Businesses and contraception

"Should religiously-based businesses have to cover something that violates their religion, especially if the product in question is used over 80% of the time for purely recreational purposes?"

Employers are not even directly paying for birth control or contraception. They are paying for health insurance premiums. The health insurance company pays for the prescription, device or procedure. Only trained/licensed medical professionals can provide prescription contraception, abortion or procedures involving family planning. Religious freedom extends to individuals, not corporations. An individual who does not wish to use emergency contraception, due to religious reasons is perfectly acceptable. However, if that individual feels that they can hold their position as an employer over other's heads as a means to infringe on other people's freedom of religion, that is not okay. a violation of religious freedom would be forcing a business to actually take the contraceptives that they are offering. saying "It's against my religion to wash my hands after using the restroom, while I prepare your food afterwards, and I won't enforce my employees to either." It's against federal standards. As much as you can run your business as you please, you must also follow general federal law while doing it. Since it is now federal law to provide contraceptives in health insurance packages, businesses must follow it. We do not make special laws for religious people. That's not freedom of religion, that's religious privilege. Freedom of religion makes no laws respecting religion, meaning they don't get special privileges because they don't like something.

My wish

I only wish to keep the government out of other people's personal decisions, whatever they may believe for themselves. Whatever your own opinions about an issue may be, politicians should not be passing laws to force their own personal opinions onto anyone else who might want to make a different choice with her own body. The decision about what is right and what should be legislated are separate and distinct issues.

Euthanasia

It is the most extreme disrespect for a government to override an individuals decision to exit. If death is inevitable but the process will be drawn out, undignified and filled with pain then how can anybody have the audacity to veto your desire to retain a little dignity and fore go the entirely negative process of the agony of a long, drawn own death? It is presumptuous to think that medicine keeping people alive and suffering to the end is the correct way. Modern medicine may not be right in trying to keep people alive who truly have no life at all and never will again. If you are suffering and would like to die on your own terms, even as the last bastion of control over your own failing body, would it not be okay to take your life into you own hands and end the suffering? For terminally ill patients, there is no turning back. It wastes resources and hospital space to keep people alive who are not even hanging on anymore. Imagine how many people could get care if the people who were left waiting to die were not taking up the resources keeping them from death only for a little longer. Patients deserve to choose their own fate. Euthanasia can also give survivors of the deceased some comfort knowing their loved one did not suffer any more than was absolutely necessary.

Egalitarianism

 Feminism has become to entangled with self interest politics. Egalitarianism does not have to connotation of being female-centric. Most feminists care only for women's issues so they chose to be feminists. Most feminist lobbies only look out for what is best for us, but obviously what is best for one group of society might conflict with equality. Egalitarians express the idea that all people are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. It's also a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs. You're entitled to your opinion on what a woman should do and how the dynamic between a married couple should be, but you do not have the right to subjugate other people and force them to live by your standards. All individuals are different and choose to live their lives in ways which they think is best. There's no evidence to suggest that making women inferior benefits society. Women make up half of the worlds population and deserve to have the right to live their lives the way they choose and the way they see fit. If that choice is to be a stay at home mother, then there's nothing wrong with that. If she chooses to enter the work force, then there's nothing wrong with that. Women have options and don't have to limit themselves to one mode of action. If a woman has dreams and goals then she should chase them, just as any member of the human race should. Equality between both sexes promotes a happier and thriving society. No, I am not a communist or socialist and to believe in equality does not mean that I'm either. I believe in both sexes having equal opportunities to achieve their goals and be treated fairly. I don't believe in forcing a woman to do anything she doesn't want to do. If a woman doesn't want to work, then why should she have to?