# Birth control... for your teens?



## CoilyFields (Dec 1, 2014)

I just had a conversation yesterday with some moms, all Christian,  about putting your teen girls on birth control.  

Everyone agreed that they didn't want their teens having sex but we diverged on if we as parents should put them on birth control (or for boys supply condoms). 

The issues that came up were that if they are doing it anyway then you are just trying to protect them.  Another was that if their were physical consequences (ie a baby or std) that you as a parent would bear a huge part of the solutions (financing the child,  insurance etc for health issues/medicine) so why not be preventative? 

What do you ladies think? 

Unfortunately no matter how much we teach them the word there is no way to have total control over our kids actions (sex in bathrooms at school is more common than I'm comfortable thinking about).

So what would you do?  What did your mom do?


----------



## JaneBond007 (Dec 1, 2014)

Isn't that the nature of the bible anyway, though?  You know what to do.  You get full instruction and if you veer off the path, you run into consequences.  G-d doesn't give us a vaccination against sin nor a "condom"  for just-in-case we rob a bank or something.  We have free will.  I think the best one can do is to live what they preach.  Why put a child on bc or give the condoms for just in case?  With life, there are consequences.  We _can_ control ourselves.  When shame went out the door, everything else came flooding in.  I think that some forms of "shame" are healthy.


----------



## mrselle (Dec 1, 2014)

The only talk my mother gave me was, "Don't do it."  Needless to say, that didn't stop me from engaging in premarital sex, but I can't say with certainty that a more in depth talk would have made me wait.  I hope that I am able to have candid talks with my girls when the time comes and I hope that they are comfortable enough to come to me.  That being said, I think that if someone feels like they are grown enough to engage in the act then they need to be grown enough to pay for protection and anything else that may come about as a result.  There is a fine line between having candid conversations and giving the signal that premarital sex is ok.  If I am providing birth control then I am sending the signal that it is ok.


----------



## LiftedUp (Dec 1, 2014)

Not all teens are having sex.  I am going to nurture my children in such a way that our expectations of them would be not only known but agreed upon.  Additionally, the lines of communication will be very open where we could talk about these things openly.

My mother likes to say that these things were happening before her time, during her time and after her time.  We need to stop acting like this is something new.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Dec 1, 2014)

I think it's shameful that the church has started bowing to the world's standards.  (I'm not even going to go there about why contraception doesn't belong in ANY christian marriage.)  But we have effectively sold ourselves short and have come to believe that it's impossible to not have sex.  This mentality has even invaded the church.  Teach children that it is possible to wait.  Teach children that they can hold themselves to a higher standard than what the world expects.  Teach children about the Theology of the Body and that sex is beautiful, holy and pure and for marriage only.  Teach children that they will be living a radically different life than everyone else.  Contraception is not preventive care PERIOD.  Is is a poor band-aid for a deeper problem.


----------



## dicapr (Dec 1, 2014)

I wasn't put on birth control. But it was an option. My mom always maintained that their was no need to bring a child into the world to live a hard life do to my mistakes and stupidity. She always stressed that using birth control would be due to my failure to obey God and her consenting to putting me on birth control would be an effort to prevent me from ruining an innocent child's life. It was never presented as a fact of life or something that was even expected. It was presented more along the lines so that if I was going to mess up my life don't bring an innocent child in it to suffer along with me.


----------



## naturalgyrl5199 (Dec 2, 2014)

dicapr said:


> I wasn't put on birth control. But it was an option. My mom always maintained that their was no need to bring a child into the world to live a hard life do to my mistakes and stupidity. She always stressed that using birth control would be due to my failure to obey God and her consenting to putting me on birth control would be an effort to prevent me from ruining an innocent child's life. It was never presented as a fact of life or something that was even expected. It was presented more along the lines so that if I was going to mess up my life don't bring an innocent child in it to suffer along with me.


 
I like this! Especially the underlined.
I have a 1 year old daughter and my mom didn't put me on birth control but I wish to God we did. I was pregnant by age 16 and lost that baby, but its something I struggle with 18 years later.....

Now I know how to frame it. We can feel however we want to feel but if you don't communicate it THE RIGHT way then its all for nothing.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Dec 2, 2014)

@Belle du Jour
I know that Pope Benedict XVI said it was ok for sex workers to use condoms as a humanitarian act.  They are already sinning - why not prevent HIV to keep unfaithful spouses from killing the whole family?    That's the only pro-contraception I know of in the RCC, the humanitarian ok.  Do you mean the RCC or the general church?  We don't all have the same theology.  I know that the orthodox Coptics allow for contraception to prevent child abuse from poverty.  I know one can lose wealth after children but they allow it to hold off bringing in children if financial situations are not best for a child and to prevent from having too many children that would strangle finances.  I know the RCC position but it seems to me that having more than you can handle is not wise.


----------



## CoilyFields (Dec 2, 2014)

Thank you ladies for your thoughts.

My mother did not put me on bc but when I went off to undergrad my Aunt snuck and did it because she said my mom was being naive.

I will not put DD on bc because that would be giving her permission to sin...with protection.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 2, 2014)

I can't believe that students are having sex in the school bathrooms.... 

Where are the school's hall monitors?  

As for giving contraceptives to a teen, it only weakens their values and resistance to temptations to sex as well as other sins.   Self value and being taught that sex is sacred is a far better virtue to cherish.


----------



## BEAUTYU2U (Dec 2, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> I can't believe that students are having sex in the school bathrooms....
> 
> Where are the school's hall monitors?
> 
> As for giving contraceptives to a teen, it only weakens their values and resistance to temptations to sex as well as other sins.   Self value and being taught that sex is sacred is a far better virtue to cherish.



That happened when I was in high school. And oral sex in between lockers. The monitors caught them but students still did (or attempted to do) it anyway.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 2, 2014)

BEAUTYU2U said:


> That happened when I was in high school. And oral sex in between lockers. The monitors caught them but students still did (or attempted to do) it anyway.



Children are getting away with far too much... 

It's heartbreaking.


----------



## FemmeFatale (Dec 2, 2014)

So this is slightly off topic but birth control within a marriage is wrong?!


----------



## HappilyLiberal (Dec 3, 2014)

FemmeFatale said:


> So this is slightly off topic but birth control within a marriage is wrong?!




In Catholicism and use of artificial birth control is wrong.  Sex, within marriage, is designed to produce children.  If there are grave reasons to delay childbearing Catholics are allowed to use Natural Family Planning which really takes the cooperation of both partners.


----------



## Galadriel (Dec 3, 2014)

I wouldn't provide my teen daughter or son with it but will be open and honest about our values and expectations, not only as Christians, but also as a family. By modeling to my kids (hopefully!) how marriage is the foundation of the family and the best environment to bring children into, they will incorporate this into their hearts and way of life, and treat sex with the respect and proper place it deserves. We often complain about rape culture, wouldn't a GREAT counter to that be to raise our boys to be gentlemen who reserved sex for the woman they chose to care for and spend the rest of their lives with and raise children with? And wouldn't it be awesome to shrug off the societal ideals that sexualize our girls all too early?

I know it can be scary or stressful to deal with a teen pregnancy, but it's not a death sentence and not the worst that could happen. Do we give kids safe ways to smoke cigarettes or use drugs? No. Even if some teens go ahead and smoke or use drugs, how many parents or community leaders are throwing their hands up saying we should give them protection and let them smoke or take ecstasy?

Of course sex isn't like these things, but I use these as examples of instances where we expect and practice a zero tolerance policy on a certain activity. Maybe we should start having higher expectations of our teens.


----------



## CoilyFields (Dec 3, 2014)

FemmeFatale said:


> So this is slightly off topic but birth control within a marriage is wrong?!



Not for most protestant denominations.


----------



## CoilyFields (Dec 3, 2014)

I'm not gonna lie. This is a scary subject for me.

It is going to be hard to teach DD not to do something that is seen as "normal" for the rest of society, including authority figures.

Ive been teaching teens for years and some of them have literally grown up in church, but when they start to open up about the things that they are doing...its a shocker. They know SOOOOOO much already from outside sources, and they know the Word, but they are still doing what they're doing. 

I know that ultimately all i can do, is teach, model, and pray for DD but man...its a huge task!


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Dec 3, 2014)

CoilyFields said:


> Not for most protestant denominations.



All Christians were unified on the issue until the 1920s.  Once the Anglicans broke away then the other denominations followed suit. I would encourage every Christian to examine why it is wrong within marriage (ie, the spouses are not truly becoming one flesh since they hold back on their fertility and they essentially block God out of the marriage bed). There is a reasons couples who don't use contraception within marriage have a <5% divorce rate.  That is the blessing of God on a fruitful marriage.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Dec 3, 2014)

A catholic will be held accountable, not a protestant.  They aren't under the umbrella.  Divorce rates are sky-high, contraception or not.  I'm not trying to argue, sorry mami, but it just doesn't fly.  We can't force other people to be legalistic.  For us, it's part of the faith.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Dec 3, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> A catholic will be held accountable, not a protestant.  They aren't under the umbrella.  Divorce rates are sky-high, contraception or not.  I'm not trying to argue, sorry mami, but it just doesn't fly.  We can't force other people to be legalistic.  For us, it's part of the faith.



I don't think it has anything to do with being legalistic--it is truth, which isn't relative based on denomination.  Also, I've never heard that people won't be held accountable for mortal sins, just because they choose not to adhere to it.  It's one thing if they don't know but it's another if they are told and choose to ignore it.  erplexed This is something I will have to ask my priest because I have never heard that someone won't be held accountable for a sin just because it's not a part of their belief system.


----------



## CoilyFields (Dec 3, 2014)

Belle Du Jour said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with being legalistic--it is truth, which isn't relative based on denomination.  Also, I've never heard that people won't be held accountable for mortal sins, just because they choose not to adhere to it.  It's one thing if they don't know but it's another if they are told and choose to ignore it.  erplexed This is something I will have to ask my priest because I have never heard that someone won't be held accountable for a sin just because it's not a part of their belief system.



I would say it falls under the 'don't argue about holy days and eating food offered to idols etc. Each will be judged by their consciences on these kinds of subjects' 
(totally paraphrased from Paul's letter in Colossians 2).


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Dec 3, 2014)

CoilyFields said:


> I would say it falls under the 'don't argue about holy days and eating food offered to idols etc. Each will be judged by their consciences on these kinds of subjects'
> (totally paraphrased from Paul's letter in Colossians 2).



I don't want to derail the thread but it's SO much more serious than eating food of celebrating Holy days.    It really is a serious matter and goes beyond a simple matter of personal choice.


----------



## preciouslove0x (Dec 4, 2014)

Can catholics use IVF  if they are having fertility  issues?


----------



## fifi134 (Dec 5, 2014)

I disagree with the notion that sex within marriage is only for reproductive purposes. Song of Solomon is quite clear that sex is for pleasure as well.

I agree with CoilyFields that this is a difficult thing to deal with. You can keep your child in the Word, preach and teach them to walk in the way of the Lord but they may still fall. I know plenty of people who have and yet there parents were doing as much as they could to protect them from that. Homeschooling is not an option for everyone either, and some may not even want that. How do you deal with society's conflicting messages? 

And I also agree with naturalgyrl5199 in that a baby as a teen drastically impacts the mother/father's life. I can't sit here and say I know what I'd do. Thankfully I'm nowhere close to being a mom yet!


----------



## Galadriel (Dec 5, 2014)

preciouslove0x said:


> Can catholics use IVF  if they are having fertility  issues?



No. One of the biggest problems with it would be due to the multiple conceptions that happen at a time, there tend to be abortions done in order to get the number of conceptions down. Another issue is treating human conception and life as a commodity.


----------



## Galadriel (Dec 5, 2014)

fifi134 said:


> I disagree with the notion that sex within marriage is only for reproductive purposes. Song of Solomon is quite clear that sex is for pleasure as well.



I agree that marriage has the dual purpose of 1) procreation and 2) the unitive (physical, emotional, etc.) & mutual comfort of the spouses. However we live in a society where we've thrown away #1, trampled it with contraception and abortion, and replaced God and His teachings on sexual morality with an absurd veneration of #2.

A lot of sexual immorality that we see today demonstrates this. This is why many Christians defend marriage as between a man and woman--because of #1, the procreation and duty to our children who may come from the union of husband and wife. 

Our society has twisted sex into something only for pleasure that you can do with either a man, woman, yourself, while watching porn, etc., and we are seeing its negative effects and consequences.

This is what happens when you abandon #1--procreation.

There's always going to be a negative consequence when you abuse something and take it out of its proper and natural context. Eating is natural, good, and pleasurable (helloooo, chocolate!). However, gorging on junk food is going to have a negative consequence.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Dec 5, 2014)

fifi134 said:


> I disagree with the notion that sex within marriage is only for reproductive purposes. Song of Solomon is quite clear that *sex is for pleasure as well*!



I agree with you.  And the Church teaches that as well.   However, each act should be _open _to the possibility of procreation.  Doesn't mean you want a baby each time but if a pregnancy results, then it should be welcomed.


----------



## MissNina (Dec 9, 2014)

Belle Du Jour said:


> I agree with you.  And the Church teaches that as well.   However, each act should be _open _to the possibility of procreation.  Doesn't mean you want a baby each time but if a pregnancy results, then it should be welcomed.



I believe that gets tricky, particularly when you marry young. Lots of young Christians i know, trying to truly live by the Word esp. in regards to sex, got married by 22. So, if you do the math, you are theoretically stating that the couple should be open to welcoming 10+ kids into the world. I dont think that's particularly healthy in various ways - to the children, mother or the marriage. 

I understand the reason for your belief, but it just gets very "gray area" to me biblically and personally.

 So what would be the alternative, IYO, if the couple was NOT open to welcoming pregnancy each time? The only thing i can think of without introducing contraception would be to not have sex, but the Bible is very clear that you should not cease sex in a marriage or withhold sex from your spouse either. Im really curious on alternative options in this view.


----------



## FemmeFatale (Dec 10, 2014)

MissNina said:


> I believe that gets tricky, particularly when you marry young. Lots of young Christians i know, trying to truly live by the Word esp. in regards to sex, got married by 22. So, if you do the math, you are theoretically stating that the couple should be open to welcoming 10+ kids into the world. I dont think that's particularly healthy in various ways - to the children, mother or the marriage.  I understand the reason for your belief, but it just gets very "gray area" to me biblically and personally.  So what would be the alternative, IYO, if the couple was NOT open to welcoming pregnancy each time? The only thing i can think of without introducing contraception would be to not have sex, but the Bible is very clear that you should not cease sex in a marriage or withhold sex from your spouse either. Im really curious on alternative options in this view.



We share the same concerns cause hunty I'm open to two babies.


----------



## Galadriel (Dec 12, 2014)

Swiped this from blogger Matt Walsh (this is about sex-ed and introducing kids to BC, etc.):

A reader sent me a message declaring quite excitedly that I’m ‘not gonna believe’ what’s happening at this public school in California. Apparently, Planned Parenthood has taken over sex-ed duties at a local high school and has begun teaching 13-year-olds that, among other things, they’re ready for sex so long as they think it will feel good. Planned Parenthood also has some informative tips on effective lubricants which they eagerly passed along to an unsuspecting collection of barely pubescent children.

In other words, that reader lied. I can totally believe this. Honestly, at this point I’m not sure there’s any public school related atrocity that would shock me. Send me something about kids being trained in ritualistic cannibalism, or being given reading materials from the Satanic Temple, and then maybe I’ll be surprised. (Wait, that second one is actually happening, and no, I’m still not surprised.)

Our government school system, like most every other institution in this country, has plunged into a state of intellectual and moral chaos, making it fertile ground for the depraved perverts at Planned Parenthood to spread their gospel. And before you accuse me of claiming that every person who works for Planned Parenthood is a depraved pervert, please understand that, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

Anyway, I’m not trying to downplay this latest bit of debauchery. It’s outrageous — even if it is routine — and it deserves attention. The whole thing is made all the more egregious by the fact that parents were not properly informed about the ‘lesson’ plan ahead of time. The school didn’t make it clear that the sex-ed class would be conducted by Planned Parenthood – a detail that may have been pertinent, considering Planned Parenthood is a business which makes hundreds of millions of dollars aborting babies. The conflict of interest here is staggeringly clear. Having this organization teach sex-ed is like bringing in spokesmen from McDonald’s to talk about proper nutrition. In both instances, the ‘teachers’ are financially invested in making sure the kids do anything but make healthy choices.

Sorry, that analogy is ridiculous. McDonald’s could never set foot inside an American public school. It would never be allowed. We wouldn’t want the kids to be scandalized by soda and french fries, especially when it might distract them from learning about anal sex and transgenderism.

Speaking of which, the school in California found some creative ways to instruct the students in warped leftwing gender theory. Just in time for the holidays, here’s the ‘genderbread person.’

This is science, folks. Pure science. Well, either science or progressive superstitions cloaked in absurd faux-complexities. I can imagine that many of the parents probably didn’t realize they had to preemptively sit their children down and say, ‘listen, ‘agender’ isn’t a thing, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they’re either on drugs or on the payroll at your school, or both.’

Another worksheet was supposed to help the children decide if they’re ready to get busy.

According to adults who’ve taken it upon themselves to entice children into having sex, any child is ready provided they want to and they can find someone else who wants to. Who could foresee any pitfalls to raising kids using this strategy?

‘Dad, can I –’ 

‘Stop right there, son. Whatever you want to do, do you want to do it?’

‘Yes.’

‘Well, that settles it then. You’re always ready to do anything as long as you want to do that thing!’

‘Wow, thanks Dad! So where are your car keys?’

The learning materials also explain how a boy should obtain consent from a girl. Specifically, he should ask important questions like, ‘can I take my pants off?’ and ‘do you want to go back to my place?’

These are 13-year-olds, remember. A bunch of 13-year-olds who can, it turns out, invite their booty calls back to ‘their place.’ I’m sure their parents won’t mind, unless their parents are sex-hating prudes. Indeed, as creepy progressive weirdos constantly insist, we parents just have to resign ourselves to the fact that all kids — all kids — will start having sex approximately three or four years before they’re able to get their ears pierced without permission from a legal guardian.

That’s the nature of a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you assert it as fact often enough and loudly enough, eventually it might become one. The question, then, is why do progressive want this to be a fact? And when I say want it, they really seem to want it. They want it in graphic detail. Take this sex conference for students in Oregon as an example. Kids as young as 11 were encouraged to ‘wear each other’s underwear,’ ‘watch porn together,’ ‘eat Pop Rocks while making out’ (this is just getting way too specific), and ‘masturbate while someone else is watching.’

That’s all pretty bad, but not as bad as the sex-ed presentation given to students at Pine Valley Middle School, which featured a poster of a man with a bloody face and a caption reading: ‘A real man loves his woman every day of the month.’

And this is relatively in line with another sex-ed curriculum, also in California, that taught students about the wonders of bondage and vibrators.

All of these examples happen to be from the West Coast, but this is not a regional problem. It’s inevitable that government sex education will take a sharp left turn into grotesque and lascivious places in any school, anywhere in the country. That’s because a discussion of sex will be unavoidably wrapped in the moral and philosophical beliefs of whoever is leading the discussion. It’s one thing to teach about the human anatomy, but once you veer into sexuality, you’ve entered a realm that is just as spiritual as it is scientific. Therefore, if the sex-ed course is run by hedonists, the children will be taught hedonism. There is no way around it.

And this is why sex-ed has no business in public schools at all. If you want your kid’s school to teach him about sex — homeschool him. Public school should be a place for pure academics, and nothing else. To be clear, I’m not advocating for ‘abstinence education’ here. I don’t want a government employee training my kid in how to avoid sex any more than I want her to train him in how to have it. Abstinence education, in my view, has to be grounded in something deeper than scare tactics and STD statistics. My convictions on abstinence before marriage have to do with not just my views about sex, but my views about marriage itself, and about love, and about loyalty, and about self-control, and about virtue, and about faith. Everything is wrapped up in everything, and if you try to teach abstinence using just the practical aspects (‘sex might cause AIDS!’) without any of the deeper, spiritual substance, you’ll end up with a lesson plan that’s equal parts superficial, paranoidm and unconvincing. Sex is just too big a topic. There’s too much there. It’s too important. The schools cannot handle it, either way, and they shouldn’t try.

(more below...)


----------



## Galadriel (Dec 12, 2014)

(Continued...)

So this is really very simple. How much sexual guidance and instruction should the government offer our kids? None. What percentage of your child’s government education should be comprised of sexual enlightenment? Zero percent. How many times in a given school day should teachers talk to their kids about lubricants? No more than three times. Actually, zero.

It’s the Great Compromise. Instead of arguing about what the schools should tell kids on the subject of sex, let’s contemplate the possibility that a collective, government-controlled, mass produced and disseminated curriculum about sex and intimacy isn’t necessarily the best way to handle such a profound and personal subject.

I’m not saying that we should put censor bars over the penis and the vagina in the anatomy textbooks (or in books of Renaissance art, for that matter). I’m also not saying that high school biology teachers should tell their students that a magical stork drops the baby off on Momma’s porch. And I’m not saying that students shouldn’t learn about the facts of human reproduction when the subject comes up in science class. What I am saying is that the schools ought to treat sex the same way most people think it ought to treat religion, and for the same reasons. The ‘keep religion out of schools’ folks will argue that schools should not endorse a particular religion, encourage kids to be religious or irreligious, ask kids about their personal religious practices, or attempt to influence those practices. In these ways, we should ‘keep religion out of schools,’ but if they’re reasonable they know that we can’t and shouldn’t keep the fact of religion out of schools.

You can’t very well give your students a comprehensive understanding of western history without discussing Christianity. You can’t provide a well rounded education about literature without introducing the Bible. You can’t teach about art and avoid da Vinci. You can’t talk about contemporary Middle Eastern conflicts without introducing Judaism and Islam. You can’t teach the history of Asia without Hinduism or Buddhism. Religion will inevitably be a part of many other subjects, but it shouldn’t be up to government school teachers to tell kids how to feel about religion or what to do with those feelings. That’s what parents and churches are for.

And it’s in that sense that I make my case for keeping sex out of schools. Anatomy will come up in anatomy classes, and reproduction will come up in science classes, and that’s where it should end. Tell about the fact of sex, but nothing else. It’s absolutely horrifying that so many people — actual parents with actual kids — think that public schools should tread further into the topic and teach kids how to have sex, when to have it, and why they should or shouldn’t have it. Look, I try hard, I really try hard, not to judge parents or to criticize parenting styles different from my own. But I will judge someone who wants the Department of Education to help shape their child’s sexuality. I will judge that. God help me, I judge it.

‘Comprehensive sex education’ is a sham and a joke. It’s also more than just a little disturbing. If an adult in any other context came up to your child and tried to strike up a conversation about masturbation, oral sex, or dildos, you’d call the police. Imagine a grown man approaching your 12-year-old daughter on the playground and saying, ‘hey little girl, do you think you’re ready to have sex?’ Now imagine it happening inside the school, and explain why it’s suddenly less frightening.

Can anyone explain that?

Anyone?

I didn’t think so.

So if you can’t explain the distinction between a sex-ed teacher and a guy who should be on a registry somewhere, maybe we should just let parents handle this topic. Let them handle it because there are boundaries, and when a strange adult starts talking to children about self-pleasure, that boundary has been crossed, then crossed back over again, then carpet bombed into obliteration. And let parents handle it because, as we all pretend to agree, public schools aren’t in the moralizing business. Without a doubt, it is impossible to discuss sex without attaching a set of moral lessons to it.

This subject belongs to parents. It is their domain. ‘Yes, but many parents don’t talk to their kids about sex,’ I often hear it argued. That might be true. Still, public schools are not surrogate mothers. Lazy, selfish parents might want them to be, but that doesn’t change anything. There are facts about sex (‘this is a penis, this is a vagina, this is a uterus, etc’) and then there is subjective (and depraved) moralization about sexuality (‘you can choose your gender, you should have sex if you want to, masturbation is a good way to explore yourself, try making out with Pop Rocks in your mouth, etc’). There is a time for the former but definitely not for the latter. If you want to tell your son or daughter about those things — go ahead and tell them. If you’re too embarrassed to do it yourself, maybe that ought to be a sign of some sort.

However you choose to parent — and I really hope your parenting doesn’t involving telling your son he can be a girl if he wants, but that’s your prerogative in a free country — we should all agree that there is a distinction between a parent’s domain and the school’s, unless you homeschool. Indeed, maybe we’re all finding out that separating factual lessons from moral lessons is nearly impossible to do perfectly, which is yet another argument in favor of homeschooling. Maybe homeschooling is again the only real answer here. Be that as it may, as long as public schools exist, we must try to beat back its attempts to intrude on parental turf.

So while progressives take the Ten Commandments and the crucifixes out of the schools, I’ll come in right behind them and clean out the condoms and the genderbread drawings. And then we can meet in the parking lot and swap. I’ll take my religion home to my kids, and they can take their sexual permissiveness and confusion home to theirs.

Meanwhile, the schools can stick to the ABCs and 123s, and we’ll all be better for it.


----------



## Galadriel (Dec 12, 2014)

MissNina said:


> I believe that gets tricky, particularly when you marry young. Lots of young Christians i know, trying to truly live by the Word esp. in regards to sex, got married by 22. So, if you do the math, you are theoretically stating that the couple should be open to welcoming 10+ kids into the world. I dont think that's particularly healthy in various ways - to the children, mother or the marriage.
> 
> So what would be the alternative, IYO, if the couple was NOT open to  welcoming pregnancy each time? The only thing i can think of without  introducing contraception would be to not have sex, but the Bible is  very clear that you should not cease sex in a marriage or withhold sex  from your spouse either. Im really curious on alternative options in  this view.




I'll give an answer to this, as I'm a married mother who shares Belle's beliefs. 

When I chose to get married, I chose to be open to being a mother, because bringing children into the world is one of the two-fold purpose of marriage. I am open to the possibility of life, but pregnancy doesn't always happen, either because DH and I are spacing it out (via Natural Family Planning), or because it just does not biologically happen.

Also, a *mutual* ceasing of sex during certain times for *just* *reasons* is not un-biblical or immoral. For example, during NFP, if you're avoiding pregnancy (because you want to space out births, have medical issues, or are severely financially impaired), you would abstain during the most fertile days of the wife's cycle.

I think our brothers and sisters have been made fearful.

Secular society has drilled into their psyches that pregnancy and children are burdens and life-ruiners. This thread proves it; several responders have stated they will teach/explain/allow their teen daughters to take birth control because they fear teen pregnancy and what's attached to it. And I don't say this as an attack or slam against the ladies who answered honestly, but just to point out how there is FEAR.

Are children work? Are they much responsibility, time, money, and tears? You bet. You're bringing into the world and raising a unique human being and shaping him/her into a whole person. Of course it's going to be a lot of work and even sacrifice . This is why we MUST emphasize, PRACTICE, and TEACH that having children belong in a stable marriage, with a mother and father to raise them. This is God's design. This should never be a source of fear.

You all know I have quite a few kids  and yes, it is work. But it is also beauty and joy, and I'm doing it with my life-partner and best friend. I'm also able to enjoy myself and have "me" time, pursue interests, and I've even built a business. It's all a balance.

DH and I are going on 10 years strong, whereas I have a close friend who had 1 kid and used contraception throughout marriage, and is now divorced and now casually running through a few guys in hopes of finding her prince charming erplexed. So I don't think contraception or purposefully limiting your kids to 1 or 2 makes marriage or child rearing automatically easier. 

To Christian women who are still discerning and searching in the dating world, I would advise:

1. Be celibate until marriage, but date/court as much as you want. Go on 2-3 dates a week, hang out in groups. Get familiar with different types of guys and their personalities to begin forming a strong view on what you want or don't want in a potential husband and life-partner.

2. If you're with someone exclusive/serious--get to know him WELL. From who he chooses to keep as friends, to his family, habits, temperament, and even his FLAWS--get to know it all. I've seen a few women choose terrible men for husbands, convinced they will change their ways or mature. NO. NO. NO.  Also, it goes without saying that if he's emotionally/physically abusive, GET OUT and don't look back.

3. Go to pre-marital counseling. You need to be on the same page or at least agree upon things such as child-rearing, household, financing, working vs. stay-at-home, etc. because these things will come up and need to be dealt with.

4. Make sure he is on the same page as you spirtually/morally--if he is lax or indifferent toward going to church, his faith in Christ, thinks nothing of watching porn, etc. but you are devout, then that is going to be a problem. If he doesn't respect and walk in step with your moral/spiritual decisions, that's going to be a problem.

Sorry I diverged a bit off topic.


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Dec 12, 2014)

how much sexual guidance and instruction should our government offer our children. NONE!!!

Ita!


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 12, 2014)

Galadriel said:


> Swiped this from blogger Matt Walsh (this is about sex-ed and introducing kids to BC, etc.):
> 
> A reader sent me a message declaring quite excitedly that I’m ‘not gonna believe’ what’s happening at this public school in California.
> 
> ...


 
Galadriel...

Thank you for posting this and you know that I mean 'thank you' far beyond words. It is coming from my heart. 

planned parenthood comprised of low-life perverts. They are sexual predators and molesters and I mean it when I say it... *they are sexual predators and molesters.*

They are priming these children to have sex with them. How are they going to tell a child that it is okay to do whatever feels good to them. These are freaks under the guise of a government agency out to break down the barriers of innocent children in order to have sex with them. The entire plan is to condition their senses to see sex as a recreational activity to include anyone of any age or gender. 

These perverts from planned parenthood want to break down their resistance so that sex with anyone without boundaries, without morals, without principles, becomes normal. 

It goes back to Sodom and Gomorrah ... the sexual perverts wanted to have sex with the men of God that had come to Lot's house as God's messengers. In the same vein, planned parenthood are the very same evil nature. They are out to have sex with these children and to do so without paying the penalty for it. 

They're giving these children lubricants ? ! ?   WHY ? ! ? 

*Filthy animals....*


----------



## JaneBond007 (Dec 12, 2014)

preciouslove0x said:


> Can catholics use IVF  if they are having fertility  issues?




No, they cannot because:

"The Catholic Church has always maintained that IVF – the in vitro  fertilisation of sperm and egg to make a baby – is unethical because it  undermines the dignity of the sexual act designed by God for married  couples."

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...-but-its-also-brought-misery-and-ended-lives/


_____________________________________________________

This issue depends upon the church one belongs to.  It might be permissible in some and not in others.  I think it's important to realize that fact and not overstep any boundaries.  Obviously, the RCC interpretation of scripture pertaining to human life differs from others but one can't definitely say that another viewpoint is sinful within reason of obvious scriptural reference.  In other words, one catholic cannot teach another faithful what is permissible as long as obvious and broadly-held christian doctrine aren't being transgressed.




Belle Du Jour said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with  being legalistic--it is truth, which isn't relative based on  denomination.  Also, I've never heard that people won't be held  accountable for mortal sins, just because they choose not to adhere to  it.  It's one thing if they don't know but it's another if they are told  and choose to ignore it.  erplexed  This is something I will have to ask my priest because *I have never  heard that someone won't be held accountable for a sin just because it's  not a part of their belief system.*




For the catholic, there are a set of laws to follow. Per the bolded, you're labeling contraception as sin for those in churches where it is NOT a sin.  Their interpretation differs from our own.  We can't say, "you're sinning," when they aren't where they are.  It doesn't transgress the 10 Commandments.  Abortion would and most all christian denominations believe that abortion is wrong.


----------



## Galadriel (Dec 12, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> No, they cannot because:
> 
> "The Catholic Church has always maintained that IVF – the in vitro  fertilisation of sperm and egg to make a baby – is unethical because it  undermines the dignity of the sexual act designed by God for married  couples."
> 
> ...




It is *objectively* sinful, but personal guilt may be diminished/lessened because of not knowing or not having the proper (full) formation on the matter.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Dec 12, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> No, they cannot because:
> 
> "The Catholic Church has always maintained that IVF – the in vitro  fertilisation of sperm and egg to make a baby – is unethical because it  undermines the dignity of the sexual act designed by God for married  couples."
> 
> ...



That sounds like moral relativism to me.

Also, contraception is an abortifacient.  Although that is not the primary way in which it works, the mere fact that contraception can and likely does cause the abortion of an embryo is a grave sin.  

I hope my Christian sisters will seriously and prayerfully consider the spiritual ramifications of putting cancer causing, abortion causing drugs into their system.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 12, 2014)

Iwanthealthyhair67 said:


> how much sexual guidance and instruction should our government offer our children. NONE!!!
> 
> Ita!


 
The government is so corrupt and too far out of control ...


----------



## JaneBond007 (Dec 12, 2014)

Belle Du Jour said:


> That sounds like moral relativism to me.
> 
> Also, contraception is an abortifacient.  Although that is not the primary way in which it works, the mere fact that contraception can and likely does cause the abortion of an embryo is a grave sin.
> 
> I hope my Christian sisters will seriously and prayerfully consider the spiritual ramifications of putting cancer causing, abortion causing drugs into their system.



Belle Du Jour

Contraception is what is being mentioned, not so much abortion.  BC's stop ovulation.  Abortafacients prevent the fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus.  Not the same thing, although, one could use BC's as abortafacients in strong doses, I think.


Murder is clearly wrong but we have ourselves come to a certain conclusion about IVF.  Our interpretation differs.  Contraception is not mentioned point blank in scripture.  It can't be moral relativism on contraception and could be judging another by our standards.  Protestants don't take our communion either but another.  Could we call them sinful by not partaking of it?


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Dec 12, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> Belle Du Jour
> 
> Contraception is what is being mentioned, not so much abortion.  BC's stop ovulation.  Abortafacients prevent the fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus.  Not the same thing, although, one could use BC's as abortafacients in strong doses, I think.
> 
> ...



In my mind, it is very clear.  The Trinity is also not mentioned anywhere in scripture but we believe so that is not a good analogy.  You are using the same rationale that many non-Catholics use to denounce the Catholic faith as being not Biblical. erplexed Everything we believe can be backed up by scripture and tradition.  So just because the word "contraception" is not in scripture does not mean it is not wrong.  Contraception prevents the direct mandate from God given to a couple to become one flesh.  

The very reason why the pill is an abortifacient point blank is that it does NOT always prevent ovulation.  Many women on the pill ovulate.  The real science behind the pill is it makes the uterus a hostile environment for sperm (by changing the cervical mucus) and by thinning the lining of the uterus.  I repeat, the pill does not totally suppress ovulation.  If an embryo that is otherwise healthy would implant in the uterus but is prevented from being implanted via the use of a contraceptive, it was aborted.  For this reason, the church considers the "regular" pill an abortifacient, not just known abortifacient pills like RU486. And yes, the "regular" pill taken in high doses can also cause an abortion.


----------



## MissNina (Dec 13, 2014)

Galadriel said:


> I'll give an answer to this, as I'm a married mother who shares Belle's beliefs.
> 
> When I chose to get married, I chose to be open to being a mother, because bringing children into the world is one of the two-fold purpose of marriage. I am open to the possibility of life, but pregnancy doesn't always happen, either because DH and I are spacing it out (via Natural Family Planning), or because it just does not biologically happen.
> 
> ...




Thanks for responding. So, in reference to my original question, are you saying the alternative would be NFP or just to not have sex? I cant think of too many men that are okay with not having sex with their wives unless it is for medical necessity. I can see how NFP would be a much more preferable alternative.

Personally:

I see no issue with birth control in marriage as long as you both are on the same page.

As far as the OP, i wouldnt give my child (I have none lol) birth control. Nor would i give them tons of religious reasons on why they shouldnt use contraception or have sex. Im a P.K. and my (then-pastor) dad let me know where God stood on the matter, but provided "real world" reasons - or ones that actually made sense to me as a young girl regardless of my faith - on why it would not be in my best interest to go that route in general.

Im glad i was taught about contraception, bc at least i knew the options were there. 

I will teach abstinence and contraception to MY daughter when I am blessed to have one, but i wont expand on the latter. I know i definitely didnt burden my parents with the worry of issues such as whether to put me on birth control, so i dont expect her to burden me with that either. I was allowed many freedoms (like no curfew, listening to whatever/going wherever for the most part, privacy, etc.) bc of this trust in my judgment. My parents had a very "open door" policy growing up and i hope to establish that when i have kids. 

I will say that I went to a private, Catholic school for the vast majority of my life...and the things they did in middle school, even though we were taught abstinence in Family Life, were absolutely crazy...even for me now as an adult. They should have been using SOMETHING for sure, but their parents had no idea what was going on when the "good child" act was turned off and the kids were out of their presence. I think this fact is what makes this topic difficult.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Dec 13, 2014)

^ And therein lies the problem. It takes love and patience to abstain for some days out of the month. That is why marriage also requires periods of chastity and sacrifice. People are not willing to do that these days.  Of course these days you can hardly find a man willing to even wait until marriage. NFP is so beautiful to me because it's a cooperative process with God. Contraception shuts God out of the marital act. I would want God to bless my marriage not shut Him out. 

The church doesn't say a couple has to have 10 children: prayerfully plan the size of the family WITH God.


----------

