Should parents put their dating teenage daughters on birth control?

[Guest]

I mean, yes, everything you said makes sense... I just have some questions about it.

Firstly, in Catholic teaching, the only form of regulating births that a couple can employ is Natural Family Planning in which a couple maintains periods of abstinence if they would like to have some kind of "control" over their reproduction. I put "control" in "" because we ultimately have no control over whether or not God allows a woman to conceive (I was friends with a girl in college who was conceived while her mother was on birth control pills AND her dad used a condom... ).

But a Catholic couple does not engage in the sexual act solely for pleasure and nothing else; they must, with every intercourse, be open to the creation of life. So... with NFP... if a couple is not open to the creation of life, then they do NOT have sex; they abstain from the sexual act until they are ready to have sex for BOTH of its purposes: to create children and to form bonds with the couple. In the Catholic Church those two purposes canNOT be singled out. So if a woman uses BC or a man uses a condom, then they are singling out the bonding/pleasure aspect of sex and going against the creating aspect. This, in the Catholic Church, is a mortal sin.

With the LDS view I would see some holes that I see with the pro-choice/abortion movement. When does the spirit enter the fetus? At viability? At formation of the heart? The brain? At birth? In the pro-choice/abortion movement the question is when does a fetus become a person with rights under the protection of the law. In the LDS church the question is when does a spirit enter a fetus' body. Well, obviously with both of those questions we can't know for sure. And since we can't know for sure, then we run the risk of getting it wrong... I mean, what if the spirit enters the body at implantation? Then all abortions and BC methods that affect implantation are tantamount to murdering a spirit. What if the spirit enters the fetus at some generic number of gestational weeks... like 8 weeks, when the fetus has brain waves and a heart beat... then every abortion performed after 8 weeks is tantamount to the murder of a spirit. But since we can't know for certain, it would be most logical -- in the preserving of our own souls and the souls of the spirit children our families are supposedly providing mortality, and therefore a path to exaltation for -- to be "better safe than sorry" and pick the earliest possible moment to protect the unborn mortal body.

As to rape (and incest, though... hopefully incest IS rape... and if it's not... well... it was consensual, so...) and "etc." (what "etc."? babies with Down Syndrome? Mothers with "emotional" hardship? Parents who didn't want a girl?) I would say the same rule as above applies.... the entering of a spirit into a body doesn't have anything to do with the act through which the fetus was conceived, does it? Otherwise, why would God allow any victim of rape to become pregnant in the first place, if He's not going to give that fetus a spirit? And if He DOES give a spirit to babies conceived in rape, then there should be no special allowances for abortion in those circumstances (or the circumstance of disabled fetuses, etc.) because, once again, no one knows exactly when a spirit enters a mortal body, so every person who has an abortion runs the very high risk (with very high spiritual consequences) of killing a fetus that is already embodied by a spirit.

It's this very question of when a spirit enters a body that had always made me assume that the LDS church would be against abortion of all kinds, and probably against BC (though I mostly assumed about the BC that it would be disobeying God's command to be fruitful, and against His plan for marriage and families... but if God specifically gave sex to couples for pleasure ASIDE from procreation as well, then this makes more sense).

And aside from this, what is the church's teaching on other pro-life issues; the death penalty (I assume it is for the death penalty, because it has always been in legal in Utah, correct? And Utah was originally mostly led by LDS leadership, since it was pretty much founded and settled by the LDS church.), euthanasia, war, suicide. If the spirit does not enter the mortal body at conception, but at some unknown time during pregnancy, when does the spirit LEAVE the body? Only at death? Could a spirit leave a body before then?

EXCELLENT questions, Shelly! Yes, I went through the exact same questions as well.

Sex in LDS view is not only for precreation. It is the most sacred of emotional bonding between husband and wife.

Okay - Spirit entering the body - WHEN? God knows. (Throughout this post, we have to remember that God is omniscient). There's no "specific time" that it happens. It can be at conception, it can be at birth, it can be anytime in between. We can know, just like we can know God's will and anything God wants us to know, when we seek truth and are attuned to the Holy Spirit in prayer and meditation. That is why - anything that has to do with a fetus goes through this prayer and meditation with priesthood power - normally through the bishop and at times beyond that.

What we do know is that God's plan cannot be put asunder by mere mortals. Therefore, a spirit that God wills to be born in mortality going through the full mortal experience will not die by mortal hands before he has the chance to exercise agency through life. We are not THAT powerful. Make sense? But, we also believe that there are those spirits that have progressed in pre-mortal existence to such a point that they don't require purification by mortality. But, because of the plan of salvation, everybody - progressed or not - unless they chose to follow Satan in the pre-mortal war in heaven - has to receive mortal bodies. These progressed spirits are spirits that are born with mental disabilities, children who die before they reach the age of accountability, spiritual babies who die before they are born, etc. There are no "accidents" here. The fate of these people are God's will. It is not surprising, therefore, when we hear that a baby survives getting aborted by a coat-hanger. Or a baby survives through the pill, an IUD, plus a condom... or a tubal ligation even. If God wills that baby born, he will be born.

But, at the same time, each and every one of us is tested by our circumstances. A mother who aborts her baby without guidance from the Holy Spirit is committing a grievous sin (regardless of the fate of the baby) even if she conceived the baby through rape. God, of course, can will a mortal fetus created as a challenge of free agency for the people involved in its creation without the spirit needing to enter mortality through this vehicle.

A spirit only leaves a mortal body through death. The LDS and Catholic Churches agree that death is part of the natural mortal experience and does not require to be artificially prolonged. LDS and Catholic also agree that killing is not always a sin but "playing God" through euthanasia or suicide is sinful. But, it is not sinful to kill in defense of one's self, including defense of one's country if it is absolutely necessary. This extends to capital punishment in a way. The Catholic and LDS Churches share the same view - that if non-lethal means of punishment is sufficient to defend society, then that should be the extent of punishment. But they leave open the possibility that non-lethal means may not be sufficient so lethal means can be done only in absolute necessity.

[annewandering]

Not to mention Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, was really into eugenics and wanted birth control freely given to women she felt were unfit to breed... like women with disabilities, women who had a history of mental illness, women whose parents had a history of mental illness, the poor, and blacks. She also praised abortion and infanticide and forced sterilizations of these same people.

Eugenics is happening today in America as it is. Over 90% of couples abort babies who have Down Syndrome, and women abort babies for a number of other health reasons (including cleft pallet and club foot... both non-life threatening). Babies are aborted if they aren't the desired gender (sex-selective abortions are steadily on the rise). Babies are aborted if they aren't the right race (over 50% of all pregnancies to black women end in abortion). Babies are aborted if there are too many (abortions of one or more baby in which the woman is pregnant with multiples is on the rise)... certain demographics of America are being killed off in the millions every year. Eugenics is still happening in this day; only now it is legal and goes by a different name.

Actually Sanger was NOT in favor of eugenics or any of the things you have mentioned. Its odd that people now think she was but she was opposed and thought they were an obscenity. She was not a fan of abortion either. She wanted women to be educated in birth control and self determination so they did not ever have to decide whether to have an abortion or not. It's amazing what media can do to destroy a person's image and change what they actually believed to fit into current political posturing. Oddly both the right and Planned Parenthood have done this to further their own agendas.

[annewandering]

Yep. And this eugenics movement was not restricted to Germany. The United States was interested and used forced sterilization for mental handicap, mentally insane and violent criminals, until the early 40's I believe.

It was done in the early '70s in some areas still. I still remember the arguments about it in my early married life in California.

[MarginOfError]

Not to mention Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, was really into eugenics and wanted birth control freely given to women she felt were unfit to breed... like women with disabilities, women who had a history of mental illness, women whose parents had a history of mental illness, the poor, and blacks. She also praised abortion and infanticide and forced sterilizations of these same people.

Eugenics is happening today in America as it is. Over 90% of couples abort babies who have Down Syndrome, and women abort babies for a number of other health reasons (including cleft pallet and club foot... both non-life threatening). Babies are aborted if they aren't the desired gender (sex-selective abortions are steadily on the rise). Babies are aborted if they aren't the right race (over 50% of all pregnancies to black women end in abortion). Babies are aborted if there are too many (abortions of one or more baby in which the woman is pregnant with multiples is on the rise)... certain demographics of America are being killed off in the millions every year. Eugenics is still happening in this day; only now it is legal and goes by a different name.

I have nothing against anything you've said here except the bolded part. If you think black women are aborting babies out of some eugenics program, you've gone round the bend. Black women have disproportionately more abortions because black women have disproportionately more unwanted pregnancies, likely because they have disproportionately less access to contraceptives.

[Vort]

Black women have disproportionately more abortions because black women have disproportionately more unwanted pregnancies, likely because they have disproportionately less access to contraceptives.

I disbelieve this. In my view, it's mainly a cultural phenomenon. Poor urban black women find it much more culturally acceptable to experience pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage. "White" America as a whole still has some residual idea that you should try to prevent pregnancy if you're unmarried, but this has largely been lost in urban black culture -- though everyone seems to be headed in that same direction.

[Dravin]

I disbelieve this. In my view, it's mainly a cultural phenomenon. Poor urban black women find it much more culturally acceptable to experience pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage. "White" America as a whole still has some residual idea that you should try to prevent pregnancy if you're unmarried, but this has largely been lost in urban black culture -- though everyone seems to be headed in that same direction.

If there was a general acceptability of being pregnant and having children out of wedlock one would think that would lower the abortion rate as there would be less pressure to clean up the mess as it were. Or are you just lumping them together as a general acceptance of family situations that result in such? I suspect (but have no evidence) that non-marital relationships result in a higher rate of abortions than marital ones do regardless of race.

[Gwen]

We must view the world through considerably different lenses. Were this program in the hands of the right people, the world would be witness to a never before seen age of peace and prosperity.

With regard to your medical objection, I will readily admit this is a discipline in which I am not thoroughly versed. I will say however, that my idea - even if there were occasional (or even frequent) failures - would bring about a better world than the one in which we currently reside.

Imagine a world with no ceaseless, inescapable, geographic poverty. Imagine a world with no terrified daughters, estranged from their families due to an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy. Imagine the immediate reduction in violent crime, were our youth to be raised exclusively by loving, but more importantly, competent parents.

As I read this (and Klein's other posts) I think I had moments of deja vu. We were all standing around listening to a very charismatic man. Only he finished his speech with something like "Out of the goodness of my heart I will implement this plan and in return you will give all the glory to ME".

On the other hand just a few of the ppl that probably would not have made the cut in such a world....

Abraham Lincoln

Beethoven

Mozart

Vincent van Gogh

Sir Isaac Newton

Michelangelo

Leonardo Da Vinci

Aristotle

Theodore Roosevelt

Lewis Carrol

George Frederick Handel

Martin Luther

Tchaikovsky

Socrates

Alexander Graham Bell

Hans christian Andersen

Thomas Edison

Walt Disney

George Patton

Albert Einstein

I would say that it would be a very different world indeed...... just not sure I buy that it would be better.

[Gwen]

Black women have disproportionately more abortions because black women have disproportionately more unwanted pregnancies, likely because they have disproportionately less access to contraceptives.

I disbelieve this. In my view, it's mainly a cultural phenomenon. Poor urban black women find it much more culturally acceptable to experience pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage. "White" America as a whole still has some residual idea that you should try to prevent pregnancy if you're unmarried, but this has largely been lost in urban black culture -- though everyone seems to be headed in that same direction.

The issues behind the reason there are so many issues (including pregnancy) among many black americans is very complex. I don't pretend to understand it all but I do have a closer relationship to it than I'd guess most lds. To understand it you have to embrace the ugly parts of our history and then be willing to act on it. This isn't a problem that can be changed by public policy (though can be greatly influenced). It requires getting on a personal level and reaching ppl one on one, changing one life at a time. I don't know how many have tried to reach out and help such women but it's not easy, it's not for the faint of heart or anyone that wants a quick outcome. I would say if anything has taught me the true meaning of charity it has been trying to help some of these women.

[Just_A_Guy]

Shelly, Anatess has given some great explanations. My personal opinions differ from a couple of hers very slightly, so I thought I'd just provide a couple of alternative yet (hopefully) equally "faithful" LDS perspectives:

But a Catholic couple does not engage in the sexual act solely for pleasure and nothing else; they must, with every intercourse, be open to the creation of life. So... with NFP... if a couple is not open to the creation of life, then they do NOT have sex; they abstain from the sexual act until they are ready to have sex for BOTH of its purposes: to create children and to form bonds with the couple. In the Catholic Church those two purposes canNOT be singled out. So if a woman uses BC or a man uses a condom, then they are singling out the bonding/pleasure aspect of sex and going against the creating aspect. This, in the Catholic Church, is a mortal sin.

I agree with you generally that people should at least acknowledge the possibility of pregnancy and be willing to deal with that possibility. On the other hand, wouldn't a very rigid application of this notion mean that a couple has no right to continued intercourse once they have verified that the woman is in fact pregnant?

Incidentally: For some reason I've had the notion that Catholics traditionally viewed sexual intercourse as inherently sinful--"excusable" within the bounds of marriage; but that generally celibacy was to be preferred. Am I incorrect?

With the LDS view I would see some holes that I see with the pro-choice/abortion movement. When does the spirit enter the fetus? At viability? At formation of the heart? The brain? At birth? In the pro-choice/abortion movement the question is when does a fetus become a person with rights under the protection of the law. In the LDS church the question is when does a spirit enter a fetus' body. Well, obviously with both of those questions we can't know for sure. And since we can't know for sure, then we run the risk of getting it wrong... I mean, what if the spirit enters the body at implantation? Then all abortions and BC methods that affect implantation are tantamount to murdering a spirit. . . . But since we can't know for certain, it would be most logical -- in the preserving of our own souls and the souls of the spirit children our families are supposedly providing mortality, and therefore a path to exaltation for -- to be "better safe than sorry" and pick the earliest possible moment to protect the unborn mortal body.

I agree with the logic generally (though, incidentally, I have known pregnant Mormon women who claimed to be able to tell when the spirit entered the body--generally a couple of months into pregnancy. I'm not inclined to pick their statements apart; though I similarly realize that they aren't authoritative either).

The other statement I want to address is your equating abortion to "murder". "Murder" is a legal term that necessarily involves issues of intent and justification. Even with a strict life-begins-at-conception view, all we could say is that abortion constitutes killing, not necessarily murder. (More on this below.)

As to rape (and incest, though... hopefully incest IS rape... and if it's not... well... it was consensual, so...) and "etc." (what "etc."? babies with Down Syndrome? Mothers with "emotional" hardship? Parents who didn't want a girl?) I would say the same rule as above applies.... the entering of a spirit into a body doesn't have anything to do with the act through which the fetus was conceived, does it? Otherwise, why would God allow any victim of rape to become pregnant in the first place, if He's not going to give that fetus a spirit?

I know there are deep philosophical issues--even within Mormonism--regarding exactly how tightly God regulates the vicissitudes of everyday life. I don't know that I'm prepared to grant that every pregnancy happens because God wanted it to happen (at least, in that particular time/place/manner). Lots of Mormons probably would agree with you; but personally I'm just not so sure. One of the issues that troubles me here, is the large number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage--often, without mother ever knowing she was pregnant in the first place.

And if He DOES give a spirit to babies conceived in rape, then there should be no special allowances for abortion in those circumstances (or the circumstance of disabled fetuses, etc.) because, once again, no one knows exactly when a spirit enters a mortal body, so every person who has an abortion runs the very high risk (with very high spiritual consequences) of killing a fetus that is already embodied by a spirit.

I do not agree that there should be no exception to an anti-abortion rule, for the same reason I would disagree with a universal rule against "killing": Sometimes, killing is justified. For example, the law recognizes self-defense as a complete justification--it's not illegal to kill a guy if he's in my house pointing a gun at me. Similarly, if I kill someone in order to save the life of a third party (or group of third parties), I may not be completely off the hook legally--but it's not murder. (Manslaughter, maybe. Not murder.)

This self-defense justification could apply not only to life/health-of-mother concerns, but also provides a possibility of a justified abortion in a case of rape or incest if it is determined that delivering the child to term would create lasting and debilitating psychological or emotional damage to the mother.

Now, none of what I've said is official LDS doctrine. But I think it comports with official LDS practice, which is that life/health-of-mother, rape, and incest are not automatic "outs". Even in those cases the prospective mother should fast, pray, consider carefully and discuss the situation with Church authorities.

It's this very question of when a spirit enters a body that had always made me assume that the LDS church would be against abortion of all kinds, and probably against BC (though I mostly assumed about the BC that it would be disobeying God's command to be fruitful, and against His plan for marriage and families... but if God specifically gave sex to couples for pleasure ASIDE from procreation as well, then this makes more sense).

We took a harder line against birth control up through the 1970s or so, and then began to back off and left the decision to individual parents. I think that the opposition was based on the same concerns you have: the idea that it's God's prerogative, not ours, as to whether sexual intercourse leads to the creation of a life. Even if correct, I'm not sure I'd put that in the same ballpark as abortion. Life, to Mormons, consists of the union of a spirit with a body; and we have no theological foundation for the notion that either a sperm or an egg independently house a spirit.

And aside from this, what is the church's teaching on other pro-life issues; the death penalty (I assume it is for the death penalty, because it has always been in legal in Utah, correct? And Utah was originally mostly led by LDS leadership, since it was pretty much founded and settled by the LDS church.),

No official stance at this time. As to the past: It's a can of historical worms, but I think that yes, at some point we were openly in favor of it and I personally still am.

Personally, I believe innocent life is sacred. But I think it's possible that a person can forfeit his right to life through especially heinous conduct.

. . . euthanasia, . . . suicide . . .

Against 'em. But I don't think we take as harsh a view of suicide as some religions that seem to believe all suicides go to Hell.

. . . war . . .

Theologically against it, but in practice the Church excuses killing by LDS soldiers so long as they are acting in obedience to their civil governments. (Obviously, that pardon wouldn't extend to gratuitous violence/war crimes.)

If the spirit does not enter the mortal body at conception, but at some unknown time during pregnancy, when does the spirit LEAVE the body? Only at death? Could a spirit leave a body before then?

Wow. That is an interesting question. I think Mormons culturally agree with the idea of near-death experiences where a spirit leaves the body for a few minutes and then returns. But can this state exist on a prolonged basis? (i.e. a coma or persistent vegetative state). No idea. I've never even heard the possibility discussed before.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

The issues behind the reason there are so many issues (including pregnancy) among many black americans is very complex. I don't pretend to understand it all but I do have a closer relationship to it than I'd guess most lds. To understand it you have to embrace the ugly parts of our history and then be willing to act on it. This isn't a problem that can be changed by public policy (though can be greatly influenced). It requires getting on a personal level and reaching ppl one on one, changing one life at a time. I don't know how many have tried to reach out and help such women but it's not easy, it's not for the faint of heart or anyone that wants a quick outcome. I would say if anything has taught me the true meaning of charity it has been trying to help some of these women.

This is close to what I was trying to say (except the part about reaching out one-to-one -- I haven't done that a whole lot in this case, maybe once). It's deeply embedded in the way people are raised and socialized. There is no easy solution, and in fact, there is no solving this problem in a year or even a single generation. It developed over multiple generations and can probably only be solved over multiple generations. In fact, I'm not sure that the attitude/cultural "problem" can be "solved" at all, except person by person.

[Vort]

The other statement I want to address is your equating abortion to "murder". "Murder" is a legal term that necessarily involves issues of intent and justification. Even with a strict life-begins-at-conception view, all we could say is that abortion constitutes killing, not necessarily murder. (More on this below.)

This is sort of like a physicist saying, "Your friends aren't 'pressuring' you. 'Pressure' means force across unit area. Are you saying that your friends are creating force across some area of your body?" Words have different meaning in different contexts.

When the scriptures use the word "murder" (or "murderer"), they don't mean "acts that violate 21st century American laws on killing humans." They mean something more like "intentional and wrongful killing of another human being." In this sense, I don't see why abortion might not be murder -- though I acknowledge that the Church does not treat it as such. I would also note at the same time, however, that the fact that the Church does not treat abortion as murder does not mean, or even imply, that the act of elective abortion is not actually a form of murder in God's eyes.

A person should not misrepresent the Church's position or teachings, but I see nothing wrong with a person expressing his view that elective abortion of a healthy baby for the sake of convenience is indeed murder.

[LDSCubsFan]

I wanted to ask everyone (parents and non-parents) this question and that's why I posted it here instead of the Parenting forum. Should girls (under 18) be put on birth control if they're dating? This topic came up between my husband and I after watching a news segment on the Sex Ed Bill here in Utah. Note: this thread is not about the Sex Ed Bill :] So, are you completely against the idea? Open to considering it? Or completely for it? What are the pros and cons? What are some of the potential consequences of doing it and not doing it?

Let me add that whether they are dating really is not always the key to whether they are having sexual relations. My step at age 16 went to a sleepover at a girlfriend's house, a guy came over, and you can guess what happened. Girls today are out of control. It may not be so bad among LDS members; I wouldn't know because there are rather few LDS where I live. However, it is not uncommon (based on what I hear) for girls to sneak out of houses, for boys to sneak over late at night, for girls to do things to each other, for things to go on at dances at school and in bathrooms at school (even in middle school) while students stand on lookout. My step's first time happened at age 14 with a guy 17 (a month away from 18) that we didn't even know she was sneaking around with until she got busted for skipping school and going over to his house and doing you-know-what. The only reason my wife and I found out about that is because my step told her friend who told her mother who told my wife. With FB and cell phones it is so easy for them to make arrangements to sneak around and see others. Even when their cell phones and FB get taken away, they use their friends cell phones and access FB that way. It's a new world that we never dreamt of when we were teens.

[Bini]

Let me add that whether they are dating really is not always the key to whether they are having sexual relations. My step at age 16 went to a sleepover at a girlfriend's house, a guy came over, and you can guess what happened. Girls today are out of control. It may not be so bad among LDS members; I wouldn't know because there are rather few LDS where I live. However, it is not uncommon (based on what I hear) for girls to sneak out of houses, for boys to sneak over late at night, for girls to do things to each other, for things to go on at dances at school and in bathrooms at school (even in middle school) while students stand on lookout. My step's first time happened at age 14 with a guy 17 (a month away from 18) that we didn't even know she was sneaking around with until she got busted for skipping school and going over to his house and doing you-know-what. The only reason my wife and I found out about that is because my step told her friend who told her mother who told my wife. With FB and cell phones it is so easy for them to make arrangements to sneak around and see others. Even when their cell phones and FB get taken away, they use their friends cell phones and access FB that way. It's a new world that we never dreamt of when we were teens.

Oh you are absolutely right!

Having been there and done that myself, I can testify that teens will find ways of doing what they want to do with or without parental consent, and can accomplish doing so underneath the radar. This was awhile ago before FB, tweeting and having my own personal cellphone. So I'm sure not much has changed in that regard.

[Just_A_Guy]

This is sort of like a physicist saying, "Your friends aren't 'pressuring' you. 'Pressure' means force across unit area. Are you saying that your friends are creating force across some area of your body?" Words have different meaning in different contexts.

When the scriptures use the word "murder" (or "murderer"), they don't mean "acts that violate 21st century American laws on killing humans." They mean something more like "intentional and wrongful killing of another human being." In this sense, I don't see why abortion might not be murder -- though I acknowledge that the Church does not treat it as such. I would also note at the same time, however, that the fact that the Church does not treat abortion as murder does not mean, or even imply, that the act of elective abortion is not actually a form of murder in God's eyes.

A person should not misrepresent the Church's position or teachings, but I see nothing wrong with a person expressing his view that elective abortion of a healthy baby for the sake of convenience is indeed murder.

I don't think we're that far apart, Vort. Moreover, whether we're defining murder in the 21st century AD or BC, it seems we agree that "murder" includes both an element of "killing" and an additional element of "wrongfulness". I probably should have been more careful in my post: I wasn't saying that abortion is never murder; only that it is not necessarily murder.

I think we're also on the same page in that I think if wholly elective abortion doesn't constitute outright murder, it comes pretty darned close.

[cwald]

Let me add that whether they are dating really is not always the key to whether they are having sexual relations. My step at age 16 went to a sleepover at a girlfriend's house, a guy came over, and you can guess what happened. Girls today are out of control. It may not be so bad among LDS members; I wouldn't know because there are rather few LDS where I live. However, it is not uncommon (based on what I hear) for girls to sneak out of houses, for boys to sneak over late at night, for girls to do things to each other, for things to go on at dances at school and in bathrooms at school (even in middle school) while students stand on lookout. My step's first time happened at age 14 with a guy 17 (a month away from 18) that we didn't even know she was sneaking around with until she got busted for skipping school and going over to his house and doing you-know-what. The only reason my wife and I found out about that is because my step told her friend who told her mother who told my wife. With FB and cell phones it is so easy for them to make arrangements to sneak around and see others. Even when their cell phones and FB get taken away, they use their friends cell phones and access FB that way. It's a new world that we never dreamt of when we were teens.

Yep. Of course this kind of stuff never happened until Generation X came along. NEVER HAPPENED.

The world sure is going to hell in a hand basket. (I wonder how many centuries people have been thinking this exact same thought.)

[Wingnut]

As I read this (and Klein's other posts) I think I had moments of deja vu. We were all standing around listening to a very charismatic man. Only he finished his speech with something like "Out of the goodness of my heart I will implement this plan and in return you will give all the glory to ME".

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Echo2002]

No, I would not put my teen daughter on BC just because she was a teen (I don't have a child), but if I found out she was sexually active or she came to me and confessed to be sexually active then I would suggest she use the pill and make sure she used a condom. It would be up to her to use them. I think you can teach your children about how to protect themselves during sex and still make it clear that sex should be reserved for someone who is married. I'd rather my child be safer if they are going to make a stupid mistake than make a stupid mistake that will last their life time.

I wondered what church members thought of certain States making it mandatory for girls of a certain age to get the HPV shot?

[Hala401]

Wow, this is a question I did not expect on an LDS board. I'm thinking, let her carry the baby. (the baby is not an "it") I raised a family and know how hard it can be. Abortion, absolutely NOT.

[Dravin]

On the other hand just a few of the ppl that probably would not have made the cut in such a world....

It should be noted that, as I understand his proposal, it's not a question if said people would have made the cut but if their parents would have.

[Traveler]

...

Should girls (under 18) be put on birth control if they're dating?

...

Since abstinence is a form of birth control – definitely!!!

The Traveler

[Klein_Helmer]

The quandary of benign despotism. A benign despotism is a highly efficient form of governance. The only problem is finding your benign despot(s).

Forsooth.

[Klein_Helmer]

I would see a world where my 8 living children would not exist and my 11 grandchildren would not either. That would seriously tick me off and wouldnt make them very happy either.

We have enough problems with who controls money. Can you imagine the horror of having the birth process in the hands of the megalomaniacs in the charge of the world now? I absolutely agree, Eowyn. It's the theme of a horror sf story. In fact I have read any number of them with this theme. Maybe it would do you, Klein, good to read a few to see a few of the terrible scenarios possible.

It is best not to approach such a complex issue of social policy through the distorting lens of personal experience.

I will draw a a trite, yet meaningful analogy:

A friend of mine has had his driving privileges revoked due to a number of unfortunate indiscretions. While the fact that he cannot drive, "ticks him off," he does not question the wisdom or spirit of a the policy that has landed him in his current situation.

My approach to the philosophy of government is very much utilitarian. My desire is to quantifiably better the existence of the group, not to protect the feelings of individuals. Human beings are impulsive, capricious creatures. They must be saved from themselves.

Additionally, I will kindly ask you to refrain from blindly commenting on what you believe I may or may not have read - this in and of itself is not relevant to our conversation, and comes dangerously close to the realm of ad hominem. I will of course entertain and respond to any notions from the literature you are willing to put forward.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Klein_Helmer

[MarginOfError]

My approach to the philosophy of government is very much utilitarian. My desire is to quantifiably better the existence of the group, not to protect the feelings of individuals.

Unfortunately, your proposal would probably eradicate human existence in a single generation.

Human beings are impulsive, capricious creatures. They must be saved from themselves.

Congratulations! You just surpassed HoosierGuy as the most liberal person on the boards. That's an impressive accomplishment.

Also, it doesn't do any good to save people from themselves if they aren't being saved by themselves.

[Guest]

Look at the new kid making rules for us.

[cwald]

Additionally, I will kindly ask you to refrain from blindly commenting on what you believe I may or may not have read - this in and of itself is not relevant to our conversation, and comes dangerously close to the realm of ad hominem. ...

Look at the new kid making rules for us.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.