Should parents put their dating teenage daughters on birth control?

[Guest]

I don't really know what you're talking about cwald, but that's not really new. It's just that the whole "population control, I'm above you all, post as I say and I might honor you with a response" bit has me a little squicked out.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Eowyn

[Klein_Helmer]

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. :)

I see reproductive, "agency", as a disastrous liability in human civilization. I have always believed that more than as set of functional genitals should be required for one to take responsibility for a human life.

[Guest]

Yup. Creepy.

[Klein_Helmer]

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.

How have you come to this conclusion?

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.

Fair enough.

I will readily admit I have contemplated the idea more in theoretical terms than I have its practical implementation.

It would seem that the procedure would be better performed when an individual reaches sexual maturity.

There would of course be a massive amount of government research and development to make the practice as safe as possible.

[Hala401]

On the farm where I grew up, there just was not the oportunity, and I deathly feared my stepfather who I thought my actually kill me. It was very different times.

Now days there is very suggestive TV (this when it could have been an educational tool), video games with women represented as lust crazed objects, inattentive, self absorbed, materialistic parents, and we are surrounded by scoffers.

Though I find birth control for teens personally abhorent, I am not going to criticise any parent that uses it on their children. I do think that the parents and the child will lose Heavenly Fathers best blessings.

[Klein_Helmer]

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.

I do not claim to know where the line is. I do however firmly believe that it exists.

I would hope its discovery and enforcement could be carried out by those far wiser than I.

There are of course dangers associated with such a program - but I would readily face any of them for the chance at a safer, happier, more prosperous world.

[Leah]

Yup. Creepy.

The question is.....'just' creepy...or a creepy troll...hmmm.....

[Guest]

Seems like it is troll season. Do they come out with the crocus?

[Soulsearcher]

Being we have liberals chiming in I figure I might as well join in.

I've often thought about something like Helmer is suggesting. I'd love to see a way of screening parents. As long as they pass a psychological screening then let them have kids, but i also know it's nothing but a dream. Who would set the criteria, who would manage the selection process. In an ideal world it wouldn't have to come to this because everyone wanting to procreate would be nice well adjusted individuals Yet the same reasons that make it an imperfect world make it impossible to have any kind of selection process that would work. We don't like what we have, but we'd like the alternative less i think.

As for the birth control for a teen daughter, it would depend on the situation. If after a discussion it was deemed as a strong consideration then yes I'd provide it. There is always the chance it might lead to sex or more sex, but i've also seen it lead to responsible choices being made and having it as a fail safe. It's up to each parent as it goes and the only thing i can ever say it never assume it's a conversation you'll never need to have with your child and be prepared to handle it well no matter what your position is.

[Klein_Helmer]

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

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

Abraham Lincoln

Beethoven

Mozart

Vincent van Gogh

Sir Isaac Newton

Michelangelo

Leonardo Da Vinci

Aristotle

Theodore Roosevelt

Lewis Carrol

George Frederick Handel

Martin Luther

Tchaikovsky

Socrates

Alexander Graham Bell

Hans christian Andersen

Thomas Edison

Walt Disney

George Patton

Albert Einstein

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

What are you driving at with your first statement?

With regard to your list, I do not believe compiling it can add anything to this discussion. Certainly there have been individuals who have risen to prominence from less than desirable beginnings. They however, are the exception, and not the rule.

My contention is simply that such a program would instantly and dramatically improve nearly every facet of life - not that it would spare potential diamonds in the rough.

[MarginOfError]

How have you come to this conclusion?

Well, for one, there's this:

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (source)

Also, when you study leadership, you learn that great leaders don't make decisions. Great leaders inspire people to make decisions for themselves. Your proposal is the exact opposite of great leadership.

Fair enough.

I will readily admit I have contemplated the idea more in theoretical terms than I have its practical implementation.

It would seem that the procedure would be better performed when an individual reaches sexual maturity.

There would of course be a massive amount of government research and development to make the practice as safe as possible.

Okay, so we sterilize people when they reach sexual maturity. You do realize that people reach sexual maturity in their early twenties, right? Which does absolutely nothing to address the issue of teenage pregnancy.

Edited February 29, 2012 by MarginOfError

[cwald]

Yup. Creepy.

Yeah, I agree, about being creepy.

I was referring to the comments I got here, one from you even, when I first started posted, about complaints that I was accusing people of saying stuff that they didn't actually say. I think the exact complaint from someone was, "don't put words in my mouth or tell me what I believe..."

[MarginOfError]

What are you driving at with your first statement?

With regard to your list, I do not believe compiling it can add anything to this discussion. Certainly there have been individuals who have risen to prominence from less than desirable beginnings. They however, are the exception, and not the rule.

My contention is simply that such a program would instantly and dramatically improve nearly every facet of life - not that it would spare potential diamonds in the rough.

This really ought to be your avatar.

Then you can make this your signature:

"And when everyone's super, no one will be"

[Klein_Helmer]

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

I do not believe this would be the case. There are many, many fit candidates for parenthood. I will concede the point that such a plan would likely result in a population reduction - but by nearly any measure, that would be a good thing.

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

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

I very much doubt you are familiar enough with me, or the other members of this board, for that matter, to make such a statement. I hope you have not been disingenuous with your congratulations, although I suspect this is the case.

Please expand on your notion of, "good", that you imagine would not come from the implementation of the plan being discussed. I would, and have argued that a great deal of good would come from parental licenses, ie, a significant reduction in crime, poverty, etc.

[Klein_Helmer]

Look at the new kid making rules for us.

I am not a kid, and name calling is rather unbecoming.

You will find I do not shy away from the lively exchange of ideas, let us be sure our discourse does not degenerate.

[Bini]

Off topic but Klein, your pic reminds me of Balthier. Could be the hand gesture..

[Klein_Helmer]

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

I am not sure I understand your use of the expression here.

Will you please elaborate?

[MarginOfError]

I do not believe this would be the case. There are many, many fit candidates for parenthood. I will concede the point that such a plan would likely result in a population reduction - but by nearly any measure, that would be a good thing.

My statement has nothing to do with the number of fit parents. But if you sterilize everyone at birth, you've almost certainly damaged their reproductive system irreparably. I suppose you can argue for artificial means, but I think you'll find that even Artificial Reproductive Technology experts would recommend natural methods over artificial methods.

I very much doubt you are familiar enough with me, or the other members of this board, for that matter, to make such a statement. I hope you have not been disingenuous with your congratulations, although I suspect this is the case.

Please expand on your notion of, "good", that you imagine would not come from the implementation of the plan being discussed. I would, and have argued that a great deal of good would come from parental licenses, ie, a significant reduction in crime, poverty, etc.

The "good" that would not come from your plan is the "good" that is developed by people learning to take responsibility for their actions. The concept of saving people from themselves, as you put it, inherently removes from them the opportunity to learn to weigh risk against benefit. Your solution is, in essence, to replace one problem with another.

The world doesn't need more people who don't know how to project the impact of their present decisions into their future.

[cwald]

I was commenting on this sentence you wrote.

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

When I was new here, I was lambasted for supposedly telling people "what they believed" and that I insinuated they said or believed something they didn't say in a post.

So, I agree with you. Folks should not assume what you do or don't believe based on what you may have read, and attack your character, and just let your posts speak for themselves. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Klein_Helmer]

I am not a kid, and name calling is rather unbecoming.

You will find I do not shy away from the lively exchange of ideas, let us be sure our discourse does not degenerate.

Yup. Creepy.

Seems like it is troll season. Do they come out with the crocus?

It would seem my plea for civility either came too late, or fell on deaf ears.

If you care to thoughtfully discuss the matter at hand, I am more than willing to oblige.

I will however not reciprocate this unwarranted discourtesy in kind.

Furthermore, you should consider the fact that you have contributed nothing to the last several pages, save the administration of personal insults, before you accuse anyone else of being a troll.

[Klein_Helmer]

I don't really know what you're talking about cwald, but that's not really new. It's just that the whole "population control, I'm above you all, post as I say and I might honor you with a response" bit has me a little squicked out.

For the record, I never said, or implied, anything remotely resembling this sentiment. I do not appreciate this invention.

[Klein_Helmer]

The question is.....'just' creepy...or a creepy troll...hmmm.....

I hope I am neither.

I can promise you, I am only ever genuine.

[Guest]

Klein, my response to your philosophy is:

1.) There is no organization on the planet that is fit to make the decision of who is and isn't qualified for parenthood. In a process like this, you can't remove the factor of human nature out of the equation. Even in a relatively homogenous group of people like the LDS Church who are supposed to share the same family ideals, with a very set, unbendable process of leadership selection (at least in the first presidency and the 12 apostles), assigning those 15 people the task of parental qualification is not going to give you your desired outcome.

Let's just take temple sealings as an example. Supposedly, temple sealing is the ultimate in marital binding that only the most qualified of members can hope to receive. YET, in that one example of "controlled" selection, you still have many broken homes and miserable children as byproducts of such unions.

In my ward alone, I can name you a bishop, a couple EQ Pres, RS Pres, and a YM Pres, all highly-qualified parents, all sealed in the temple, all with broken homes.

2.) Creating a controlling body to police procreation provides more harm than good. Just to give you an example - Welfare: Controlled by government, provided for with the objective of eradicating poverty in America. Now, we can all agree that the American government is a superior form of government 2nd to none. Yet, over 50 years later, poverty is just as bad. Why? Because, for everything that you hand over to a ruling group, human nature always makes such opportunity a means to keep the ruling group in power over the people.

Power corruption is an integral part to the fabric of our mortal state. Religion - as much good as it provides its members - is a perfect tool to use as a weapon in power wars. Any form of discrimination - anything that makes one person different from the other - is another perfect tool. Hence, wars between colors, cultures, and even the simple fact of bullying in the playground. You give this power to control pro-creative powers to a ruling group, it will become another weapon in power wars. It is easy for me to see how such a tool can be used to provide more manpower to a specific group and deny it from another merely by dis-allowing a group the power to create a new generation. Think of this - right now, there is a higher level of crime/poverty/illiteracy among the black community than the Asian community. A group with the power to dictate who gets to procreate or not can easily use that power to say - hey, I want to wipe out blacks from this planet, here's a convenient excuse - let's not give them the means to procreate. By the way, this is not so far fetched - this is one of the ways England were able to rule the Scots - by decreeing that all newly married Scottish woman have to bed an English first, effectively turning many of the next generation of Scots into English.

3.) Procreation remains an individual choice to build a clan. In the Philippines, for example, your family is your protection, support, and heritage. That's why, in the Philippines, they can survive without welfare programs. They can oust the well-war-equipped Spanish/Japanese/American colonizers with very primitive tools to engage in war. They can successfully live under a no-divorce, no-abortion law. Because, Filipinos are willing to live and die by their families. One of the main problems of American and European societies is the disintegration of the family. Taking away the power of procreation from the people takes away the power of a clan.

[clevermoniker]

Depends on the girl, but for mine- absolutely not. No reason to.

If parents suspect their daughter is sleeping around, putting her on the pill is sending a message loud and clear that "It's OK with us."

I don't believe that's necessarily the message. The message can just as easily be, "We really, really advise against it. What you're doing is morally and spiritually repugnant. If we could force you not to do it, we would. However, since we can't, the least you can do is please make sure you don't get pregnant".

[Vort]

It's just that the whole "population control, I'm above you all, post as I say and I might honor you with a response" bit has me a little squicked out.

For the record, I never said, or implied, anything remotely resembling this sentiment. I do not appreciate this invention.

Of course you did, when you suggested setting yourself (or someone else) up as the external arbiter of reproduction.