quote:

I doubt there are many teen moms out there who became pregnant because their mom taught them about birth control. ("I would never have thought of it, otherwise!")

I would bet if there are statistics, it would most likely show that a high majority of kids knew all about birth control and just chose not to use it for whatever reason sounded good to them at the time.

quote:

Originally posted by chrislukas:

quote:

If the teen is going to have sex (and many will, like it or not), then don't let them get strapped with a kid when they are a teen. That is common sense.

Oh yes, heaven forbid they should have to face the consequences of making a poor decision. We'll just get them an abortion and pretend it never happened.

Thankfully, that is still a legal choice in the U.S. I'm willing to bet that Sarah Palin would have much preferred Bristol use birth control than become another statistic for the unwed Moms out there.

Please note that any and all references to birth control used by the Duggars refers to that which Michelle used, not any type that JimBob used or could use

something i noticed on here, but some have posted they would put their children out if they made decisions that went against their beleifs, but remember a beleif is not a fact, so to me putting a child out, or not accepting a child because it came out of marriage is far worst than teaching about condoms and birth control, now i do not know anyone who has ever showed their children how to use a condom, but we talk about it with them. i do not get the mind set, now as far as michelle and jb go, they are certainly misinformed about birth control

Seriousy misinformed.

most kids who grow up in homes where birth control is considered a sin, would rather not use birthcontrol and take their chance. living in the bible belt, i hear it all the time. what is so scary to me, is that, these kids are so misinformed and they get this misinformation or none at all from their parents. i think there are quite a few kids w ho would not ever go to their parent,s yet some parents even though they preach this fear thing will beleive the kids would, and guess what they would not dare for fear of disapointing but also being put out.

Did I miss something? I don't remember reading any where on here where a poster said they'd "put their children out if they made decisions that went against their beliefs."

I have read firm statements that some would teach their children about BC and some firm statements that they would not, but I don't recall anything else about consequences of the kids made other choices or if someone came home pregnant.

But yes, I do agree that some parents do not make themselves approachable regarding certian situations (not just about sx) so that the kids end up "sneaking around" out of fear. Or it could be that some kids engage in certain behavior out of rebellion towards their parents. Either way, it shows an unhealthy relatonship on both sides.

quote:

Originally posted by mitsy12:

quote:

Originally posted by chrislukas:

quote:

If the teen is going to have sex (and many will, like it or not), then don't let them get strapped with a kid when they are a teen. That is common sense.

Oh yes, heaven forbid they should have to face the consequences of making a poor decision. We'll just get them an abortion and pretend it never happened.

Thankfully, that is still a legal choice in the U.S. I'm willing to bet that Sarah Palin would have much preferred Bristol use birth control than become another statistic for the unwed Moms out there.

I don't get it, premarital sex is bad, from what we've heard only children of marriages are blessing, and yet, we want unwed mothers? Huh? Where is the consistency in that?

I notice that no one has answered me here. Does anyone on the other side of the fence here have a direct answer to why knowledge makes a teenager promiscuous? Or is it all just feelings borne out of religious convictions and not fact? mom9900, you out there? Anyone else?
If chris had an actual, non-irrational answer, I didn't see it, as I have her on ignore. If she did, someone want to forward it along?

quote:

Originally posted by arnaras:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mitsy12:
I don't get it, premarital sex is bad, from what we've heard only children of marriages are blessing, and yet, we want unwed mothers? Huh? Where is the consistency in that?

I notice that no one has answered me here. Does anyone on the other side of the fence here have a direct answer to why knowledge makes a teenager promiscuous? Or is it all just feelings borne out of religious convictions and not fact? mom9900, you out there? Anyone else?
If chris had an actual, non-irrational answer, I didn't see it, as I have her on ignore. If she did, someone want to forward it along?

I'm not on that side of the fence so I can't give you an answer, but I can tell you that you won't get one from those on the other side of the fence because they don't have a logical answer for why knowledge makes a teenager promiscuous.

I have an answer for you. Many parents think that if their kids know how to prevent a pregnancy, that that means they'll go out and use that knowledge just as quick as they possibly can. That is the same as sticking your head in the sand. I'd much rather a teen use birth control than have unprotected sex & have a baby at 16 or 17. In fact, encouraging marriage for people as young as Josh is not exactly ideal either for they have had no chance to live on their own or be independent without getting legally bound to someone so early. I certainly don't promote sex for teens and there are many emotional pitfalls for it besides pregnancy, but at the very least, pregnancy should NOT be happening just because the kid wants to have sex. The "consequence" the one poster talked about should not be that the teen has a baby that she isn't able to care for. Abstinence is great for those who can say NO and stick with it. For the others, they should be content to have a child in their teens because that seems to be the lesser evil than using birth control (if you want to listen to some posters here).

hmm, well let me see if I can offer some insight although I don't claim to have any answers - just my impressions of what has been said or my own opinions.

First, I think the statement of children being blessings "only if they are born into a marriage" is not what has been said. I think it was more like 1) Children are blessings. 2) God's plan is for children to be born into marriages (and not outside of marriage) but that 3) people don't always follow God's plan so there are children born outside of marriage. It is the circumstances of the conception that is being disagreed with, not the child itself. Unwed moms have more challenges than a couple, but they should not be any less valued. (both the parent and the child)

OK, that one was fairly easy. Let me see if I can answer the second, harder question. (my internet blocked me for some reason today so I was unable to post earlier)

There is a challenge presented to parents who want to teach thier children to live a certain way (in this case abstancance until marriage)while still recognizing that their kids will be making those decisions for themselves. As a parent you'd have to ask yourself if what you teach about abstanance will be undermined but also teaching the ways to have "safe sx."

To say "don't do this, but if you do do it, here's they way to do it" sounds hypocritical. Would a young person think you were being hypocritcal?

Ok, lets say I told my child I didn't want him to smoke. I discussed the health risks, explained that it might cause him to have yellowing teeth, that the odor would cling to his clothes, etc...not to mention the expense involved! But, at the end of the conversation
I then said, "now son, you know I don't want you to do this but because I realize you might want to try it, let my give you a pack of your own." Is he really going to believe I think it is bad for him? Is he going to think I don't believe all the stuff I just got thru telling him?

On the other hand, if I just gave him a command and said "Don't smoke or you'll regret it!" He might be more inclined to go get some smokes on his own.

So, where's the balance? I'm not sure I have an answer. I think alot of it really comes down to your relationship with your kids. How you talk to them, how they interact with you, all comes into play. I feel like my relationship with my older teens is such that I can answer questions for them without compromising my beliefs - cuz they already know where I stand, and they know that if they make decisions I don't agree with I will not condone their behavior. However, I also have a younger teen (and younger kids too) that I'm more careful what I say to her. As she gets closer to dating age them I'm sure we'll have to revisit this issue, but so far I think I will still stick with how I've handled the older ones. (at their age if they choose to have sx outside of marriage then they're smart enough and independant enough to but what they need. They both have jobs and if they choose to participate in something I don't approve of then that is up to them and it's not my financial responsiblity to pay for their BC)

Having said all that, and re-reading my post, I can see that I've probably not really answered the question. I guess it just boils down to individual decisions. I see both sides - the need to stand by your beliefs and not come across as hypocritical and the imporotance of being honest with kids about what's out there. I do recognize that the kids need to decide for themselves at some point but that doesn't mean they'll be disowned or kicked out if they choose different that what I'd like.

One last thing, sometimes parents can THINK they know how they'd handle a particular situation when it's all just talk, but if it ever really happens, our response and how we actually deal with it may be completely different then what we thought when it was just an "idea." None of us are perfect but for some on the more "conservative" side of this board we may come across as having an air of superiority when that is not the intention. It is usually how the words come across when someone feel passionately about a topic. Please believe me when I say I am not trying to "preach" about this as I'm just trying to help explain something that I myself cannot express well - because like I said at the beginning, the big question is how do you teach against something and yet not seem like you're condoning it at the same time but offering information for "the other side"? I don't really know!

quote:

Originally posted by 1989kb:
hmm, well let me see if I can offer some insight although I don't claim to have any answers - just my impressions of what has been said or my own opinions.

First, I think the statement of children being blessings "only if they are born into a marriage" is not what has been said. I think it was more like 1) Children are blessings. 2) God's plan is for children to be born into marriages (and not outside of marriage) but that 3) people don't always follow God's plan so there are children born outside of marriage. It is the circumstances of the conception that is being disagreed with, not the child itself. Unwed moms have more challenges than a couple, but they should not be any less valued. (both the parent and the child)

mom9900 said "children are a blessing when born in a marriage." (Paraphrased a little, but very close to exact words.) Many people have asked if then children outside marriage aren't blessings, and no answer has been heard. No one, not mom900, not chris (at least that I've seen quoted), nor anyone else has said "now wait a minute..." I'm sorry, but silence speaks louder than words here.

quote:

There is a challenge presented to parents who want to teach thier children to live a certain way (in this case abstancance until marriage)while still recognizing that their kids will be making those decisions for themselves. As a parent you'd have to ask yourself if what you teach about abstanance will be undermined but also teaching the ways to have "safe sx."

To say "don't do this, but if you do do it, here's they way to do it" sounds hypocritical. Would a young person think you were being hypocritcal?

No, not at all. As I mentioned before, I had a continual dialogue with my mother about human sexuality. I learned about all of the birds and the bees, and I learned all about safe sex. At the same time, I was taught that I should wait until marriage, that I shouldn't treat sex lightly and that it wasn't something you just gave out. I never once thought that my parents were hypocritical. I thought that they were teaching me morals, they were teaching me about my body, and they were teaching me how to become a responsible person. Nothing to me seems incompatible.

It's all in how you discuss, and how you look at knowledge.

quote:

Ok, lets say I told my child I didn't want him to smoke. I discussed the health risks, explained that it might cause him to have yellowing teeth, that the odor would cling to his clothes, etc...not to mention the expense involved! But, at the end of the conversation
I then said, "now son, you know I don't want you to do this but because I realize you might want to try it, let my give you a pack of your own." Is he really going to believe I think it is bad for him? Is he going to think I don't believe all the stuff I just got thru telling him?

Your comparison doesn't make sense here. No one is giving kids cigarettes or having a "test drive" in sex ed. Your example of giving kids cigarettes is like me teaching my kid about sex by bringing in a hooker for a little show and tell. There's a large difference between teaching and trying.

I appreciate you taking the time to write such a long post, to try and speak your mind. I really do. I didn't find you preachy at all. I'm not sure if we agree or not here, but it's a good discussion none the less.

arnaras, I know my example of smoking leaves much to be desired. I was just making it up as I went.

And I think we do agree. "It's all in how you discuss and how you look at knowledge."

I guess my stand is that what information I give my kids is dependent upon their age and where they are in life. That would make a difference to me in what exactly I said. I would answer a question from my 8yo differently than I would my 13yo and again when talking to my 18yo. All my answers would be honest but age appropriate. Does that make sense?

I don't think birth control and early sexual activity are as connected as most believe. Most young people that are having these kinds of relationships have been the victim of abuse. And this is one in three, boys and girls. Using, or not using, birth control is a choice made as an adult.
Totally different situations.
As for teaching children, it needs to be age-appropriate. You cannot teach a ten yr old how it feels to deny temptation. The same as you cannot continue to teach teens "plumbing". The more partners you have the more risk you run, and HPV causes cancer. Not to mention all the disease with no cures. Aids and Herpes can be spread through OS. These are not facts sex ed teaches, but should.
Mixing these topics, I think, is apples and oranges.

quote:

Originally posted by 1989kb:
arnaras, I know my example of smoking leaves much to be desired. I was just making it up as I went.

And I think we do agree. "It's all in how you discuss and how you look at knowledge."

I guess my stand is that what information I give my kids is dependent upon their age and where they are in life. That would make a difference to me in what exactly I said. I would answer a question from my 8yo differently than I would my 13yo and again when talking to my 18yo. All my answers would be honest but age appropriate. Does that make sense?

Oh, I've always said that all discussions should be age or maturity appropriate. I completely agree with that.

quote:

Originally posted by chrislukas:

quote:

If the teen is going to have sex (and many will, like it or not), then don't let them get strapped with a kid when they are a teen. That is common sense.

Oh yes, heaven forbid they should have to face the consequences of making a poor decision. We'll just get them an abortion and pretend it never happened.

Well I for one am very thankful that termination is an option. Abortion in itself is a kind of consequence for having unprotected sex. It's not something you forget, it's something you have to live with for the rest of your life. It's an experience that reinforces the fact that you do not want anyone to ever have to make that kind of decision. It is something that can encourage one to arm their children with safe sx knowledge so that they won't ever have to experience it.

I like how some people who are anti-abortion advocate birth control and safe sex education so that abortion can be avoided. I do not understand how some people can be pro-life but not advocate sex education, just wanting to throw kids out there without proper knowledge of protection and then are surprised when their kid comes home pregnant or with an STD. Hello, they really didn't know any better.

First off, "safe sex" is a myth. Read the medical websites and you won't find a single one that says if you use a condom you won't get an STD or get pregnant. They all say it "reduces the chances." Sorry, but in my book, any chance of getting AIDS is one chance too many. The only safe sex is no sex and after marriage you're only safe from STDs if you and your spouse were both free of disease and stay 100% faithful to each other.

No matter how you spin it, abortion is the murder of an innocent human being. I believe if a teen gets pregnant, then she has two choices - raise the baby with help if needed or give the baby up for adoption. There is no excuse for murdering a baby not even in cases of rape or incest. The only abortion that can be justified is in the case where the mother will die if it isn't done. I believe that God will eventually pass judgment on our nation for allowing babies to be murdered.

quote:

Originally posted by chrislukas:
I believe that God will eventually pass judgment on our nation for allowing babies to be murdered.

Pass judment on your nation how??

Maybe you and the Duggars should start building an Ark so god can wipe out all of us pro-choicers!

Or are you gonna be judged too because you are A citizen of the United States and part of a pro-choice nation!

Safe sex is not a myth. Yes, any behavior is risky we can walk out and cross the street and get hit by a car. Billions of people have sex EVERY DAY without being married to the person they are sleeping with and they don't keel over and die. Remaining monogamous definitely decreases the odds of particular STDS, but AIDS you can get if your partner shares a needle with a person infected or gets a blood transfusion. Even the most absolute circumstances are not absolute. You can get an infection from sitting on a toilet that someome with an infection has used. All I am saying is that teaching proper condom use and encouraging STD/sexual health screenings after the onset of intercourse or other kind of activity will make sex safeR. Because if you really wanna get technical, than nothing we do can really be considered safe.

Teenagers who are not taught safe sex may make mistakes by having sex before they are ready and can suffer the emotional and physical consequence, but they don't deserve to have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy or contracting an STD too.

While I respect your opinion, I thank my lucky stars that people that share your opinion on abortion do not get to make the laws for women in our country. Nobody should be allowed to tell anyone what to do or judge anyone else. One's decisions to terminte is between them and the higher power they may or may not believe in.

quote:

Originally posted by cjvoz:

quote:

Originally posted by chrislukas:
I believe that God will eventually pass judgment on our nation for allowing babies to be murdered.

Pass judment on your nation how??

Maybe you and the Duggars should start building an Ark so god can wipe out all of us pro-choicers!

Or are you gonna be judged too because you are A citizen of the United States and part of a pro-choice nation!

Well, let's see, we've had 9/11 blamed on sins, earthquakes blamed on sins, floods blamed on sin, fires blamed on sin... just about every natural disaster has been blamed on sin, as well as several man-made ones. So take you pick, how should the US be "punished"?

Maybe chris and others like her can flee, make a new "righteous" country, and escape our supposed judgment as a country.

quote:

Originally posted by ppatten:

quote:

Originally posted by arnaras:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mitsy12:
I don't get it, premarital sex is bad, from what we've heard only children of marriages are blessing, and yet, we want unwed mothers? Huh? Where is the consistency in that?

I notice that no one has answered me here. Does anyone on the other side of the fence here have a direct answer to why knowledge makes a teenager promiscuous? Or is it all just feelings borne out of religious convictions and not fact? mom9900, you out there? Anyone else?
If chris had an actual, non-irrational answer, I didn't see it, as I have her on ignore. If she did, someone want to forward it along?

I'm not on that side of the fence so I can't give you an answer, but I can tell you that you won't get one from those on the other side of the fence because they don't have a logical answer for why knowledge makes a teenager promiscuous.

Well, you turned out to be right. Surprised, right? Not a single person came forward and explained - logically or otherwise - how education made a teen promiscuous. And you're right again. The reason why there wasn't an answer from anyone is because there isn't a logical answer!

I have been very busy (local elections and since yesterday checking on loved ones in Ft. Hood).

I thought I reposted something to the effect of "all children are a blessing but are not always seen that way when they are born into circumstances which are very hard and the parents are not able to give stability that is needed". If not there it is.

As far as BC goes, I have my views and those aren't changing anytime soon because someone on a posting site seems to think it is better to IMO be hypocritical and say do as I say but if you don't here's how to not do as I say.

My children can always come to me and they will know that sex is more than a physical act but an expression of love, committed love and as such should be expressed within the parameters set forth in the Bible. They will also know that if they mess up they can come to me and tell me. I don't have to show them how to put a condom on or put them on the pill for that.

And as far as sex ed is concerned that should be taught at home, not in the public schools.

So what kind of circumstances and stability are you talking about? Would that include unmarried parents? And if the circumstances are not up to your standards, what do you consider a baby that is not a blessing?

1989 wanted to respond there have been one or two who have said they would turn their backs on their children if they did something they disaproved of. it has also been said that a child is only a blessing in a marriage. that is not a good way to be in my opinion if you go back a ways in the posts you will see them

Suffice it to say that "balance" comes from people using their brains. Having unprotected sex will more than likely result in a pregnancy (wanted or not). The Duggar's are selfish to either not control their sex drive OR to use birth control so they don't have 2 truck loads of kids. The Bible thumpers somehow use lack of knowledge about birth control as a deterrent to having sex. Somehow, that doesn't even come close to logic in my opinion. Which would you rather have? A teen who experiments with sex and plays roulette with their body which results in a pregnancy? Or a teen who might experiment (or not) and choose to get on the pill? The logical answer is easy but that somehow won't ever cut it with the right-wingers. They somehow think preaching abstinence is going to work miracles (just ask Sarah Palin) OR they think that the teen should have the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy. I don't support late-term abortion and never have BUT if I had a teen who wound up pregnant and was not in a committed relationship and was not in a position to take care of the child, I would NOT stand in their way of an abortion. That is my belief, but for those opposed to abortion, think again about why birth control might not be such a bad thing after all.

quote:

Originally posted by arnaras:

quote:

Originally posted by cjvoz:

quote:

Originally posted by chrislukas:
I believe that God will eventually pass judgment on our nation for allowing babies to be murdered.

Pass judment on your nation how??

Maybe you and the Duggars should start building an Ark so god can wipe out all of us pro-choicers!

Or are you gonna be judged too because you are A citizen of the United States and part of a pro-choice nation!

Well, let's see, we've had 9/11 blamed on sins, earthquakes blamed on sins, floods blamed on sin, fires blamed on sin... just about every natural disaster has been blamed on sin, as well as several man-made ones. So take you pick, how should the US be "punished"?

Maybe chris and others like her can flee, make a new "righteous" country, and escape our supposed judgment as a country.

Don't forget about our soldiers dying in Iraq because of homosexuality in the US. There are some Christians who believe this, too.

quote:

Originally posted by linda218:
So what kind of circumstances and stability are you talking about? Would that include unmarried parents? And if the circumstances are not up to your standards, what do you consider a baby that is not a blessing?

Unmarried parents who cannot financially get by, ones who already have a rocky relationship, ones who were not or are not ready for the addition of a baby to the family.

I consider ALL babies blessings but know that sometimes they are not perceived as such due to circumstances such as I have described.

My youngest was conceived while I was on the pill, my husband had been out of work for 6 months due to downsizing and was unable to find work. I was on the pill because I wasn't sure I wanted any more babies and my two oldest were 7 and 5. I consider her a blessing everyday and never thought otherwise. Couldn't imagine life without her.

"Perception" I think Mom used a good word here. How a child is PERCEIVED - be it as a blessing or a burden - does not negate that each one has value and God considers them blessings.

I have a wheelchair bound child. Some may consider her a burden because of the extra work involved in her care. That is their perception. My perception is different. She is my child and I value her just because she's here and alive. (Although I will take the time to share that next Wednesday she is having DBS surgery - deep brain stimulation- in an attempt to give her the ability to overcome some of the difficulties she has because of her Dystonia)

Bringing this discussion back to the Duggars, since they view children as blessings - regardless of which number they are in the family, they will say their kids are not a burden. Someone else might say they are because there are so many of them. Again, it is all in the perpective one has.

quote:

Originally posted by linda218:
My youngest was conceived while I was on the pill, my husband had been out of work for 6 months due to downsizing and was unable to find work. I was on the pill because I wasn't sure I wanted any more babies and my two oldest were 7 and 5. I consider her a blessing everyday and never thought otherwise. Couldn't imagine life without her.

And the pill didn't cause you to miscarry? Hmm, perhaps we should send this information to Michelle. She's in much need of some education (and therapy because of the misinformation given to her from that quack of a doctor way back then).

quote:

Originally posted by 1989kb:
"Perception" I think Mom used a good word here. How a child is PERCEIVED - be it as a blessing or a burden - does not negate that each one has value and God considers them blessings.

I have a wheelchair bound child. Some may consider her a burden because of the extra work involved in her care. That is their perception. My perception is different. She is my child and I value her just because she's here and alive. (Although I will take the time to share that next Wednesday she is having DBS surgery - deep brain stimulation- in an attempt to give her the ability to overcome some of the difficulties she has because of her Dystonia)

Bringing this discussion back to the Duggars, since they view children as blessings - regardless of which number they are in the family, they will say their kids are not a burden. Someone else might say they are because there are so many of them. Again, it is all in the perpective one has.

Thank you !!! That word means alot.

quote:

Originally posted by mom9900:
I have been very busy (local elections and since yesterday checking on loved ones in Ft. Hood).

I thought I reposted something to the effect of "all children are a blessing but are not always seen that way when they are born into circumstances which are very hard and the parents are not able to give stability that is needed". If not there it is.

As far as BC goes, I have my views and those aren't changing anytime soon because someone on a posting site seems to think it is better to IMO be hypocritical and say do as I say but if you don't here's how to not do as I say.

I rest my case then.
(That was quick.)

Well all I can say is my perception of some who claim to be good christians d onot have a clue the true meaning. I always tell my kids really really look in the mirror, and ask your self are you truly in your heart doing the right thing or is it all a bunch of nonsense, being a good christian has nothing what so ever with how many verses a day you can repeat

quote:

Originally posted by cporange:
Well all I can say is my perception of some who claim to be good christians d onot have a clue the true meaning. I always tell my kids really really look in the mirror, and ask your self are you truly in your heart doing the right thing or is it all a bunch of nonsense, being a good christian has nothing what so ever with how many verses a day you can repeat

So very, very true.

I was reading this article, and couldn't help but feel just how much it applied to people here on the board as well as the Duggars. Pretty scary to me that this sort of thinking - the fundie/evangelical thinking - is so popular in area of America, with everything that it stands for. Take a look, especially at the second half of the article:

http://killingthebuddha.com/ma...k-and-whisk-us-away/

Wow, Arnaras, that was some hair raising reading! A couple of things jumped out at me but especially this paragraph:

"The video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces was developed by a publicly traded company, Left Behind Games. The player controls a “Tribulation Forces” team and is invited to “use the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world.” The game blesses religious violence. It’s the Americanized version of some Islamic sheik drumming hate of the infidel into young minds in some dusty Pakistani madrassa. It’s legal evangelical Jihad training, a fantasy foreshadowing of the all-too-real killings of abortion doctors and others hated as “anti-Christ.”

Training tools for the new Christian army being raised up in Quiverfull families? Sure it's hyperbole, but that's the way some of us see it.

I wish everyone would read that article, but unfortunately some won't get past reading about the "left behind" series. You may be preaching to the choir here.
I do love the way the author points out that "the rapture" is a modern idea, one embraced almost exclusively by American fundies, and the book of revelations is kind of...fringe?

The original poster started out by asking how "naive and uneducated" those who do not believe in artificial birth control can be - specifically, of course, the Duggars.

As pointed out earlier, one does not have to be either naive or uneducated to believe that artificial birth control is morally wrong. This is the unchanging stance of the Catholic Church still today, and it was also the stance of all major protestant Christian denominations until the turn of the century.

While it's interesting to explore the more "extreme" sects of protestant evangelicals/fundamentalists and their beliefs (though, to be fair, their are weirdos and extremists found in every walk of life) I'm not really sure what it has to do with the birth-control issue.

I think it's mostly on topic. It ties in with the fears that many progressives, mainstream christians, and others have that there is an agenda among the fundamentalist/evangelical movement to limit access to birth control, along with marginalize minorities, gays, and people of other faiths.
I don't personally think that it's naive to believe that artificial BC is immoral. As long as it's a personal decision, yanno? Take your rosaries off my ovaries and all that jazz.

quote:

Originally posted by catholicmama:
The original poster started out by asking how "naive and uneducated" those who do not believe in artificial birth control can be - specifically, of course, the Duggars.

As pointed out earlier, one does not have to be either naive or uneducated to believe that artificial birth control is morally wrong. This is the unchanging stance of the Catholic Church still today, and it was also the stance of all major protestant Christian denominations until the turn of the century.

While it's interesting to explore the more "extreme" sects of protestant evangelicals/fundamentalists and their beliefs (though, to be fair, their are weirdos and extremists found in every walk of life) I'm not really sure what it has to do with the birth-control issue.

Considering that the Duggars *are* extreme, I think that it's spot-on target.

quote:

Originally posted by arnaras:

quote:

Originally posted by mom9900:
I have been very busy (local elections and since yesterday checking on loved ones in Ft. Hood).

I thought I reposted something to the effect of "all children are a blessing but are not always seen that way when they are born into circumstances which are very hard and the parents are not able to give stability that is needed". If not there it is.

As far as BC goes, I have my views and those aren't changing anytime soon because someone on a posting site seems to think it is better to IMO be hypocritical and say do as I say but if you don't here's how to not do as I say.

I rest my case then.
(That was quick.)

Meaning what?

quote:

Originally posted by bustystclair:
I wish everyone would read that article, but unfortunately some won't get past reading about the "left behind" series. You may be preaching to the choir here.
I do love the way the author points out that "the rapture" is a modern idea, one embraced almost exclusively by American fundies, and the book of revelations is kind of...fringe?

Actually I love to read and not just Christian fiction. I love to read real life how to books on topics of interest, such as the one written by Jo Frost "Supernanny". Parenting books are my fav as well such as "Multiple Blessings" and "Eight Little Faces". I also love any cooking book by Paula Deen or Rachel Ray.

Also seasonal books such as "The Christmas Shoes".

quote:

Originally posted by catholicmama:
The original poster started out by asking how "naive and uneducated" those who do not believe in artificial birth control can be - specifically, of course, the Duggars.

As pointed out earlier, one does not have to be either naive or uneducated to believe that artificial birth control is morally wrong. This is the unchanging stance of the Catholic Church still today, and it was also the stance of all major protestant Christian denominations until the turn of the century.

While it's interesting to explore the more "extreme" sects of protestant evangelicals/fundamentalists and their beliefs (though, to be fair, their are weirdos and extremists found in every walk of life) I'm not really sure what it has to do with the birth-control issue.

And there are many Educated and INTELLIGENT person in the Catholic church as well as other denominations. And the assertion that all people against BC are undeducated or naive is truly IGNORANT.

Actually I love to read and not just Christian fiction. I love to read real life how to books on topics of interest, such as the one written by Jo Frost "Supernanny". Parenting books are my fav as well such as "Multiple Blessings" and "Eight Little Faces". I also love any cooking book by Paula Deen or Rachel Ray.

Also seasonal books such as "The Christmas Shoes".

I actually meant read the article in the link that arnanas provided, not personal choice of reading material.

quote:

Originally posted by mom9900:

quote:

Originally posted by arnaras:

quote:

Originally posted by mom9900:
I have been very busy (local elections and since yesterday checking on loved ones in Ft. Hood).

I thought I reposted something to the effect of "all children are a blessing but are not always seen that way when they are born into circumstances which are very hard and the parents are not able to give stability that is needed". If not there it is.

As far as BC goes, I have my views and those aren't changing anytime soon because someone on a posting site seems to think it is better to IMO be hypocritical and say do as I say but if you don't here's how to not do as I say.

I rest my case then.
(That was quick.)

Meaning what?

You really want to know...?


I meant that no one here, as was predicted by more than one person, was able to come up with - or even try to give - a rational answer as to how sex ed made teens promiscuous.

quote:

Originally posted by mom9900:

quote:

Originally posted by catholicmama:
The original poster started out by asking how "naive and uneducated" those who do not believe in artificial birth control can be - specifically, of course, the Duggars.

As pointed out earlier, one does not have to be either naive or uneducated to believe that artificial birth control is morally wrong. This is the unchanging stance of the Catholic Church still today, and it was also the stance of all major protestant Christian denominations until the turn of the century.

While it's interesting to explore the more "extreme" sects of protestant evangelicals/fundamentalists and their beliefs (though, to be fair, their are weirdos and extremists found in every walk of life) I'm not really sure what it has to do with the birth-control issue.

And there are many Educated and INTELLIGENT person in the Catholic church as well as other denominations. And the assertion that all people against BC are undeducated or naive is truly IGNORANT.

You both are going off on something that was never said. The OP was asking how naive and ignorant the Duggars are. In my opinion, if nothing else, they are ignorant. They apparently have never taken then time to learn about the pill, and they are going about telling groups fallacies about said birth control. Which, as the OP said, could be seen as irresponsible as well. If I were a public figure, I would get my facts straight before I went and talked about it.

quote:

Originally posted by arnaras:

quote:

Originally posted by mom9900:

quote:

Originally posted by arnaras:
I rest my case then.
(That was quick.)

Meaning what?

You really want to know...?


I meant that no one here, as was predicted by more than one person, was able to come up with - or even try to give - a rational answer as to how sex ed made teens promiscuous.

And we're still waiting for that answer.....

I guess I'll get back to reading my latest Stephen King novel while we wait.

You know, I have pondered this the past few days. I have an idea (kind of vague) that I will try and express. No claims to it being right or even if anyone else will agree, it's just my thoughts on perhaps why sex ed may prompt promiscuous behavior.


Now with that disclaimer out of the way, please bare with me as I try to articulate my ideas!

In times past there was greater value placed on the sacredness of the marriage bed. There was also less awareness on the part of young people. The birds and the bees weren't explained to kids until they needed to know it. (and by that I mean that girls weren't taught about periods or what they meant until they actually started. and I think the actual sx talk was done just prior to getting married or perhaps never - just put the two together and let them figure it out)

There was much embarressment and very little openness about any of these topics. My thought is that we went from keeping kids in complete ingorance to no boundaries (in conversation/education).

Sx went from something that our society as a whole viewed as something private to a casual topic of convsation. The act of sx was devalued because we reduced it to just a physical activity.

Our society has become desensitized to many things and I think this is one of them. Years ago certian things would not be discussed or advertised on TV but now you can't flip thru chanels without seeing ads for all sorts of things (from sexual related things to hemoroids!) And remember how the older tv shows even had separate beds in the bedrooms? Now we have scenes on regular tv that don't leave much to the imagination.

So back to the question. I think that making love has been devalued by reducing it to casual conversation and taking out so much of the mystery and not holding it up as something uniquely special between two people in a commited(married in my book)relationship. Sx on TV/movies/media/songs is so prevelant and there is an expectation that everyone is doing it. It is portrayed as something fun to do, that everyone does it and that something is wrong with you if you dont.

So, I wonder if perhaps the argument regarding why sx ed may factor into increased sx activity may be that we've reinforced to the kids that it is expected behavior. We explain sx to them (as if they didn't already have a pretty good idea!) and then tell them not to do it but that if (and the expected when) it happens, here is how to do it "safely." There is really no motivation to NOT do it but all the tools are there to do it. I wont say it is encouraged, but I think kids may interprete it that way.

On the other side though, when kids are not told ANYTHING then they are at risk too. And it has been shown that there is a high percentage of kids who were taught abstanance also engage in sx activity so I can't say that an abstanance program is any better than a sx ed program.

Final exmple before I close this post and open myself up for comments. Years ago violent scenes were not shown on movies. Battle scenes were shown and violence was impmlied but viewers didn't see any blood and guts, etc. Foul language was not permitted. Nakedness was not shown, etc. However, over time all this has changed and we are no longer shocked by those violent scenes, foul language, etc. We have become desensitzed. We're so used to seeing it on screen (where we know it is pretend) that we're not quite as shocked when we see or hear about it in real life. I think the same goes for sx. If all kids see is the physical act of sx and it's just protrayed as something you can do with medical precautions that reduce your risk of consequences, then there is no reason to wait for marriage.

If the purpose of sx ed is to inform teens of a) what it is and b) how to protect yourself from physical consequenses when you are engaging in it, then there is really no motivation to NOT do it. And just because teens know how to protect themselves, I really dont know how much that really changes their behavior. So we've explained things to them and maybe even giving them condoms or something but I think society's influense does impact our teens regardless of what they've been told about sx vs astainance.

Sx ed cannot cause anyone to become promiscuous just as an abstanance program cannot cause someone to NOT have sx. The difference is more likely in the teens themselves and what they've been shown/taught in their home or from their major influenses.

quote:

Originally posted by ppatten:

quote:

Originally posted by arnaras:

quote:

Originally posted by mom9900:

quote:

Originally posted by arnaras:
I rest my case then.
(That was quick.)

Meaning what?

You really want to know...?


I meant that no one here, as was predicted by more than one person, was able to come up with - or even try to give - a rational answer as to how sex ed made teens promiscuous.

And we're still waiting for that answer.....

I guess I'll get back to reading my latest Stephen King novel while we wait.

Sexual Education IMO has no place in the schools because when that is taught to my children I feel as the parent that it is my choice when it happens and how it happens.

I say that as a preface to my answer.

As a parent we give birth to these children, we are in control of everything they do until they go off to school and if you're a parent that is worth your salt you are very involved in what is going on inside the school as well. You know what your child is learning and how they are doing and the learning process they are following.

Making disclosures to your child about what sex is and how it is done and how you prevent pregnancy and how to use BC IMO are not things that have ANY place in the classroom. AT ALL. Those are discussions that take place between parents and children and they are discussed within the parameters the parents set forth. The Schools have NO BUSINESS treading on that which is none of their business. It is the responsibility of a parent to tell their child(ren) what sex is, their views and their expectations. Most parents I know have been preparing them for this for years with little things, points of view about relationships etc. My kids at 9 and 10 know that Mommies and Daddies are married and that they married before the kids were born. They know that mommy and daddy spend time alone and they know that babies come from mommy's tummy. They know that the Daddy goes off to work (and in our case so does mommy) and mommy takes care of some of the housework and Daddy helps. They also know that men and women are not to be looked at as a sex object (meaning they know esp. our boy that women he sees on TV half naked are not nice girls and are not the type of person we would want him to find as a life partner one day.) Our daughter at this point still thinks boys are yucky and God BLESS her for that.

Our son has gleaned alot from watching the men in his life and knows that he wants to grow up to marry a nice woman who will be a good wife and he has already told me he is going to be a great husband and a wonderful father to his son one day. *Yes I have a very deep son.*

You see he has seen alot of the negative of how a man shouldn't treat a woman and he is bound and determined to treat his wife like a queen. (Be still my heart).

I have already laid the foundation for learning what sex is and when it is ordained by God. What God wants for us and what he will give to us in HIS time. I don't want a school circumventing my teaching of what is and is not acceptable. That isn't their place.

Having said that, do I think it makes them promiscous. It depends on the child. For a kid looking for a green light to have sex YES. For a kid who is grounded in his faith and knows sex is more than just a physical act but an act of committment to your spouse, NO.

So it is a truly grey area.

mom9900, I respect your religious convictions. But you still haven't answered my question. You said that you do think that it (sex ed) makes them more promiscuous. But you haven't told me how (or even why), which was my question in the first place?

How is it, in our day and age, that we're seeing a decrease in teen pregnancies? Even with the sex ed. How is it that people like me knew the bio-mechanics of sex, knew about protection, but didn't sleep around? Could it be that morals and knowledge can mix?