Faith-based objections to birth control coverage

[Neil Peart]

I was reading the news and I came across a story about the Supreme Court hearing arguments from faith-based organizations against Obamacare and other health plans covering contraceptives. It brings me to my question: do you think faith alone is a good enough reason to deny a woman the ability to obtain birth control?

Personally, I think it's just another attack on women's rights and, in my view, pretty disgusting.

 

[Pokemon Game Fan]

Not trying to start any fight (although it inevitably will), but I remember reading something yesterday that had bible passages that proved god killed a lot of babies. So if god is okay with it, it makes no sense for someone to use religion as a reason.

Nonetheless, I feel like a LOT of opposition to abortion is from religious people, but just like there are non-religious people who are against gay marriage, there are also some that are anti abortion. I don't think religion is the only reason people are against it.

 

[Her]

Religious faith is not a viable reason to influence any law aside from laws protecting the expression/practice of it.

 

[Somewhere_]

I am a Christian, but in my opinion, religion should have nothing to do with politics. It is not moral to impose one's morals on another for religious beliefs. For example, I find it immoral to do weed, but it is not my right to say another cannot.

I think philosophy, science, and empiricism should play a larger role than religion, but this is not to say we should shun the opinions of the religious.

To take the Obamacare case mentioned above. The Supreme Court should be reviewing it based on the constitutionality and the evidence, not based on the agendas of various religious groups. Their arguments would be taken seriously if they actually based their opinion on fact and reason rather than religion. Even under the assumption their religion was correct, this is no reason for them to enforce their will because we all have free choice.

 

[Philosophizer]

Religious faith is not a viable reason to influence any law aside from laws protecting the expression/practice of it.

Like the politicians care.

 

[Kanzler]

Like the politicians care.

That's quite true. Which is why it's ever so important that whatever regime or political structure a society decides to take, they should take some measures to prevent exploitation of the influence of religious belief on policy.

 

[Her]

Like the politicians care.

Yeah, but funny how that doesn't really tie in into what I was saying. I'm simply saying it should not be a factor, not that it is not a huge factor.

 

[Alex]

Faith is, by nature, a one-person belief. One cannot use their faith to impose anything onto other people. They can only use their faith to guide their own lives and make their own rules.

 

[Kanzler]

Faith is, by nature, a one-person belief. One cannot use their faith to impose anything onto other people. They can only use their faith to guide their own lives and make their own rules.

That's true. Faith per se is not sufficient to impose anything onto other people. But if faith can lead to truth, then that truth would at least be a reason to impose. But faith in its own sake is not enough.

 

[Lunaris Adamantine]

Faith isn't a good enough reason to deny anyone anything. Believing something without evidence is a concept that doesn't make any sense, especially since everyone's faith is different from everyone else's.

 

[Neil Peart]

So is anyone willing to play devil's advocate and say they have a legitimate right to deny birth control?

 

[Dusty]

There is a pretty simple answer for those who have a problem with this: don't use Obamacare. If you aren't okay with it, buy something else. And if the government decides to throw your specific taxes at it anyway, its out of your hands, can't do anything about it so you're clean. As a Christian who doesn't like abortion, this seems like a pretty weak argument.