Catholics are vehemently against “right to die” legislation, and I am… well, actively for it.

They are most frequently called “death with dignity laws”, and I believe that they are exactly that. They are laws that allow certain terminally-ill adults to voluntarily request and receive prescription medication that they can, completely of their own accord (and it has to be them doing this), ingest to hasten their death when they feel that it is the right time to do so. By discussing their wishes with their physician as early in their diagnosis as possible, when they have a serious diagnosis that may warrant the possibility of this becoming something that can be considered, they can find out that their physician is amenable to this or begin to switch to a physician that is amenable to this (a process that takes time). Some state laws require that you have a conversation about this with your physician in person, and more than one conversation about it to show that you have given this the proper consideration and have absolutely committed to it.

Death with dignity laws allow individuals to avoid unneeded pain and suffering at the end of their lives. They allow them to live with maximal quality, exhaust all of the reasonable options that their diagnosis allows them to go through, and does not allow them to linger on in pain and suffering when these options have been maximally exhausted, “just waiting to die”. It allows them to choose the time that they will pass, allowing family, friends, and loved ones to be around when they pass. Most state laws require that the diagnosis for this be terminal and that the patient be expected to live six months or less with this diagnosis. The individual in question themselves has to request that their physician write the prescription that, when ingested, will allow them to pass (this constitutes the “first request” made). Most states also require that a second request be made a certain number of days from the time that the first request is made, and then if the physician is willing to write the prescription, it can be sent to the pharmacy in accordance to state law.

Many patients actually do not wind up ingesting the medication that they have available to them, but simply having it available to ingest should the time comes is of great comfort to them. But many of them do. Several state laws in the United States require that the patient alone voluntarily consume the medication (that they not be assisted in any way, shape, or form in doing so, to include lifting the medication to their mouth to consume, or in any other way be assisted in consuming the medication, to ensure that their consumption of the medication is completely voluntary on their parts). It also has to be consumed within a fairly strict time frame to have the intended time effect of easing the individual’s ascent into death, or they do not function.

I am an extremely vehement supporter of these laws and not allowing terminally ill, competent individuals who want to make these decisions for themselves to suffer any longer than they must. I do not believe that anyone’s faith or religion should attempt to prohibit this decision from being made for… er, obvious reasons.

It’s especially charming to be told that “people will pray for me” during Lent season, and that they “hope that I will become Catholic” during this particular… season, of all of the seasons to do it in, so I decided to make a list of some of the Catholic dogma (definition, if you want to get in the pit: “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true”) that I do not agree with, which you have to either agree with or agree that you will live your life by to become Catholic. Needless to say, by the end of this post it should become extremely clear that it was correct of the RCIA instructors to drop me from the class roster (although I did not make all of this clear to them at the time I admitted to them that I was an atheist, just that I had been “out” as one for at least a decade at this point). I wasn’t ever going to change my mind on any of these.

Abortion: I believe that the pregnant person, using trans-friendly language, and her or their care provider should be the only individuals involved in making this decision… not the state, and certainly not your religion. Whatever reason they have is good enough for me, and I will wholeheartedly support them in that decision, just as I would expect them to support me in any decision that I made (which would be a 100% termination rate of all subsequent pregnancies, namely for health reasons, although “I just do not want to have another child” is also a small factor). I do not believe that anyone gets an abortion “because it tickles” or comes to the effortless conclusion that they should get an abortion, although some arrive to this conclusion easier than others, and again, I respect that. I will “go down to the mat” for them to get this abortion in the safest way possible. I absolutely disagree with “abortion protestors” trying to sway the decisions of those procuring abortions by standing outside of healthcare facilities praying, singing, screaming, or getting violent (tell me, is your rhetoric so sound that you honestly feel that violence is the answer? because really, if you have to resort to violence for this kind of thing, it’s not). If you feel otherwise and are not willing to pay for all of that pregnant person’s prenatal, labor, and postnatal care, and the benefits that they may need to raise that child, or you can not expediently raise those funds, you are a hypocrite, and you just need to stop talking.

Also, I don’t have to have my significant other’s permission to terminate a pregnancy. I’m not getting it, so…

Birth control/contraception: Your religion is not going to tell me how to plan my family, if or even when I am going to get pregnant, and it’s certainly not going to do that to anyone else… unless they want it to, or they are so “obedient” that they let it (which, if you get technical, isn’t that kind of sexual assault if they have sexual relations under circumstances that they are not quite willing to have? ponder that, why don’t you).

You can delude yourselves otherwise all you want, but that’s all you will ever do.

Fidelity, “one marriage, between one man and one woman for life”: I believe that marriage is a social contract that can be entered and exited at any time for any reason, that it is primarily religious in nature, and that some people value it more than others. I have also learned over the decades (okay, since age fourteen) with abysmally bad results that I can not function in a relationship where there is the stern expectation or even the “requirement” to be monogamous, let alone monogamous with that same individual for the rest of our lives. For me, consensual non-monogamy is ideal, and it works for me because all of my romantic needs are met in this way, whereas they are not met in long-term monogamous (or even monogamous) relationships. They are not even remotely met, so “settling” is not an option at all. It is extremely unfair.

LBGT rights: If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get “gay married”.

If you don’t like various gender-affirming therapies, don’t get them yourselves. It’s really that simple. What other people do to their bodies to affirm their identities, and how they live their lives, is none of your business at the end of the day, and you really need to learn to realize this and find some way to live with it. Seriously.

I have many LBGT friends whose integrity and mental sanity I’d gladly choose over “conforming to religion”.