Birth Control

[Maureen]

There are people out there that would make terrible parents and they probably know it. There are people out there who are terrible parents. I check out the RFM board sometimes and when mother's day rolls around, some of posters there share terrible stories about being raised by bad parents - not everyone, but some. A few years ago a poster came to this forum (LDStalk) and described his wife as possibly being schizophrenic. They had one child and her parents were advising their daughter that they should have another baby. The poster knew that that was a bad idea. He didn't stay here long, so I don't know what happened to him or his family. Bad parents exist, even in Christian homes. If you have an inkling that you might not be a good parent why put a child through that?

M.

[Suzie]

There are people out there that would make terrible parents and they probably know it. There are people out there who are terrible parents. I check out the RFM board sometimes and when mother's day rolls around, some of posters there share terrible stories about being raised by bad parents - not everyone, but some. A few years ago a poster came to this forum (LDStalk) and described his wife as possibly being schizophrenic. They had one child and her parents were advising their daughter that they should have another baby. The poster knew that that was a bad idea. He didn't stay here long, so I don't know what happened to him or his family. Bad parents exist, even in Christian homes. If you have an inkling that you might not be a good parent why put a child through that?

M.

That's why I said "taking into consideration there are no health issues, etc". Other than that, it has become an excuse and children being replaced by dogs.

[Snow]

Snow, explain it to me. If life is actually premortal, and part of the Plan of Salvation is to allow the spirits to gain bodies and go through this mortal testing, then would not there be a strong imperative not to hinder the bearing of children--especially among the faithful, who's offspring have the best opportunities to choose wisely?

Your contention presupposes all sorts of things not in evidence; for example, that not only are there pre-existant spirits, but also that God wants specific spirits and quantities of spirits to go to specific earthly couples and if those couples don't procreate with enough frequency then God's plans and wishes are somehow frustrated. You not only presuppose that, but also that God's plans and wishes require indiscriminate reproduction within couples without regard to timing and pre-planing - that things such as economics, health, education, or desire are unimportant compared to job number one - making babies.

If you are going to argue that baby making is the goal, you couldn't draw the line at regular birth control, you'd also have to speak out against those that don't have enough sex to get pregnant regularly. Then you'd have to oppose those sexual practices that conclude without the possibility of impregnation... and so on.

[Guest mirancs8]

What you are pointing out is exactly what I (and others) said and that is people will serious mental illness or an illness that could become worse with a pregnancy should not get pregnant. No one is debating you on that issue.

Like Suzie pointed out, "Other than that, it has become an excuse and children being replaced by dogs."

We seem to add more and more animals to our household yet we are reluctant to add children... why?

[Maureen]

...We seem to add more and more animals to our household yet we are reluctant to add children... why?

Pets don't live as long as human children do, so there's a chance that when the pet dies he/she will eventually be replaced by a new one. And even though the message of neutering and spaying pets is drilled into pet owners, there are still many animals in shelters without homes. Adopting pets is a good thing.

M.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Maureen

[prisonchaplain]

Your contention presupposes all sorts of things not in evidence; for example, that not only are there pre-existant spirits, but also that God wants specific spirits and quantities of spirits to go to specific earthly couples and if those couples don't procreate with enough frequency then God's plans and wishes are somehow frustrated.

I'm just assuming that there are lots of spirits, and so the more human conceptions, the more spirits get bodies. And, odds of the Plan going well would seem higher, if the embodied spirit were raised in a household that understood the Plan. Sure, God is Sovereign, but He has given us marching orders--He wants us to do as He's asked. No?

You not only presuppose that, but also that God's plans and wishes require indiscriminate reproduction within couples without regard to timing and pre-planing - that things such as economics, health, education, or desire are unimportant compared to job number one - making babies.

If I accepted the notion of premortal spirits awaiting human bodies, so they can go through their test, then I'd also believe that being raised in a lower middle class family that understood the Plan would be more advantageous than being raised in an upper class family that showed little interest in spiritual matters at all.

If you are going to argue that baby making is the goal, you couldn't draw the line at regular birth control, you'd also have to speak out against those that don't have enough sex to get pregnant regularly. Then you'd have to oppose those sexual practices that conclude without the possibility of impregnation... and so on.

I would think that baby making is largely the goal, but would also understand mature people of goodwill discerning just how far the baby-making vs. quality of life balance goes.

[Snow]

I'm just assuming that there are lots of spirits, and so the more human conceptions, the more spirits get bodies. And, odds of the Plan going well would seem higher, if the embodied spirit were raised in a household that understood the Plan. Sure, God is Sovereign, but He has given us marching orders--He wants us to do as He's asked. No?

1. Another assumption is that there are limited spirits and one couple taking more than their share takes opportunities away from other couples. Short of some evidence, one assumption is equal to another.

2. Your second point might have merit if you assume that God will base his judgement and salvation on things beyond your control - like were you born into the right family. Is that the point you are making?

3. Another assumption. Certainly we should follow God's instructions but he has given no such instruction - to forgo birth control. While we may choose to follow God, it does not follow that we will follow prisonchaplain's inferences.

If I accepted the notion of premortal spirits awaiting human bodies, so they can go through their test, then I'd also believe that being raised in a lower middle class family that understood the Plan would be more advantageous than being raised in an upper class family that showed little interest in spiritual matters at all.

Maybe, maybe not but since I made no such point, I don't know what you are getting at. I spoke to the wisdom or family planning, taking into consideration such things as whether or not one is healthy enough to have and raise a large family, whether one can afford unlimited children (cost of raising a child and putting them through college is, for the sake of argument, $350k - Cost of Raising Kids Table: Family & College - MSN Money ). whether one desires to have children, etc.

I would think that baby making is largely the goal, but would also understand mature people of goodwill discerning just how far the baby-making vs. quality of life balance goes.

So here you argue that the "need' to produce bodies for spirits is important but should be balanced by other things - like quality of life - but if you choose some factor of life quality over baby making, you should do so without the use of birth control?

If that is your point, what is your evidence or reasoning that birth control is bad?

[Suzie]

Pets don't live as long as human children do, so there's a chance that when the pet dies he/she will eventually be replaced by a new one. And even though the message of neutering and spaying pets is drilled into pet owners, there are still many animals in shelters without homes. Adopting pets is a good thing.

M.

Yes, adopting pets is a good thing but using them as a replacement for children because they dont talk back, you don't have to change their diapers or take them to school is not a good thing (again, taking into consideration they're members of the church who understand the plan of salvation and the purpose of families).

[Maureen]

Yes, adopting pets is a good thing but using them as a replacement for children...

How do you know that these supposed LDS are adopting them as replacements? Maybe they want a pet, maybe they are not ready for children yet. There could be many reasons - who are we to judge others on if they have children, when they have them or how many they have?

[Suzie]

How do you know that these supposed LDS are adopting them as replacements? Maybe they want a pet

That's why I mentioned the reasons why some people have a dog over a child. I am aware that not everyone gets a pet for the same reasons.

who are we to judge others on if they have children, when they have them or how many they have?

I miss your point. What judging has to do with anything? We're merely pointing out a commandment, we discussed the reasons why someone cannot/should not have a child, etc and at the end we're discussing the fact that those who do not have health issues, who understand the plan of salvation and that by choice decide not to have children are going against God's will. That's not my opinion or conclusion or being judgmental, it's a fact.

[Maureen]

I guess what I'm getting at is, how do you know which couples are not having children for selfish reasons verses those not having children for acceptable reasons? Do couples in your ward who are childless wear signs that explain their family situation? Do they announce to everyone "we're not having kids because we're getting a dog instead". If it's a personal choice then why do other people find it necessary to point out the fact that these couples are being rebellious and selfish. Unless maybe because you are just exercising your right to judge others because after all, that is a choice too.

M.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Maureen

[Suzie]

I don't know, why would I know? I don't go around asking couples why they have/don't have children. The point I was making of children being replaced by dogs was an example I heard in General Conference by Elder Oaks but I suppose you see him as "judging" as well?:

The gap between those who are and those who are not willing to do this is widening in today’s world. One of our family members recently overheard a young couple on an airline flight explaining that they chose to have a dog instead of children. “Dogs are less trouble,” they declared. “Dogs don’t talk back, and we never have to ground them.”

We rejoice that so many Latter-day Saint couples are among that unselfish group who are willing to surrender their personal priorities and serve the Lord by bearing and rearing the children our Heavenly Father sends to their care.

Unselfish Service

Edited February 10, 2010 by Suzie

[HEthePrimate]

If God is all-powerful, he could theoretically render the birth control ineffective, no? (Like break the condom, or what not.) Also, free agency is part of God's plan, and birth control gives people more agency...

HEP

[Suzie]

If God is all powerful he will stop people from killing...

If God is all powerful he will make drugs disappear...

If God is all powerful he will.....

The reasoning doesn't hold.

[Generally_Me]

There are definitely people out there who choose to have dogs instead of children, but how do you know that they are LDS? Sure, some may be. But when you take out the number who choose not to have kids, or not have a tribe's worth, for medical, fiscal or spiritual reasons, that number has to be incredibly small compared to the rest of the world.

[CornMuffinsMama]

At times I feel conflicted on this issue because I do believe that when you are married you are to be fruitful and multiply. But then the question is if you are multiplying far beyond what you can handle (such as the Duggers?). Would it be when you start to see the older children basically raising the younger ones? As parents you have to be able to handle the load. Sure the older kids help out but they also need to live life as a teenager without having an unusual load of parenting responsibilities when they are not the parent.

I have to agree with what you say regarding “talking ourselves small.” We have far less children today then our parents did. Our priorities on where we spend our money no longer falls more on our home/children/family… it is now a priority that we take those vacations, buy a new SUV, and send our children to the latest most expensive summer camps. Gee summer camp for me was digging up worms in the back yard for hours LOL!

We are quick to use birth control in this society. I do however feel that exceptions do apply for the use of birth control such as having an illness that could become worse if you go through a pregnancy, or mental health reasons. I think it’s a shame when a young married couple who should be starting a family doesn’t because they are so hung up on their vacations and careers that they forget one of the reasons for getting married... and that is to start their family.

I’ve never taking birth control just because I didn’t have a reason to BUT if I had to for some reason I would.

I guess what I'm getting at is, how do you know which couples are not having children for selfish reasons verses those not having children for acceptable reasons? Do couples in your ward who are childless wear signs that explain their family situation? Do they announce to everyone "we're not having kids because we're getting a dog instead". If it's a personal choice then why do other people find it necessary to point out the fact that these couples are being rebellious and selfish. Unless maybe because you are just exercising your right to judge others because after all, that is a choice too.

M.

I'm one of those who is on BC out of health related needs. At 3 months post-partum I had to be hospitalized with desires to hurt myself and was diagnosed with Post Partum Depression. I was hospitalized twice in the course of getting my medication adjusted properly. I've finally started the count down to the 6 months after feeling normal when I can start tapering down my dosage to wean off of the antidepressants but being pregnant with PPD and on antidepressants is a bad idea. At 3 months post partum I also got abnormal paps smear and colposcopy results and am still waiting for that to resolve itself (I have a follow up pap on the 16th and hopefully that will show the abnormalities to be resolved). The colposcopy and biopsies showed that the abnormalities were pre-cancerous and those typically revert to normal cells with time. However, pregnancy with abnormal pap results and potential cervical cancer is a very bad idea. I also recently found out that pregnancy induced hypothyroidism that caused my thyroid to almost stop working, which is probably what brought on the PPD (or at least contributed greatly to it, a theory that is corroborated by the fact that as my thyroid levels get better so does my PPD), and I am currently on medication with med levels still being adjusted.

All of these are extremely valid reasons to not bear children at this time. I actually feel that intentionally getting pregnant, or at least not trying to prevent it, would be against God's wishes and commands, as it would be bringing a baby into a circumstance where the baby could be harmed, I could be harmed, both of us could be harmed, I could end up infertile, or all of the above. Once my medical issues are dealt with I will absolutely go off BC but for now I can't. And yet, I wish so much that I could be pregnant right now. I want another baby more than I can even say. But someone who doesn't know me and my situation could look at me and assume that I just get more kitties to replace having pets and that I am not following God's plan and commands. They could be judgemental of me and condemn me for it.

My point is, it can be very dangerous to make assumptions about another's situation and motives in such matters. Judgement should be left to God, He is the one who sees and knows all hearts and circumstances and what is right at the moment for that purpose. To judge such matters of others is to drive wedges into the Church and between our brothers and sisters.

[ferretrunner]

How do you know that these supposed LDS are adopting them as replacements? Maybe they want a pet, maybe they are not ready for children yet. There could be many reasons - who are we to judge others on if they have children, when they have them or how many they have?

Maybe they can't have children.

I think we're assuming that God wants everyone to have children. I'm not so certain that is the case. There are some people who responsibly, for good reasons, choose not to have children or to limit the number of children they have. Perhaps there are different callings for different people. So, there will be people following God's will who don't have children.

God will ensure that the spirits in premortal existence get their chance to be born, whether or not people use birth control.

[HEthePrimate]

Let's try a radical new concept: How about if the decision about how many children to have, if any, be between a husband and wife? Not my business, not your business, certainly not the pope's business, you get the picture...

[prisonchaplain]

1. Another assumption is that there are limited spirits and one couple taking more than their share takes opportunities away from other couples. Short of some evidence, one assumption is equal to another.

Except that, if I'm not mistaken, historically LDS, and indeed Christians and Jews in general, have thought it pleasing to God to have plenty of children. I do see your point--only God knows how many spirits there are, and perhaps the pressure to have lots of children indescriminately was never Gods' thing--always ours. So, help me out here. What I meant to find out by this string is whether or not LDS ever avoided birth control, and whether the attitudes have shifted in the last generation or two. It was not my intention to argue to the nth-degree the need to avoid birth control. Rather, by offering why I thought it might be an issue in LDS thinking, I hoped to hear whether it actually was or not.

2. Your second point might have merit if you assume that God will base his judgement and salvation on things beyond your control - like were you born into the right family. Is that the point you are making?

I had thought it common thinking amongst religious folk that raising children in the nuture and admonition of the LORD was a serious responsiblity, and wow, aren't our kids blessed to be in a faithful household. It's a general way of thinking in evangelical households. Not so with LDS?

3. Another assumption. Certainly we should follow God's instructions but he has given no such instruction - to forgo birth control. While we may choose to follow God, it does not follow that we will follow prisonchaplain's inferences.

So birth control has never been an issue in LDS communities? Members have always been encouraged to simply be wise and prudent? No pressure to "be fruitful and multiply?" I'm not trying to debate birth control here--just to find out if this has been an issue or not?

By way of disclosure, to my knowledge, birth control is not much of an issue in Protestant circles--except that there are a few kinds that are technically abortions, since they destroy egg after conception.

So here you argue that the "need' to produce bodies for spirits is important but should be balanced by other things - like quality of life - but if you choose some factor of life quality over baby making, you should do so without the use of birth control?

If that is your point, what is your evidence or reasoning that birth control is bad?

I'm asking a question. Perhaps my thread has been misunderstood. I offered some suggestions as to why I thought birth control might be an issue amongst LDS, and was hoping to hear, "Yeah..that used to be the thinking, but no more." Or, "No, we've never discouraged birth control--never been an issue." Or, "Your mostly right, but we each make our own choice before God." Instead, I ended in a debate opposing birth control myself--which was never my purpose.

[Suzie]

Folks, we already established that those who have health related issues cannot have children. Nobody is "judging" anyone. The comment of replacing children for dogs is common knowledge in today's world (or are we saying that's a fallacy?) and further brought up by an Apostle. What I am arguing is the point that bearing children (IF you are able to do so and you're healthy to do so) is a COMMANDMENT. Full stop. If anyone disagrees, I would like some debate on that particular point.

So the comment of someone not "wanting" to have any children at all (even though they ARE able to do so) goes against Lord's commandments. Simple as that.

[Suzie]

So, help me out here. What I meant to find out by this string is whether or not LDS ever avoided birth control, and whether the attitudes have shifted in the last generation or two.

There are dozens and dozens of quotes by early leaders condemning any sort of birth control. So yes, it changed in the last few generations.

[Blackmarch]

Let's try a radical new concept: How about if the decision about how many children to have, if any, be between a husband and wife? Not my business, not your business, certainly not the pope's business, you get the picture...

Well I've said its between the Husband, the wife, and God.

we are commanded to have families, but we aren't given any specifics on how many kids.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Suzie]

we are commanded to have families.

That's my whole point from the start.

[marts1]

and I'm planning to get married soon aahhhh :)

[Elgama]

however at present we have a first presidency who have 8 children between the 3 of them - I do not why they have the number of children they do but when the President has 3 children and one of his counsellors 2 we can assume the commandment is to have the children we can, not a football team plus reserves