I Don't Think We Need to Earn The Right to Life

I think I'm a socialist. I've been muddling over it all day (really, for several months, but especially today). Here's the reason why: we have a right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. There may be a qualifier on “happiness”, but there isn't one on “life”. We have a right to life. Period. Our ability or willingness to subscribe to society's idea of “earning a living” doesn't matter. It's a right. 

There's a question I'm sure most of you immediately thought: We can't just have people living off our backs can we? Sure we can. Do they deserve to die? To starve? To freeze? No. The only place in this country you're guaranteed basic food, housing, and healthcare is in prison. It's something we are only assured of earning via crime.

Everyone needs to have FREE: clean water, fresh food, housing, healthcare (medical, dental, vision, mental, alternative... all healthcare) and education (Preschool-PhD). Those are the basics. This is where each person should be in life if we've merely coasted and accepted the generosity of others. Why? Because with our basic needs met, our minds are free to find true education and inspiration. Who, with a belly full of organic produce, a good night's sleep, a healthy body and unlimited educational opportunities, is going to sit around and do nothing?

Each person on this planet has something to contribute to society. It seems lofty to say, and I will place a qualifier on it: not every person on this planet will contribute their something to society. However, I think in the vast majority of cases, people would, with basic needs met and ample free time, do things of value. Some of those things would have monetary value, and here I would still allow a free market to thrive. People would pay for jobs based on how much they valued them, and people would accept jobs they thought were worth it for the money. These were split between government-subsidized industries and collectives and luxuries markets. The vast majority of things would still be luxuries markets. Technology, junk food, automobiles, entertainment and many more would remain traditional “capitalist” businesses. They would hire workers and people would work in order to afford the many varied luxuries (anything from meat to diamond necklaces).

In the vast majority of cases, people would spend at least some time working, in order to afford whatever luxuries they desired. In a few cases, people would choose to dedicate themselves to trades that aren't traditionally valuable (volunteering at the Humane Society or helping raise your grandchildren, for instance). And in a very, very few cases, people would languish.

There would be a few people who only worked enough to get TV service and booze. Some would just shut down and sleep all the time. However, as long as we ensure that work pays better than crime, they would contribute a few productive hours. But think about it a different way. In our current system these people would likely be “public nuisances”, the stereotypical “loud drunken homeless man”. If that man had food and a basic place to live and a couple hours a week easy work to afford to soak himself in alcohol... it would still be better than having him out on the street miserable himself and harassing all of you.

Perhaps it's my astounding naivete, but I also think we'd have far fewer addicts if clean drugs were readily available (for a reasonable luxury cost) and drug rehabilitation was free. People would also be less likely to become addicts if they didn't feel the need to drown their dire circumstances.

Alright, this is getting a little out of my league, but I'm going to try it anyway. What would this look like structurally? Firstly, the government would regularly seize unused and abandoned properties and turn them into free housing for those who needed it. With these would come public parks' conversions into giant bio-dynamic farm/gardens farms where people can pick up free local produce AND play sports and climb jungle gyms. Yes, this means meat would be a luxury. If you live in Seattle, Oranges a luxury; in Florida rice a luxury. But the goal would be for a sincere overabundance of food be produced. Everyone would be able to take as much as they wanted and there'd be leftovers and they'd all get tossed... into the giant composting system that supplies dirt to the neighborhood farm (did I mention all the free housing is getting composting toilets and rainwater catchment and locally-produced green energy?).

People would live in these places for free, guaranteed small but adequate, safe, and comfortable housing. Basic luxuries, such as private internet (there would be free computer labs in neighborhood community centers & libraries) or TVs, would be available. People would live in these places as long as they want, all their life, or only until they can afford the upgrade to a larger, paid apartment space (or even private home).

Taxes on earnings and profit would fund the non-profit systems of healthcare (medical, dental, vision, mental, alternative), basic housing, peace officers (not “police”), transportation, emergency response, education (including college), and conservation. These systems would benefit all people, especially those who run industry, and thus people would pay taxes for them. Private business, of course, would be allowed to develop alternative and “luxury” plans in all these industries, but the basic needs would be taken care of regardless of a human being's “economic value”.

As many systems as possible would be locally-based. Food, energy, housing and food should all be created mindful of the surrounding climate. Food will be varieties easy to grow in the region. Water will be collected as locally as possible. Housing would be built out of local materials. Energy harvested via wind, water, or sun. The systems would be interconnected, so that they might lean on each other in times of need, but generally would be self sufficient. Advertising, insurance, finance, and many other “industries” which do nothing but create “money” and waste time, would cease being a drain on society and would free up time and energy for humanity to put towards more positive (but less “profitable”) ways to spend time.

Teaching, writing, reading, learning, running, making friends, teaching the neighbor to swing dance... these are all things you do with free time which benefit you and benefit your community by proxy. They have no proven capitalist economic value, but that doesn't mean they lack value. So that's it. I think everyone has something to contribute. And I think that even if they don't care to share that contribution, they still have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How I Came to Terms with Being Pro-Choice

This is something I don't admit very often: I used to be pro-life*. Not in a big, scary, religious way. Not in a slut-shaming, hateful way. In a quiet “I won't kill a clam for food... why is killing a fetus okay?” way. The pro-life liberal is a rare beast, but I used to be one. I couldn't really understand how one can draw a line where what was a fetus becomes a “person” with “rights”. And even long after I accepted the difference between a pre-viability and post-viability fetus... I was still uncomfortable.

Why? I've been a vegetarian since I was 2**. The idea of killing a chicken can actually bring tears to my eyes. Did I ever think chickens deserved the same rights as humans? Never. But I was always uncomfortable with killing... with the death penalty, with animal testing, with war. I was pro-life in that I was against killing, pure and simple.

When I first became pro-choice I thought of abortion as a “necessary evil”, a right that wouldn't be needed if we achieved universal healthcare, birth control, education, maternity leave, childcare, and other social supports. I saw abortion as a symptom of our system, where having a child means losing education, jobs and familial supports and where feeding an unexpected child can be too difficult. And while those concerns are still valid, I know now that the right to an abortion needs to be inalienable and permanent.

And there's only one way I've figured out how to explain it. Someone, somewhere in the world today desperately needs a kidney transplant and I'm their match. I have a spare kidney. Going through surgery to donate it would have it's dangers and complications, but I'd have a very good chance of making it through. It would be traumatic, and painful, but I could give that person life. I could choose to get on the donor list, and maybe I should.

But would you force me to? Would you tell me that in order to give this man life I had to give my kidney, no matter how I felt about it? That it was my duty to give up my body to a complicated, traumatic procedure with marked health risks because otherwise I'd be “killing” someone else?

What if you said that in order to not have my body violated by this surgery I'd have to drive across the state, stare at a photograph of the man who needs the transplant, and then “think about it” for 24 hours? What if I had to pay $500 to get out of this transplant? What if I had people screaming “murderer” at me because I refused?

It doesn't actually matter if you think the fetus counts as a “human” or not. Forcing a person to put their body in danger & their life on hold to preserve the life of another is immoral in and of itself. It doesn't matter how they ended up pregnant. It matters that they don't want to damage their bodies (and potentially their lives) for a fetus, no matter what it's potential.

Would I have an abortion? No. Like I explained, the idea of killing a chicken makes me cry. But that's the point – I am pro-CHOICE. And I think that whether or not pregnant women choose to continue their pregnancies, they need to be fully supported in that decision. That's why I don't just believe in universally available & free abortion. I also believe in free childcare, mandatory maternity leave, and a food stamps program large enough to ensure no child ever goes hungry. I think adoption needs to lose it's stigma and foster care needs to be fixed and schools need to give world class educations to all students, not just those with wealthy home & school clubs.

But I also believe that the right to bodily autonomy is an absolute. And that means abortion needs to be a RIGHT. Forever.

* Disclaimer: I was 12-16 at the time... so cut me a little slack.

** Yes, really. I also began reading graphic anti-vivisection literature at age 6, had my “Angry Atheist” phase at age 8, began obsessively following election cycles at 11 and became a Pagan before my 13^th birthday. It's a weird thing.