...does not belong within the realm of anyone's moral compass but my own!!! This makes me SO FURIOUS:
Workers' Religious Freedom vs. Patients' Rights
If my religion were white supremacy, would that give me a right to deny services to all non-white people in my profession? If you don't believe in birth control, then don't work in a profession where your job description entails providing birth control! It's like a PETA activist being employed at Cabella's and then refusing to sell anything related to hunting! Or a Jewish person taking a teaching job at a Catholic school, and then claiming they shouldn't have to teach the lessons that contradict their faith! Yes, you should be free to believe what you want. But so should I, and I believe that birth control, and in some cases abortion, are healthy, important, and the morally correct thing to do with my body and my life. If anyone stands in the way of that, they are infringing upon MY religious freedom AND health, not just "patients' rights". And when the uterus in question is MINE, then the only morals that can be imposed upon it are MINE. Think birth control and abortions are immoral? Then don't take it or have one. I won't encourage you to or secretly stuff condoms in your mailbox. In turn, I ask that you not take my prescriptions away from me (there are pharmacists who DO that!). Don't you dare try to prevent me from doing what I think is morally correct for ME. KEEP YOUR LAWS OUT OF MY BUSH, BUSH!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I love this, Sandra:
"KEEP YOUR LAWS OUT OF MY BUSH, BUSH!"
I couldn't have said it more succinctly myself.
Happy trails,
Connie :)
If I understand this story correctly, the outrage should not be so much from the patients, but from the employer. I would disagree with you: I think that a private employer ought to be allowed to hire and fire anyone for whatever reason they want, even if they are white supremacists and want to fire non-white people. So, I would have to agree that the employers should not be forced to keep someone on the payroll whose religious beliefs prevent them from doing their job effectively. As a conservative, I am usually skeptical of "worker's rights" legislation. But, in this case, it is not the patient's rights that are being eroded, it is the employer's rights. There is no such thing as a patient's right to a service that a health care worker does not want to perform. It is a privilege, and a deal between the health care provider and the patient is made. Neither party should be forced into a deal they don't want to be in. BUT, the employer should be able to fire this health care worker if they aren't providing a service that the employer wants them to perform.
-CG
But CG, it's not that I have a "right" to birth control. It's that if someone can claim that giving birth control to me goes against their religion, I can just as easily claim that me NOT taking birth control goes against MY religion. I can say that God came to me in a dream and told me to have lots of sex to create positive energy but not babies. So, no one should prevent me from practicing my religion by denying me birth control. In return, I will not prevent someone else from practicing their religion by forcing them to take birth control. It's the same simple message of the bumper sticker: "Against abortion? The don't have one".
you should have the right to practice your religion, whatever it is, as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights guaranteed by the Constitution. One may claim to follow a religion that obliges them to rape and murder (or car bomb infidels), but that isn't protected under the Constitution. I agree: "Against abortion? The don't have one", but what about " Against murder, then don't commit one." The entire abortion debate can be boiled down to the unavoidably arbitrary definition of Human Life.
CG
It is because unborn human life is defined arbitrarily that we leave it up to the mother to define whatever is in her uterus as she sees fit. It would not make sense or be ethical for the government or any other outsider to declare this for her. It is NOT the same thing as "Against murder? Then don't commit one". And of course I meant that you should be able to practice your religion "as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights guaranteed by the Constitution". That caveat goes without saying. But me needing birth control or an abortion for myself doesn't violate anyone else's right, and it's not comparable to someone who rapes or murders in the name of practicing their religion. Just what are you trying to say, anyway, CG? The point is, no one can use my body in any way to practice their own religious beliefs.
I was not equating abortion to murder. Maybe I should have been more choosy with my
analogy. But, on the other hand, maybe it is a good one. It highlights my ultimate
point that the entire abortion debate is about the definition of human life. To many
pro-lifers, abortion is as bad as murder (or worse because the baby is completely
innocent and defenseless). To them, the "Against abortion, don't have one"
bumper sticker carries the same silliness and insult as my
"Against murder, don't commmit one" sticker does to you.
You say that having an abortion doesn't violate anyone else's rights under the
constitution, but that is the entire debate; it isn't a fact, it is an opinion
(that I am not sure I agree with or disagree with). If human life begins at conception,
or after the 1st trimester or whatever, then you're
religion of having sex but not babies WOULD be violating someone elses' rights. Maybe
they should come up with a clinical test, where they could detect the fetus' desire to
live and survive, independent of the mother's will. I'm sure this is on the verge
of being possible, technologically. Tough issue, and certainly not as simmple as
most people make it out to be.
-CG
I still don't get the gist of what you're trying to say. In any case, I do think you're making the "pro-life" argument sound pretty ridiculous. I don't understand why you conservative "small-government" types think it should be the responsibility of the government to define something as personal and intimate as the unborn. I thought you thought the government should interfere as little as possible in our lives? If the government is gonna mandate what I do with my embryos, it may as well tell me what brand of tampon I must use, too. It's the on the exact same level of privacy/intimacy. What if the government mandated that every time you ejaculated and were using a condom you had to save it all, because your sperm could be half of one or more embryos and therefore is human life? And if they found used condoms in your garbage you'd get arrested? My point is one can claim that human life begins at any point - before conception, after conception, after implantation, at the 3rd trimester, etc, but you can't reasonably enforce those views on the entire country. Anyway, perhaps you should start your own blog so you can expound further on your anti-choice views!
I only think the government should intervene in someone else's private life if their action is interfering with the life of another. That would not be the case for embryos, sperm, etc. But, I do think, at some point before a child is born, it has the independent desire to live, regardless what the mother thinks, and regardless whether she considers it a human life. At that point, I would consider abortion immoral, and would consider them worthy of the protection of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" guaranteed under the constitution. For me, it is not a religious thing at all. I am not religious, nor do you have to be to be "pro-life" or understand its bases. Whether such a protection would be enforceable, I do not know.
-CG
Oh geez, I had typed something up, but deleted it b/c this is so pointless...I repeat, get your own blog!
You guys are so cute! Yeah, CG, when are you going to get *your* blog?!
;)
Happy trails,
Connie :)
Post a Comment