Last week, dozens lost their lives at the hand of a man wielding terrible destruction. I dedicate the spirit and hopes of this piece to them.

The right to life is one of the most precious and important rights we possess as humans. Life is something of wonder, sorrow, joy, questions, and answers. What does having this right mean? What should we do with it?

First, we must understand the nature of this right. It is the right of determining or pursuing the desired nature and status of one’s existence. It is the right to choose whether or not go on living, to pursue and obtain that which would sustain one’s life, and to decide what we do or want to do over the course of our lives. This idea is simple at the outset, but its enforcement and protection are far murkier.

There are, of course, obvious means of violating this right: homicide, forced servitude, genocide, and denial of the right to die are among these. No one has the right to exercise such control over your life that they directly, actually, and proximately deny you the choice to live or ability to pursue whatever it is you seek. As a society, we and our government have an obligation to endeavor to prevent individuals’ rights from being violated in these ways.

However, there are still other ways which some say infringe on this right.

One of these, and perhaps one of the hottest topics of the U.S.A. concerns healthcare. One major question is whether every individual has the right to medical care and insurance to cover expenses incurred by partaking of it. The secondary question is what we should require that insurance to cover. Then, the tertiary question is whether or not providing insurance is economically and morally feasible for the insurance to be provided by a government entity.

I stated above that we have an obligation to do what we can to safeguard people’s right to life. From this and a general public policy standpoint, it is both prudent and arguably ethical to ensure at least basic and/or emergency medical care for all individuals. What of the expense of that medical care? I would argue, standing on the foundation I’ve laid, that we should derive a right to assistance with disposing of the cost to the consumer of that care.

Thus we answer the first question regarding healthcare. The secondary and tertiary questions are debatable, as well as some tagalong issues (such as actual costs). This topic is clearly something greater in depth and width, and will thus be discussed later.

Another issue regards wages- particularly, the minimum wage. Does having the right to live mean that one should necessarily be paid a wage on which one can live? Of course, this issue also carries along issues of feasibility. Some have also suggested that everyone should be provided a certain universal, basic income.

As a matter of ethics and protecting the right to life, no one should be allowed to unreasonably prevent another from pursuing work which provides a decent quality of life. Provision of a survivable income is also desirable. Based on a right to life, it would especially be desirable as a means to empower individuals to exercise their rights. It would also be desirable that society pursues substantial marginal decreases in the cost of living within society. Economic feasibility is another question, however.

The third and final major issue I wish to address is that of abortion. While I have no and should have no bearing on any child-carrying individual’s decision in this matter, I would present some thoughts regarding the general matter. One the main question under this overlying issue is this: When does human life begin (and from there, when does one become a human with the rights of a human)?

Many argue that human life begins at the moment of conception. Others say that those rights do not take effect until birth, and others ascertain a particular point during pregnancy when those rights take effect. For me, a conclusive and decisive scientific or reasoned answer to this question is essential. That answer would then, using the reasoning we have been, determine the point at which a child-carrier loses much of their right to decisions regarding their own body.

Neither of these rights is to be taken lightly, nor should those on whom conclusions regarding these issues have no direct effect. That is, those who cannot carry children should not have any overwhelming or overbearing final authority regarding choice. Such allowance would be an affront to human rights and personal agency.

However, a perhaps far more practical focus is decreasing the need for abortions altogether. This is a topic to discuss more in depth another time, but I submit it now regardless. There is always more than one way to safeguard human life.

This is by no means a comprehensive discussion of these issues, but I hope that, if we can agree on the fundamentals, perhaps going forward we can together make the world a better place and join in protecting everyone’s right to life.