This morning on my way to therapy, I heard an NPR story over the radio. It was about how Obama’s getting a lot of criticism from the Catholic church because his healthcare bill would require providers to give their clients birth control if they wanted it. Even the Catholic ones (or, rather, the Catholic medical organizations). Birth control is a far cry from abortion, but to the Church it’s all the same, or at least that’s how I understand it. Perhaps I’m wrong. If I am, please kindly leave me an ask. From what I know, they think that sex without children is sinful, even amongst married couples.
Naturally, organizations which promote the rights of women are getting involved and supporting Obama. Now, of course there is and should be freedom of religion. I’m all for that. But there’s also supposed to be a separation of church and state. When I heard about the news from the program which had aired, I thought of these things immediately:
1. The aforementioned separation of Church and State.
2. The fact that not all women use birth control only for sex. Some use it to reduce cramping and such.
3. Wouldn’t it be far cheaper to pay for birth control than to pay for an abortion, adoption services, welfare for mothers driven to poverty, and other costs which are bound to come about if the women are forced to be mothers?
I think that this is a feminist issue, though. They’re trying to make the government regulate what choices women can make about their own bodies. This is the same government which is mainly male, has never had a female president (yet), and so on.
Now, I can understand them not wanting to promote sexuality, but what they seem to fail to realize is that inevitably some people will not accept their version of right and wrong. I’m not just saying this because I’m sexually active and my girlfriend and I are in no place to raise a child yet, either. I can also understand why Christian religions would want us to control various urges and such, which is everything from sexuality to eating. Moderation in all things, as they say. What I can’t understand, though, is how they want to enforce their limitations on all with an iron fist. Moderation and self control is good, but this is too far.
Even when the Catholic Church was at the height of its power, people still had sex that wasn’t necessarily done with the intention of having and bearing children from what I understand.
This reminds me of something which I saw a while back (perhaps on Tumblr). Basically, if teaching abstinence is effective, then the post had jokingly suggested that we use this same logic with other things. Want to stop murder? Teach people to abstain from it. Want to stop rape? Tell them to abstain. Want to end robbery? Abstinence. Drug dealing? Same thing.
Now, of course these things are not at all on the same level (even of “sinfulness”) of having sex for the sheer enjoyment of it (or to show love). I mean only to show that if abstinence works for one kind of “sin”, then why not use the same method with other “sins” (or actions which are most definitely monstrous).
And what if you’re only having sex within the bonds of marriage, but use birth control to only have children when you want them? My Dad and Step Mother are both Mormon and (as far as I know) have never had sex outside of marriage nor were they ever happy with learning that I have and do, but I know that they use condoms. If they didn’t, I’d have a lot more siblings and they would not be financially stable. I’m glad that they’re responsible.
I don’t mean this as a bash of Catholics at all. I only mean it to point out that this is a feminist issue, the separation of church and state, and so on. If I have offended, I apologize.