to support their convictions.  In an ideal world, I am 100% behind the concept of "right to life."  Because I am a realist (contrary to what many think goes on in the head of a liberal,) I am also aware of the responsibility I have toward upholding the values and beliefs I hold sacred in my moral tenements.  I have a duty to ensure to the best of my ability that all of my fellow humans have a fair and equitable chance at a right to life.  I support the social services programs through voting, taxes, donations and volunteering to help those who cannot sustain life without those systems.  I also advocate for responsible applications of those programs so that the money is used to benefit those it serves and not to service those who manipulate the system for personal gain.  I have a heart, but I am far from a bleeding heart.  I support, foster and nurture independence and self reliance in others, it is also a value I hold dear.  I believe in another old saying "You can give a man a fish and he eats for the night.  Teach a man to fish and he eats the rest of his life."  A moral conviction is meaningless drivel without the personal conviction to live by your words.  

Most of the pro-choice advocates I have had the pleasure of interacting with also feel strongly in the sanctity of life.  In an ideal world, no pregnancy would be unwanted, no baby conceived without the mechanisms in place to provide for its well-being while it matures.  But here in the real world, there are consequences to having children without regard for what their "right to life" may look like in application.  The consequences are harsh and often unforgiving by their very  nature.  Cycles of abuse and poverty are common, but yes, people have risen above them.  Those strong and determined individuals are the exception and not the rule.  To me, it doesn't seem that hard at all.  I hold the value that life is sacred, therefore it is my duty to uphold that value to the best of my ability.  It is a responsibility I take with a great deal of seriousness.  Every human has certain basic rights, most of which are violated at some point.  We all have the right to have access to food, utilities, shelter, and healthcare.  We all have a responsibility to provide those things for ourselves to the greatest extent possible.  Failing our best efforts to obtain what we need to sustain life, society steps in to support life.  There simply isn't room for negotiation.