Should Organized Religion Have More Rights Than Women?

[NMMNG]

Food for thought. My answer, of course, is no. Human rights should always come first, and nobody should have to sacrifice their rights to someone else's religion.

Should organized religion have more say over a woman’s body than a woman does herself?

<snip>

The demand for exemptions is based on moral and religious grounds. Religious rights, it’s claimed. But about women’s religious rights? When women’s moral and religious beliefs conflict with the Catholic Church, why should the church win out?

Free contraception leads to healthier babies, too. The Institutes of Medicine recommended free birth control due to compelling evidence that it leads to healthier women and babies.

Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care and to smoke, consume alcohol and be depressed during pregnancy. Unintended pregnancy also increases the risk of babies being born preterm or at a low birth weight, both of which raise their chances of health and developmental problems.

And when birth control is free, abortion rates drop too.

<snip>

But returning to the question of religion, aren’t we supposed to sacrifice for our own religious beliefs, rather than asking everyone else to sacrifice for our religion?
<snip>

[Angry Dragon]

1. Jesus told them to keep it in the closet

I do not believe any christian religion listens to Jesus any more

[NMMNG]

4. The only thing they seem to want to keep in the closet

is gay people and atheists.

[Thats my opinion]

13. who is "they?"

or is it just like saying "they" regarding gays,, minorities or any other group. Perhaps your bigotry is showing.

[NMMNG]

20. Calling out the bigotry of others isn't bigotry

But it's typical of certain types of religious people to claim it is. It's a handy way to pretend they're the victims rather than the aggressors, and/or to diminish the harm done to the actual victims.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. It doesn't. But, while the church has no right to stop you from using...

contraception, why do you consider it a right to get it for free?

[NMMNG]

3. I don't consider it a "right" to get it free

Though it does make good sense to make it available free, or very cheap (particularly to low-income people). It reduces unintended pregnancies which in turn reduces poverty and abortions. If religious people are truly opposed to abortion it makes absolutely no sense for them to also oppose birth control, which is the best way for sexually active people to prevent unintended pregnancy. (Obviously abstinence is the only truly effective way, but it's not realistic to expect adults to stay abstinent.)

[TreasonousBastard]

14. I agree that free contraception is a good idea, I just kinda...

backed up a little when it looked like you, or someone, was calling it a "right" to get it free.

It probably should be a right, since it makes so much sense, but we're still up against the old attitude that contraception, like needle exchange, promotes "immorality" no matter how much good it does. My problem is more along the idea that we have to pay for a lot of stuff, like aspirins, so what makes birth control special?

[LeftishBrit]

17. I think the difference is that birth control has more implications for society

Having to care for many children, whose parents don't want them or can't look after them, will cost the state much more than providing the birth control.

I don't know about it being free to *everyone*, but I definitely think that birth control should be freely available to poor people, especially in developing countries where it can be truly a matter of life and death.

[femrap]

5. It would be covered like viagra is if

the woman has insurance. BC pills used to be handed out like candy when I was young. Now a month's pills cost $40...the last time I checked. That could pay a monthly electric bill. Condoms used to handed out like candy as well...and in this age of HIV, they are very much needed.

Women have been paying the price of child birth forever and you now want to deny BC pills be covered like any other medication. Would you rather have another unwanted kid in Foster Care???

Geez.

Maybe sperm should be regulated....it's dangerous and causes crushing responsibilities and life-changing demands.

Leave the Ova alone.

ETA: All organized religions enjoy oppressing women. ALL. It's all a part of the plan by TPTB. And these silly catholic bishops running around screaming about BC pills....they're not even supposed to have sex. They have lots of gall given how many of these priests have abused children. They're annoying.

[aka-chmeee]

6. One of the most colorful elements of Dick Nixon's administration

got in hot water over this. Earl Butz after a World conference on hunger or some such spoke of the Vatican's adamant position against birth control, saying "If you don't playa da game, don't try to makea da rules"

[NMMNG]

8. Makes sense

My father-in-law (who I wish would have lived long enough for me to meet) is said to have opined that celibate, unmarried priests had no business advising him in matters of sex, marriage and family.

[femrap]

11. What's so sad is that Nixon's

Administration looks so 'cuddly' today....and he left in shame before he was impeached.

shit.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. I didn't say I don't want them to be covered, and I agree it would be...

a good idea.

I'm just not entirely ready to add this into an ever-expanding list of "rights".

[femrap]

16. of course you're not....

you do want women to have too many rights, do ya? We might get uppity.....

[femrap]

22. You don't give birth

so maybe you don't like women having any 'rights.' Another leftie dude who requires enlightenment.

[PassingFair]

23. I pay $25/month for my daughter's prescription.

Which she NEEDS for PCOS....

Her hormones are out of whack and without
the birth control, she doesn't have a period, period.

[kestrel91316]

7. NO. Religions are no more "persons" with rights than corporations are.

[ellenfl]

9. whaddya mean 'should they'? eom

[NMMNG]

10. I know they already do

But the question is whether or not they should.

[Thats my opinion]

12. The right of a woman over her own body

must take prominence over any religious rule. Under the law, where does any other perspective take over at least in this nation? Give us the root of your accusation!

[NMMNG]

19. You claim to know what's really going on in religion today

If you did (or if you'd at least read the linked article) you wouldn't be asking such a question.

[PassingFair]

24. When I gave birth to my second daughter...

I told my doctor that if I need to have a C-Section
(my 1st child had to be delivered via C-Section), that
I would like to have my "tubes tied" while they were in there....

She told me that I'd have to find another doctor, because
she was only authorized to deliver in ONE hospital, which
happened to be a Catholic hospital, and that they wouldn't
allow the procedure on a healthy female.

I was flabberghasted...and not about to switch doctors
so close to my due date. It hadn't even OCCURRED to me
that my medical choices were going to be denied for religious
reasons.

This isn't some little hospital, either. This is the biggest
hospital in the region. Perhaps because it's run under Catholic
auspices, they have tax advantages that other hospitals do not.

I just know I wouldn't suggest that any other woman deliver a child there....

[NMMNG]

25. That's disgusting

People shouldn't have to fear they'll be denied health care based on the whims of the people working at or running a particular hospital. It's sickening when healthcare practitioners put their dogma before their patients. It's worse when they do it when they're the only game in town, and while taking taxpayer funds.

It's for that reason that if/when I move I'll make sure the hospital that serves my town is not a religiously affiliated one. I couldn't stand the prospect of me or my wife being taken there in an emergency and having some moralizing bigot deny us care because what we needed conflicted with their "beliefs". I'd also be terrified I wouldn't be able to see her or make decisions for her if she was unable to do so (or vice-versa) because their faith told them our marriage wasn't real in their god's eyes.

[darkstar3]

26. And this would be the reason for darkspouse's standing orders on hospital care.

No Catholic hospitals are allowed (among other things), specifically because they treat young women differently than other patients. They treat you constantly as though your are pregnant, and change your medical care without your consent for such purposes. Certain pain killers, diagnostic procedures, effective medications and antibiotics, all are avoided without telling the patient that the options were ever available, because if you're a woman of a certain age, then you're too dumb to know if you could be pregnant.

I guess they don't really know about birth control, after all, but then that doesn't exactly make them good doctors...

[LeftishBrit]

18. No,

Human rights take precedence.

[MarkCharles]

21. Great provocative question for all women to answer for themselves.

No religious group headed only by men should be making medical and life planning decisions about all the women in their flock.