Should parents put their dating teenage daughters on birth control?

[pam]

This is the official stance that the LDS church has on birth control:

Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife.

Additional Information

God has a plan for the happiness of all who live on the earth, and the birth of children in loving families is central to His plan. The first commandment He gave to Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28). The scriptures declare, “Children are a heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Those who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family. This blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons.

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children.

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.

*bold is mine

[annewandering]

If you teach your kids to not have sex outside marriage then provide them with birth control just in case you are showing a strong lack of faith in them.

Still it has to have some consideration to the childs personality. Some kids are not going to listen. If it is obvious they are not going to listen then you might want to have a talk with them concerning birth control and do what you can to help prevent a child being concieved to a rebellious teen.

[Guest]

I'll have to admit to jumping in here on the end and not reading every single comment. But to the original question, I would say that hormonal birth control is not healthy for women of any age -- the hormones in BC pills are a class 1 carcinogen... not good. Of course, as a (faithful) Catholic I am against all forms of contraception and abortion, as well other life-taking issues, such as the death penalty, suicide, euthanasia, and unjust war. The Catholic Church teaches that every life is sacred, from conception to natural death, and since almost every hormonal birth control has abortifacient properties, we are adamantly against them. But not only that... sex is strictly to be within the confines of the covenant of Holy Marriage. And every sexual act must be open to life (so, no contraception within marriage either!), because that is the whole reason God created sex-- for His creations to be fruitful and multiply. If we are using sex strictly for our own pleasure and not being open to the creation of life, then we are sullying God's plan for sex and interfering with His design.

I honestly would think that the LDS church would have a similar stance on birth control. Because I see the LDS view of marriage as something so holy and sacred that it is part of God's plan for salvation and exaltation. And the family unit was created specifically by God as the proper environment for our spirit brothers and sisters to receive their mortal bodies on Earth. So I would think that the LDS church would have a specific position against birth control and abortion, because they both impede God's plan of salvation in preventing spirit children from gaining mortal bodies, and altering the original command of God for husband and wife to be fruitful and multiply...

So I guess what I'm saying is that I'd be interested to hear 1.) if the LDS church has any official stance on birth control, and 2.) what reasoning the church has for that stance.

Shelly, I'm glad you brought this up!

When I was learning about the LDS Church, it became apparent to me that the doctrine of procreation between LDS and Catholic is almost identical. Of course, there is that difference that centers on pre-mortal existence...

This pre-mortal existence difference is what separates LDS from Catholic on the point of contraception, abortion, sex altogether. In LDS doctrine, the intelligence (spirit) is not created with the body. It has always existed in pre-mortal life. This spirit joins the body sometime between conception and birth.

Okay, LDS and Catholic believe in this same concept included in Pam's post above:

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

Catholics do birth control using the "rhythm" or natural means. They know consciously that they are engaging in the act for pleasure without the plan to have children. Just like the LDS, this act is sacred and provided under the marital ordinance.

But, in LDS, conception is not the beginning of life. Life existed before mortality. Therefore, artificial means of contraception and its abortificent properties do not reduce the sacredness of the sexual relationship.

When it comes to rape, incest, etc., the same principle of pre-mortal existence allows an LDS woman the choice under the influence of the Holy Ghost through her bishop to abort the fetus as the sanctity of the act is already sullied. From what I understand, a lot of LDS women in these situations don't go through abortion.

Does this make sense?

[lizzy16]

My mom tried to put me on birth control. I was really P.O'd to say the least.

"I trust you. I don't trust him. And, sometimes things just happen. Hormones take over." ect. My mom and I have always had a great relationship. But I was upset at the fact she assumed i'd make the same mistakes she did. I hoped she had trusted me enough to know my values and if I decided to do something I'd make sure to handle it in a safe way. She knows I've never even swallowed a pill before. (" You'll just have to suck it up liz. I think this is a good idea for you.). I informed her very clearly nothing was happening, not to worry ect. And, nothing did. And then right before I came out to BYU-Idaho she again brought it up. It makes me angry. But, I understand why shes concerned, she was a teen parent. And, while she loves my brother, she doesn't want that for me.

Being put on birth control is a cop out. It's a 'I'll be safe to have sex now." And, for everyone who assumes girls aren't thinking that...we so are. Like, the second my mom suggested birth control it was a tempting idea because I knew I'd be safe. But, if I started taking pills I'd be less careful to avoid situations. Its almost like a temptation.

However, for those who know there kids are sexually active, and are having sex repeatedly and plan to in the future. It's a good idea.

[marshac]

If you teach your kids to not have sex outside marriage then provide them with birth control just in case you are showing a strong lack of faith in them.

Still it has to have some consideration to the childs personality. Some kids are not going to listen. If it is obvious they are not going to listen then you might want to have a talk with them concerning birth control and do what you can to help prevent a child being concieved to a rebellious teen.

I'm not sure it's a lack of faith, but rather an acknowledgement of fallibility. People screw up, even those with good intentions. My roommate back in college was engaged to a LDS girl (he was not LDS)... figuring that they were going to be getting married, well... i'll leave it at that. Eventually they broke up and she was left with her mistake.... at least she wasn't also left with a kid. I suppose if a parent and child REALLY REALLY had some sort of brutally honest relationship they would know what was truly going on in their kid's lives. Given that most parents are squeamish about talking to their kids about sex, and it seems as though LDS parents are especially so- sure, the word "sex" enters conversation as in "Sex between a husband and wife..." etc, but it ends there- that's not the same as TALKING about it.... so unless you talk and KNOW what your kids are doing (and thinking!!- it's thoughts that lead to actions), it might be worth ensuring that teen kids know how to at least prevent pregnancy and make the necessary resources available.

If everyone was perfect, LDS adoption services would have far fewer cases.

From a medical legal perspective though- it's not the parent's place to "put" their teen child on birth control. Reproductive rights of minors are outside the purview of parents in most states- meaning that decisions are made by the minor- not the parent. So if they want birth control or to have a kid of their own, there is nothing you can do, and no way you can know unless the minor authorizes their physician to tell you. Bottom line is that you as a parent can't force the kid to take (or not to take) birth control.

[Shelly200]

Shelly, I'm glad you brought this up!

When I was learning about the LDS Church, it became apparent to me that the doctrine of procreation between LDS and Catholic is almost identical. Of course, there is that difference that centers on pre-mortal existence...

This pre-mortal existence difference is what separates LDS from Catholic on the point of contraception, abortion, sex altogether. In LDS doctrine, the intelligence (spirit) is not created with the body. It has always existed in pre-mortal life. This spirit joins the body sometime between conception and birth.

Okay, LDS and Catholic believe in this same concept included in Pam's post above:

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

Catholics do birth control using the "rhythm" or natural means. They know consciously that they are engaging in the act for pleasure without the plan to have children. Just like the LDS, this act is sacred and provided under the marital ordinance.

But, in LDS, conception is not the beginning of life. Life existed before mortality. Therefore, artificial means of contraception and its abortificent properties do not reduce the sacredness of the sexual relationship.

When it comes to rape, incest, etc., the same principle of pre-mortal existence allows an LDS woman the choice under the influence of the Holy Ghost through her bishop to abort the fetus as the sanctity of the act is already sullied. From what I understand, a lot of LDS women in these situations don't go through abortion.

Does this make sense?

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?

[Blackmarch]

What if they don't have to, but they want to?

-RM

then it should come out of her pocket, if she can't cover it by herself i'm fine with some sort of agreement between the parents and hte daughter, but the daughter needs to take some level of responsibility in this matter.

[Bini]

then it should come out of her pocket, if she can't cover it by herself i'm fine with some sort of agreement between the parents and hte daughter, but the daughter needs to take some level of responsibility in this matter.

I know that in Utah, minors can obtain contraceptives at a clinic without parental notification or consent. I'm not sure how many teens are proactive about doing this but safe sex methods are easily accessible to them at no cost. The morning after pill was also available and I don't recall it costing anything. This of course, was about ten years ago.

[Backroads]

I know that in Utah, minors can obtain contraceptives at a clinic without parental notification or consent. I'm not sure how many teens are proactive about doing this but safe sex methods are easily accessible to them at no cost. The morning after pill was also available and I don't recall it costing anything. This of course, was about ten years ago.

What does bug me is when the knowledge of all these clinic freebies becomes a little too wide-spread. I will admit Planned Parenthood and its ilk do a lot of good in providing help for low-income women, but now all these girls perfectly capable of affording such things sneak in because, hey, it's one less thing to be responsible about.

[Klein_Helmer]

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?

I favor mandatory sterilization. I believe there should be a strict physical, financial, educational, emotional, and psychological criteria used to determine whether or not one is fit for parenthood.

In my mind, there is no higher endeavor than the cultivation of life (particularly human life). It is a sacred duty, best left in the hands of the qualified.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Klein_Helmer

[beefche]

Huh? You mean sterilize all teens?

[Klein_Helmer]

Huh? You mean sterilize all teens?

My vision is one in which human beings' reproductive lives are strictly regulated, with medical safeguards.

Prospective parents would be subject to a meticulous screening process. In the event that they are deemed fit, their child would be reversibly sterilized at birth.

Should this child grow into a fit parent, the procedure would be reversed.

Such a system would put an end to abortion, children being born to unfit parents, and the vicious cycle of poverty induced criminality.

Nearly all of society's ills would be cured - fast.

Of course, the handing over of this absolute power regarding citizens' reproductive rights would be a terrifying thought to most, and we will almost certainly never see such a policy implemented.

[Guest]

That sounds like a horrifying science-fiction dystopian novel. It also shows how little you know about how much the reproductive system can be controlled. You can just sterilize and un-sterilize at will with expectation of any kind of success.

[Klein_Helmer]

That sounds like a horrifying science-fiction dystopian novel. It also shows how little you know about how much the reproductive system can be controlled. You can just sterilize and un-sterilize at will with expectation of any kind of success.

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.

[Klein_Helmer]

I dig your screen name, by the way.

Have you seen the animated version of Return of the King?

I honestly prefer it to the live action rendition. I felt it better captured the overwhelmingly dark hopelessness of the book, which I did not feel was adequately represented in Peter Jackson's film.

[Dravin]

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.

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

[annewandering]

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.

[Guest]

It would be as disastrous as to wipe out the human race. Female sterilization can almost never be reversed. Male sterilization can be occasionally be reversed if done within a certain period of time (I want to say within 5-10 years after vasectomy), and after that it's irreversible. But I would object even if it were medically possible, because it's messing with agency on a level that makes me highly uncomfortable.

I have seen the animated versions, but it was when I was a kid. I'll have to see if I can dig them up somewhere. My main problem with Peter Jackson's movies (which I love and adore) is that neither Eowyn nor Faramir got due credit for the strong, wonderful characters that Tolkein created. To be fair, the extended versions do a better job; but when you're talking about 3-4 hour movies, only true LOTR geeks like me watch the extended versions. :)

[Klein_Helmer]

I am pleased to have generated the beginnings of what I hope will be a lively discussion. For the time being, I must take my leave. I will certainly respond to you all upon my return.

Best,

-Klein

[MarginOfError]

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.

Suppose we were to put this program into the hands of people who could justly implement it. These would clearly be people of sound judgment and great wisdom. Such people would never, ever act in the manner you are describing.

That sounds like a horrifying science-fiction dystopian novel. It also shows how little you know about how much the reproductive system can be controlled. You can just sterilize and un-sterilize at will with expectation of any kind of success.

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.

I am fairly well versed in these medical procedures. Doing them at birth is problematic because the reproductive organs don't fully develop until puberty. To attempt a sterilization procedure at birth would likely result in irreversible sterilization.

Attempting a reversible procedure during puberty might be less risky, but equally stupid. Sterilization procedures are not highly recommended in developing reproductive systems and we have no idea what impact it would have on the emotional, psychological, or physical development of the adolescents.

[Bini]

Klein, interesting train of thought but I disagree.

How would this "meticulous screening" be carried out? Where would the line between who is fit to be a parent and who is not fit to be a parent be drawn? I'm sure such a process wouldn't stop at one's emotional stability or psychological evaluation but it would extend to physical characteristics and attributes as well. All of that is headed into dark waters, if you ask me. It wouldn't take long for someone or a group with all that power to create a list of ideals that everyone should fit, no exceptions.

[Guest]

Since we're on page8, is it okay to mention breeding in Nazi Germany?

[annewandering]

Since we're on page8, is it okay to mention breeding in Nazi Germany?

For once it is very pertinent to the subject. This is something they were very interested in and it is one of the big reasons for why we have to be very glad they werent able to continue with their programs.

During the 1920's or so there was a big push to eugenics where everyone born would be free of physical and mental defects and of course would be the right color.

If this were done in reality we would end up with a very homogeneous species. We have already found that this is not a good thing in plants and animals. Why would we want to do it to ourselves?

[cwald]

For once it is very pertinent to the subject. This is something they were very interested in and it is one of the big reasons for why we have to be very glad they werent able to continue with their programs.

During the 1920's or so there was a big push to eugenics where everyone born would be free of physical and mental defects and of course would be the right color.

If this were done in reality we would end up with a very homogeneous species. We have already found that this is not a good thing in plants and animals. Why would we want to do it to ourselves?

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.

[Shelly200]

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.