Right to life and paying for pregnancy

At work today one of my coworkers, who is pregnant, was discussing her pregnancy and planning for the birth of her baby. Several other women who had already gone through it were talking about it with her and they specifically were talking about the finances involved and how much was covered by their health insurance.

I usually try to stay out of conversations involving heterosexual topics, specifically because they don't involve me and because I find them distasteful since conversations about homosexual topics are usually considered too controversial for office topics, which makes me angry. However, I have noticed while reading through insurance packages and different providers that pregnancy is often prohibited from coverage by insurance companies. The preggo woman made the comment that having a baby was expensive and I think that simple statement is so ironic in our current state of pro-life politics.

This may become an addendum to the respect for life post, and I apologize before I go any further. However, as much as I hate the statement that giving birth and bringing a new life into the world, is a miracle, it is certainly a signifiant occurance and an important one for the continuation of society. If we have so much respect for life and think that giving birth is so sacred and miraculous, why isn't it covered by more insurance. Why should someone have to take on a large financial burden in order for them to precipitate such an important occurrence? Shouldn't it be free if having a baby is so special?

What is a Right to Life?

The 'right to life' is a political phrase used very often by the pro-life political movement to associate their beliefs in the sacredness of every human life with the innate rights afforded to us in the Constitution. It is used in association with situations that are emotional and play to the sympathies of audiences, but they severely limit the application of this idea to the purview of moralistic religious conservatism.

What does that phrase mean, however?

In its current political incarnation it means that life starts at conception and no person or persons should knowingly interfere with its growth and natural progression. This comes into play again later on when the health of a person deteriorates to the point where their family must consider euthanasia.

The broad reach of this, however, isn't the sole property of moralists and conservatives. If we truly are guaranteed a right to life and thus encouraged to have a respect for life, doesn't that also imply a certain quality of living? We also are guaranteed the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' which assumes we all possess the means to pursue those things rather than being physically or mentally handicapped. By respecting someone else's right to life it would therefore appear necessary to allow them what they need to continue in their pursuit of those things.

This is where it gets difficult, however, because the help required for many in order to be able to have a quality of life that would resemble the pursuit of those ideals requires more than a smile and a handshake. For some it involves intensive medication and therapy, or physical therapy and regular doctor's office visits. If a person is unable to pursue those ideals without assistance, it is unlikely they have private health insurance and those services are too expensive for most people to pay out of pocket, so they would then need public support.

My experience, however cynical, is that words are easy comforts anyone can afford, however the political application of paying higher taxes to provide better public support is a very different thing. While right to life is an ideology that has become so pervasive in current politics, there is no discussion of these other applications of that idea. In fact if there truly was a respect for life among those that espouse this political ideology, why isn't there more focus on improving the adoption process and putting effort into improving the foster care system?

The right to life and respect for life goes far beyond abortion and euthanasia or assisted suicide. It applies to the support we as a society give to those who are mentally or physically disabled to the point which they are not able to live a life of the quality that many take for granted, either due to the strain of financing necessary medications, the limitations of their living situations, or their access to quality healthcare and therapies. If we truly believe in these ideals than we would spend less time protesting ineffectually and more time, money and effort in creating positive and supportive environments for children through adoption and foster care, and make sure that those who are otherwise live in fear, depression, and without hope are able to live as fully and happily a life as their friends and neighbors.

Gun Control

The issue of gun control is one of the less controversial of the divisive issues in politics at the present. Gun control has been a political issue since the creation of guns, as were the sale and ownership of weapons in general since the dawn of time. It is a simple concept, weapons equal power, at least military power and that is the force by which most cultures have governed their people since the inception of governing. That is why the constitutional amendment guarantees the right to bare arms, it's the government control and the attempt to subvert the building revolution that had instigated the outlow of private gun ownership by the British in the first place. Too many people use the simple fact of a constitutional ammendment to assert their own right as a legitimate American right, but it was never the intention of the founders to provide weapons to criminals. At that time handguns were pistols with a single shot and took time to reload just like the rifles. They didn't have the six shooter and certainly not automatics. So why are people so insistent that they have the right to own guns? Possibly it is for the same reason that the amendment was included, it represented the power fo the government over private citizens.

An alternative to the disempowerment of individuals by the government might be the desire for personal safety. The home owner wants to defend their home against intruders, a person wants to feel safe walking down the street in their neighborhood. Neither of those situations are helped by the rights of others to own guns. It actually makes us less safe when a person intent on committing a crime has access to handguns, and aside from denying felons the right to own guns, it is impossible to discriminate against one group versus another on a constitutional right.

Notice that this isn't an argument against hunting or against hunting rifles. Hunting rifles and handguns are very different things, just as automatic weapons are from hunting rifles. If hunting is a sport, than it is poor sportsmanship to use an automatic weapon just because the hunter can't shoot straight or because he wants to hit more targets. Also, it is cruelty to the animals hunted to be subjected to increased injuries from stray rounds, especially if they aren't downed and it inhibits their ability to participate in their flock or herd. Men shouldn't be allowed to own military style weaponry just to satisfy their feelings of penile inadequacy.

One final issue that seems relevant to gun control is the right to life. This phrase gets thrown around too often, especially by anti-abortionists, but it is a concept that is too important to lve as the narrow-minded and flawed political vehicle they have made it into. Right to Life is a very broad reaching idea of respecting the lives of others as sacred. 'Thou shalt not kill' is the commandment and although there can be many interpretations of exactly what that applies to, there is one obvious meaning, killing is a crime above all other crimes. But how is that served by ownership of an item that by definition is made to kill? When statistics show handguns in particular as the cause of most violent deaths in this country, how is that honoring that commandment? If statistics show that the ownership of handguns made no significant reduction in the occurrence of violent crimes during home invasions, how does that justify owning one? Does it counteract the number of accidental shootings by children living in a home with a handgun? Or justify the statistics on school shootings where teenagers had access to guns in the home and used them to commit violence in their schools? If we truly had a respect for life, shouldn't we do everything we could, everything that seemed necessary, to guarantee to our best ability the safety and health of all of our citizens?

The framers of the constitution may or may not have had criminal activity in their minds when they debated that amendment, but as most of the troupes in the militias and armies during the Revolutionary Period were required to provide all their own equipment, it would be naivety to think that the right to bear arms had its spirit purely in the desire to guarantee hunters continued to have rifles available, much less foresee and not have acted on the rising number of violent crimes committed between young people in their own schools.