I saw on Facebook a link to a Huffington Post article I chose not to read because I knew it would rile me up. The gist of it was that Arizona wants to make it so you have to prove that you use birth control pills for other medical reasons -- besides pregnancy prevention -- before your employer/insurance must pay for it. I also have seen post after post here on Xanga about the evils of birth control and how free birth control equals more promiscuity.
It just baffles me. I have even tried reasoning with some of these people who adamantly believe that birth control of all kinds in all situations is wrong and against God and is immoral and unethical and condemn all those who use it.
All politics aside -- why is it anyone's business? Not only that, but why do we assume it is primarily (or only) single people who use birth control methods? To those who say "my birth control is abstinence," you're wrong. Abstinence is not really a method of birth control; it's a lifestyle choice not to have sex. And a good one, don't get me wrong. I am not against that in any way. But it doesn't apply to all people in all situations.
Here I am, a married mom of two. My husband is in the military and is often gone, so I am often the sole care provider for my two children under 5 years-old -- especially since, being in the military, we have had to move away from all family. I get chronic, debilitating migraines. I cannot function and take care of myself much less my children when those migraines strike, so I have recently been put on Topamax. Topamax is known to cause birth defects. So should my husband and I not give a damn, and just get it on and procreate -- as some have recently told me is the sole reason why God created sex? Should I let my medication harm an unborn baby because I must take it in order to care for my current children? Should I potentially harm my marriage by making it a sexless one, for heaven knows how long while I am on this medication?
Or, should we use birth control? This, to me, seems like the most reasonable, most ethical, and, yes, most moral choice.
Birth control, whatever the method -- not including abortion which is
not birth control -- even when used solely as pregnancy prevention can have it's place. I am over the dogmatic piety that is going around here and around politics right now. The very idea that people would throw God into this and in the same breath act so nasty and so unforgiving and so callous -- it doesn't spread the word or the love of God at all.
So lets take it there, you want to go there, go to religion? I can't help but think of the hymn "They'll know we are Christians by our love." Not by our rules and bylaws. Not by our finger-pointing and stone-throwing. I also remember a movie I once saw that profoundly impacted the way I thought. It was about a church that was run by a religious man who was all about rules, all about damnation. By the end of the movie there was a quote that went something like, "God's love shouldn't be about who we can exclude. Rather, it should be about who we can include."
This can be applied to many, many issues in the front pages right now in politics. And it is something I have applied to my life -- and I'm much happier for it. I'm pretty sure God sent Jesus to try and
include as many of us sinners as possible into his kingdom. If it was about
exclusion, then his crucifixion would not have been necessary. Please think about that.
Do you agree that there can be a place in the Christian life for birth control? Under what circumstances do you think it would be permissible? Has the birth control debate gotten so nasty that Christians are becoming more exclusive rather than inclusive? How can we appropriately discuss divisive issues such as birth control in a way that is still respectful and loving?
True
Comments (136)
I'm not going to debate about Christian's views of birth control. Some are ok with it (as long as it doesn't encourage the termination of conception), some don't care, and some are strictly against it. If you focus on that, you will never get to the root of the problem (and the reason this issue hits so close to heart).
The root of the problem is that the government has NO RIGHT to tell Americans what medications should be paid for by insurances!!! ESPECIALLY for the government to tell insurances to pay for something when the organization is strictly against it. Why isn't the government making heart medication covered by all insurances? Or hospital costs for couples having children covered by insurances? Why is the government choosing birth control, sterilization, and plan B, when it is such a sticky issue, and one that will clearly hurt religious freedom? If a Catholic hospital (or any Christian hospital for that matter) believes that plan B is equivalent to an abortion aka killing a baby... why would the government force that hospital to cover plan B? It's like the government is forcing that hospital to perform abortions. THAT'S ABSURD!! Any person in their right mind should be able to understand that.
Whether you're on birth control for medical reasons, or simply because you enjoy having inconsequential sex, I honestly don't care, just don't force my Church to pay for something that has been against it's teachings for the over 2 thousand years. That isn't right, and even the Supreme Court agrees that is it against the first amendment. Inclusive and Exclusive? I think the Christians are being excluded in the right to religious freedom.
Women have found ways to get/afford birth control for the past 3 decades, they can continue to do so without imposing their desires on church-affiliated organizations.
@BehindTheSeens@xanga - First off, if the religiously affiliated hospital is receiving federal funding, they should not be able to discriminate in which conditions they are going to treat. Furthermore, no one is forcing anyone to give contraceptives to anyone else, and no one is asking you to pay for anyone else's contraceptives. When you are an employee with insurance, you pay a fraction of your paycheck to the insurance company every week. If you get sick, or have surgery, or go on birth control, it is the insurance company that pays for that. If you really want to ensure that none of your money could possibly indirectly go to fund a lifestyle choice you disagree with, don't use the government mandated insurance that your employer provides you. I could turn around and say "I don't think insurance should cover medications for smokers who have emphysema or lung cancer, because I don't agree with their lifestyle choice." or "I don't think insurance should cover medication for people who got diabetes from their obesity, because I don't agree with their lifestyle choice."
Also, I am VERY curious as to where in the Bible it says that contraception is not permissible. (Spoiler alert: it's not in there). In fact, a quick google search provided a multitude of Christian sources that say its okay. And the one line in the Bible that could POSSIBLY be used to argue otherwise would also count as a ban on masturbation, so... God said be fruitful and multiply, but that doesnt mean that you can demand that people who don't share your belief have children because god said so. And I'm pretty sure he would have also said to take care of all the orphans in foster care before worrying about whether or not your neighbor is having more, or using contraception.
@Lost_In_Reverie@xanga - thing is... Majority of Catholic institutions are PRIVATELY INSURED. In that they don't get federal funding. The government is trying to force ALL insurances, INCLUDING private insurances, AKA Catholic institutions to pay for things that violate their religion. And if you really believe the whole, workers pay money and that money is used for them/ their contraceptives... than insurance doesn't have to cover it. They can just pay it out of their own pocket, like they've been doing for the past 3 decades!
In relation to your comment about the Bible... read Ephesians 5:21-27. The Bible itself says THE CHURCH has the ultimate say because Christ himself is HEAD OF THE CHURCH. The Church also happens to be against birth control. And if you're asking which Church, I'm talking about the Catholic Church. Afterall, everyone who says the Apostles/ Nicene Creed, or who celebrates St. Nicholas (Catholic Bishop), St. Patrick (another Catholic Bishop), or St. Valentine (Catholic priest) admits their Christian/ Protestant foundation started with the Catholic Church.
@Lost_In_Reverie@xanga - Seriously! If my medication is like poison to a baby, how can anyone think it would be ethical or moral to become pregnant knowing this? You make a great point about diabetes and weight, and smoking and lung ca. Lifestyle choice I don't agree with but people who still deserve medication. Without questions.
@BehindTheSeens@xanga - the Pope said condoms are ok to prevent HIV. Am I wrong? That's a birth control method.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - This must mean you've been getting birth control for the past several years before this attempted mandate... you can continue to do so without trying to impose on other people's religious liberty.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - this birth control mandate doesn't cover condoms, and birth control doesn't protect people from HIV. That's completely irrelevant to this topic.
@BehindTheSeens@xanga - I don't think it's irrelevant because I'm making the point that sometimes, in a case by case scenario, outright birth control bans are deemed "ok" even by the Pope. So how can we really say that the church is 100% against birth control if it isn't really 100%?
And? I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I must have been getting birth control for years. What the heck? I wonder which years you're referring to, because I have a 5 year old and a 2 year old, and I breastfed one for 10 months and the other for 18 months so together that means I've breastfed for 18 months. So between being pregnant and nursing my existing babies, I'm wondering where I'm fitting in all those birth control years?
I just re-read what the Pope said, and for those who are interested:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/pope-benedict-condoms-hiv-infection
This may not have to do with birth control PILLS, but it does have to do with the issue of birth control methods overall. I don't think it can be ignored.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - Sorry, I guess from your blog, I assumed your migraines were something you've had to deal with for a while, and not something completely new. Either way, before this proposed mandate where suddenly the government feels it has the power to determine what medications insurances cover, I assume you are using birth control to prevent pregnancy. Therefore, you have the ability to get birth control without this mandate... and you can continue to do that without insurances being forced to cover it.
It is irrelevant because the Pope okaying condoms for HIV protection within the institution of marriage isn't the same as the Pope saying it's ok for couples to purposely engage in sex while trying to prevent pregnancy. The mandate covers the pill, sterilization, and plan B... none of which can protect someone from HIV so the function is completely different. The manadate doesn't care about HIV, while the Pope does.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - And for everything the Pope said, it was to PREVENT THE SPREAD OF INFECTION. PREGNANCY ISN'T AN INFECTION!!!! Don't take the Pope's words and try to twist it for the mandate's benefit. That's just immoral.
A quote from the article I linked, ""The pope is saying that if you can prevent disease, the use of condoms could be permissible," said John Allen, senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter."
Also in the article, it states that the use of condoms to prevent HIV is not for sex within a marriage, but for male prostitutes, to be exact.
The use of birth control is preventing the disease my unborn, un-created baby would be at risk of developing because of my medication toxicity to him. No?
By the way, why are you using caps and multiple exclamation points? I read that as yelling. Which is exactly why I say this is the kind of nastiness that is turning people off and away from Christianity and a God they perceive must be ok with ugly behavior.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - If you want to use birth control, to prevent "the disease your unborn, un-created baby would be at risk of developing because of your medication toxicity" go ahead. I'm not trying to stop you in any way, shape or form. I'm just saying, the government has no right to force Church-affiliated organizations' insurances to pay for something they believe to be morally wrong. Just like I can buy my heart medications that aren't covered by my insurance, you can buy your birth control without it being covered by your insurance.
If this mandate passes, what will end up happening is many Church-affiliated organizations will probably refuse it and be fined so heavily, they will have to close their doors. Do you know how many Church-affiliated hospitals, schools, non-profit charities there are in the US?
And yet, people would rather let that happen so they can get their birth control/plan B/sterilizations covered by insurance. Wow, this country is losing it's God-given unalienable rights.
I don't remember there being an amendment stating people have a freedom to free birth control?
@BehindTheSeens@xanga - But who is the judge of what is morally acceptable? I don't know why you have to pay for your heart medication. Maybe you can lobby your senator about that.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - Why is the government suddenly able to state what insurances are forced to cover? What gave them that right?
It doesn't matter what you or whoever believes to be morally acceptable. Religious freedom is a first amendment right, and the Supreme Court states that religious organizations have the right to choose what they want to be covered under their insurance as part of separation of Church and State. Birth control coverage isn't a first amendment right, and isn't required of the government to force on institutions.
@BehindTheSeens@xanga - I think you're making well thought out points and I want to give them the attention they deserve. But my fuzzy brains are not capable of continuing tonight. I will visit you again. Mwa hah ha.
Evil laughter.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - Haha agreed
Certainly agree that the government doesn't have the right to force a private institution to violate their sincere religious beliefs. Whoever signed up under their insurance plan knew the benefits and drawbacks, so there's no need for them to complain. They can go somewhere else if they want insurance to pay for their contraceptives. That's as non-sensical as buying insurance to pay for child birth costs. The purpose of insurance is to pool assets to protect you against a risk, an UNlikely misfortune in life-- not to cover costs of the normal events of life like having children. That maternity rider is money wasted and would be better put in personal savings.
I don't think anyone is saying that you sarahsmurfette shouldn't protect an unborn child from harm, but that there are other methods besides the pill, which can be an abortifacient. The other methods, of course, do involve having sex without intent of procreation, but since the Church recognizes the "unitive" value of sexual relations, I think they should relax... A LOT. This fanaticism has its origins with the rabbis of the Talmud regarding their wrong headed theory that "wasting the seed" is a mortal sin. From this false premise, they hypocritically condemned masturbation-- (for men, not for women, which inequality alone should have clued them that their theory was off base) and this led to the forbidding of contraception. Two thousand years later, people are still being burdened with loads of false guilt and shame about contraceptives, premarital sex et cetera, based upon man's opinion and tradition, not upon God's word.
There's always been room in Christian life for birth control. For those who read "into" the Bible what they want to about what our present culture should be concerning it, well, that's pretty much all they are doing. Assuming they understand every Greek word and connotation in the Bible, and then assuming their mis-interpretation is to be applied today, like some kind of Christian hocus pocus litmus test or something. It's ridiculous to place someone's salvation on a pedestal because they don't use birth control. So have 15 kids you can't support, don't have the health for, and tell God why you didn't do a good job of it.
For me, once I'm married, I don't think I will ever use birth control outside of natural family planning. I trust God with every detail of my life, and so why wouldn't I trust Him with that as well? But, I believe that He also convicts people on different levels, and so it's not my place to tell other people not to use it. I believe that is an issue between you, your husband and God. Not anyone else.
@caroliiineee@xanga - I don't believe that trusting God with every detail of my life means I should go stand on a train track and close my eyes. God gave us a brain capable of being reasonable, and I don't think He would or should be obligated to supernaturally intervene simply because we want to prove we have "enough" faith.
I also believe that God is the divine inspiration and that He is capable of having been the lightbulb moment for scientists who come up with medications or inventions that help us.
@BehindTheSeens@xanga - I am torn on your final statement above. The reason is because I don't believe that the government should have it's nose in everyone's business, legislating every little detail. That isn't freedom.
But I also think it is unfair discrimination not to cover birth control because of an overall moral objection to it, which might have nothing to do with a particular person's circumstance.My brain is fried still...must be the terrible storms outside.I agree with you 100%.
Why should a bunch of men in the government control my body?
We're taking a bunch of steps backward.
"Oh ho, I'm a big man politician...let's take away women's right to control their own bodies. While we're at it, we should take away their right to vote, since they will probably overwhelmingly vote this down. Oh, and black people shouldn't vote either, because they're a minority, and so are women, so... they'll side together against white men!"
lulz failmerica.
jkz but fo realz yo
Honey, (I'm talking down to you? No. I am just an old time cowboy that chews beef jerky)...honey, it is hard to avoid that third child. Taking birth control pills is a temptation. Once you are on the pill, it is VERY difficult to get off the pill without getting pregnant. Staying on the pill for an extended time can have very bad health effects. So what's a gal to do? Well, I suggest you and your hubby look into THE BILLINGS METHOD of fertility awareness...it's like I say: "if the stove is hot, don't touch it" If you know when you are fertile you can avoid getting pregnant. But most women do not know when they are fertile, or the physical symptoms of their own fertility. THE BILLINGS METHOD will teach you, and him.
Then, there are many other benefits that boost the couple's enjoyment of sex, bond them together as God intended as one flesh, and make them systemically symbiotic. yep. check out their site....http://www.woomb.org a lady doctor runs it. tell 'em I sent ya.