Presidential debates, Birth Control, and other Miscellaneous

This is a PG-13 rated post.  Fair warning.  If you don't want to read it knowing that, then please don't.

So, after living in Georgia around my Dad-in-law, I can't help but be interested in politics.  If you have met my Dad-in-law, you understand.  So I watch the presidential debates and eat popcorn in large quantities (not much new there, but really).  On the February 22nd debate, birth control came up as an issue.  See Here to view the debate.  If you want to hear the part about birth control go to somewhere around the 42 minute mark. 

There is a question put up on the TV that essentially asks what the candidates' stances are on birth control.  (This is not a post campaigning for one opponent over another.)  Newt Gingrich's response is powerful.  He says, "I just want to make two quick points, John.  The first is there is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities on which any religion opposes.  That's legitimate.  But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barak Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide."

OK, so the big question is should the government be able to legislate to religions that they have to pay for birth control or the morning after pill?  Should it be able to legislate to doctors that they have to perform abortions, or heaven forbid, to have to actually kill the babies who don't die during a partial birth abortion?  And really, coming from a criminal justice stand point, what is the difference between killing a baby actually born at 36 weeks and any time before that?  One who is actually living on its own???  So, the question on the table really is not, birth control.

This post isn't even about whether or not women should be able to use birth control.  If a woman wants to use birth control or not, that is her business.  This post is coming from a mother of four.  I have had two natural miscarriages and a D&C because I was bleeding to death.  Whether or not birth control is acceptable or not is not the issue.  The real issue is whether or not the Catholic church should have to pay for birth control when THEY think it's wrong.  The issue is whether or not I should have to pay for abortions when I think they're wrong. 

A hypothetical:  If Bob wants to kill Fred, Bob can do it.  However, it's against the law.  If Bob plans ahead to kill Fred and carries out his actions, that is first degree murder.  If Bob wants Fred dead, but he doesn't actually want to kill Fred, he pays George to kill Fred.  George kills Fred.  According to the law, Bob is still legally guilty of first degree murder along with George.  In some states, if George's girlfriend just drives the car to take George there and back and has any knowlege that Fred is going to die, she is also guilty of first degree murder. 

OK, you are maybe wondering by now why I talked about Bob killing Fred.  Well, if I truly religiously believe that killing someone puts my immortal soul in danger, then, I pay to have someone else kill someone, am I responsible for that.  Right now, in that case, our legal system upholds that issue. 

In the case of the Catholic church and having to pay for the morning after pill for people or birth control, that's where they stand.  They feel that they are paying to help someone kill someone else.  Does the government have a right to legislate that?  If so, where do we draw the line? 

In the end, on birth control, if a woman wants birth control, pay for it. The country doesn't need to make birth control pills illegal or legislate that people can't use a diaphram or anything other form you want to come up with, just don't make someone else pay for it.  Millions do.  If we want equal rights, great.  Men pay for their own condoms all the time.  We can pay for our own forms of birth control.

My big number one problem is with abortions.  Where is the line between having an abortion and having a live baby.  Babies are living at younger and younger ages every day, and the laws are letting people abort at later and later dates.  Here is an article about an oxford study about "after birth abortions."  Otherwise known as infanticide.  The logical, scientific arguements for it are just outright scary.  This article has nothing to do with my moral or their moral ideas on what is actually right.  They simply have taken society's generally accepted views on what is right and wrong and applied it to this issue and come up with a logical argument for killing babies after they are born.

If I pay for that, am I not morally responsible for some of the deaths? Now, we see why the government needs to stay out of the morality business.  We need a government to make laws to protect our freedoms.  Basically we have the right to choose to do whatever we want until it infringes on someone else's right to choose to do whatever they want.  Our problem is that we can't define what a "someone" is anymore.