A woman's dignity

Using artificial birth control negatively affects one aspect of the dignity of a woman's person because it separates the pleasure of sex from its function as a union of two souls in the sacrament of marriage. It allows the woman to be treated as an object.

It is not a judgement of the woman's soul or her overall dignity. It is simply a statement that this is a negative in one aspect.

Where does it say in your "ancient book" that physical pleasure is a "super-no-no?"

Your claim that anyone who holds a view that sex should be reserved for marriage is merely a "proxy [of] their parents" is absurd. Making accusations like that while you parrot the same tired and trite lines the media and entertainment industries barrage us with constantly is more than a little ironic. Where could any of these poor sheltered proxies have possibly experienced any "examples of difference?"

Obviously once they have the chance to benefit from impulse driven consequence free behavior via potential cancer inducing hormone therapy they will see the light. Thank you for sharing your unbridled cognitive power.

I know, right? It clearly states, in our ancient book of moldy, patriarchal Jewish socio-cultural regulations rejiggered by Greek ghost philosophy, that pleasure of the body is a super-no-no. As we've been told, these bodies of ours and the obvious ends to which they can be put are not to be played with. Rather the opposite.

Any habit you enjoy? Prohibit it! Got a whole life ahead of you? Live for death! Ideological Opposite Day!

You can't argue with people like Christopher Damian, Andrew Lynch, and Samantha Stempky. In the first place, you're basically arguing by proxy with their parents, and their parents' parents, etc. They're media, essentially. So, it's a little like getting mad at the paper on which your job termination notice is printed. In the second and more important place, it's clear that they and you do not share the same warrant underlying psycho-social reality. Probably they haven't experienced enough examples of difference out of which to discover that theirs is not the only viable way of defining identities. Chances are, in a face-to-face encounter (where consequences obtain), they would be far less likely to voice these opinions. Or, at least, less likely to voice them so crassly.

I myself am a Catholic woman, born and raised. I align myself with the moral values of the church.

My decision to take birth control is completely medical. The Pill offers benefits to me that other medications could not. "Birth Control" is only regulating your fertility if you are sexually active. I know that I am certainly not alone here, there are many women out there that take The Pill for reasons similar to mine. It does not cause me to act scandalously, nor does it encourage promiscuous behavior. Just because I take a little pink pill everyday, and have for many years, it does not mean that I am "sexually available to any guy."

As Anne says above, birth control has "not given control of my body to anyone but me."

The health care coverage concern reaches beyond supplying birth control. These pills offer more than simply a way to avoid pregnancy. The Pill regulates acne and other skin problems, physical pain and extreme blood loss associated with the menstrual cycle, irregular cycles, as well as other things. These are matters of womens' health, and those that need the type of medical benefits that The Pill provides should be given access to it.

When these problems don't directly effect you, it is easy to see birth control as an easy way around getting pregnant, but for me and women like me, it is so much more. Should my access to these pills that have improved my health be restricted simply because of my faith? I believe that God wants me to take care of what he created.