[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I strongly reccomend talking to your physician, but having sex at a time of the month where your wife is unlikely to get pregnant, such as the rythymn method exploits the same natural functionality as the pill provides. It has no higher moral ground than the pill's 3rd function.
.

I know this is a sensitive subject for you, and I'm not trying to be thoughless or uncaring, but the two are not the same. In one case no pregnancy occurs and no child is lost. In the second a pregnancy does occur and the child dies because the pill made it very unlikely implantation can occur.I don't see how the two compare morally.

I'm truly sorry for your situation and I can't imagine the stuggle of figuring out what to do, I just can't say that the pill is ok because for some it is medically necessary for other things.

[Ax]

What If I told you that my girlfriend and I have decided that we're not gonna have kids when we get married?

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

What If I told you that my girlfriend and I have decided that we're not gonna have kids when we get married?

in your case I'd say it's a good thing, we needed a way to weed you out the gene pool

[Ax]

Originally Posted by thesteve

in your case I'd say it's a good thing, we needed a way to weed you out the gene pool

I'm living proof that natural selection never happened...

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I know this is a sensitive subject for you, and I'm not trying to be thoughless or uncaring, but the two are not the same. In one case no pregnancy occurs and no child is lost. In the second a pregnancy does occur and the child dies because the pill made it very unlikely implantation can occur.I don't see how the two compare morally.

Not exactly true. An egg can be present and fertilized when the uterine lining is hostile to implantation. In a real sense, thats one of the reasons the rythymn method works as well as it does. The reason it is not 100% is that the body can fool you or behave somewhat eratically. In that case, the EXACT same scenario as the pill occurs. A fertilized egg is not implanted. At that point if we take your point of view as correct. How would it be justifiable to have sex with your wife if she had a near certainty of miscarriage? (divine overides give the near to this situation) I ask because if the situation is wrong, its wrong in both, you can't say one is wrong and one is not.

I'm truly sorry for your situation and I can't imagine the stuggle of figuring out what to do, I just can't say that the pill is ok because for some it is medically necessary for other things.

But... if we take this argument past where most people take it and apply it to where I live, it really, really breaks down.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Children are a blessing from God, they are not a problem or a mistake or an inconvenience, etc. Of course the main thing that matters to me is what God tells us about children. Are we not to trust God that He will not bless us with more than we, with His help, can handle? A couple has 9 months to learn to be responsible. Being responsible is in great part a choice we make. As to financial stablility, you have no promise of tomorrow and in a day you can go from stable, to having nothing. I also know this far better than you, I would guess. I went from "stable/prepared" to barely paying the bills and having to accept groceries each week from a dear friend. Our car was totaled (the person who totaled it had no insurance and I didn't get a penny) and I was clueless as to how I could possibly afford to get another one, and God gave us a car through a friend (in fact, when that one was on its last legs, God even gave us another one) It was a very humbling experience and an amazing blessing. Not once in 6 1/2 years have we gone hungry, not once have I not paid a bill, not once has something broken that God has not provided a means to fix it, etc.. I am not saying that it's a good thing to not have the means to provide for your family, but I am saying that God has promised us He will provide and He does. Children really need suprisingly little to be happy and well cared for.

Yes, children are a huge responsibility and expensive. Yes, we should be concerned with earning a living, paying our bills, making responsible decisions, etc. I just don't see how trusting God makes us less responsilbe than trusting ourselves.

I don't see how it is the logical conclusion that a 13 should not give up her baby since children are blessings. The logical conclusion, as I see it, is that the baby is a blessing and the young lady is taking care to see that her baby is provided for. I can't answer as to how this will work for good for the young woman, but God tells us that all things work together for good for those who love Him. God adopted us, so apparently God thinks adoption is a good thing.

Why the change of heart with a 13 year old?

* Is this child less of a blessing to her?
* Did God bless her with more than she can handle?
* Doesn't she have 9 months to learn responsibility?
* Has God not promised to provide for her?
* Will God not provide for her like He has provided for you?
* Isn't she trusting herself more than God by deciding to give away her blessing?

My point in all of this is that if your main argument is that children are a blessing and therefore we shouldn't do anything to prevent having them, then I don't see how you could support a parent giving their child up for adoption.

[nate95366]

As for the morality of "the pill," from my POV the BSPE's argument is a strong one.

Nate

[redbaron]

Like Bill said, the pill simply expoits the same process. the only difference is that it's not "natural" and it's more reliable.

If you're serious about it, you won't employ natural family planning, or the rythm method, or all the other various methods to prevent conception either. And like Mrs. Sean said, newlyweds tend to engage in activities with a frequency that make the probabilities (of hitting the pregnancy lottery) very likely.

Out of all the newlyweds I know who chose to do natural family planning and or no preventative steps, they've all had kids within the first two years of marraige. obviously, that is completely anecdotal, and my sampling pool may not be large enough to reflect accurately on the populace. Still.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Sean

Why the change of heart with a 13 year old?

* Is this child less of a blessing to her?
* Did God bless her with more than she can handle?
* Doesn't she have 9 months to learn responsibility?
* Has God not promised to provide for her?
* Will God not provide for her like He has provided for you?
* Isn't she trusting herself more than God by deciding to give away her blessing?

My point in all of this is that if your main argument is that children are a blessing and therefore we shouldn't do anything to prevent having them, then I don't see how you could support a parent giving their child up for adoption.

I didn't say she should give the baby up for adoption. I said I don't see it as her not considering the baby a blessing if she decides to give the baby up for adoption. I think the best thing is for her to keep the baby and for the CHristian community around her to support her in every way. However, we all know that the Christian community doesn't always do what is right. I believe that God will take care of her and the baby if she keeps the baby, but I also understand that there are times when adoption is a loving sacrifice on the part of a woman. Yes, she would be passing her blessing on to others, but that doesn't make the baby any less a blessing.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Not exactly true. An egg can be present and fertilized when the uterine lining is hostile to implantation. In a real sense, thats one of the reasons the rythymn method works as well as it does. The reason it is not 100% is that the body can fool you or behave somewhat eratically. In that case, the EXACT same scenario as the pill occurs. A fertilized egg is not implanted. At that point if we take your point of view as correct. How would it be justifiable to have sex with your wife if she had a near certainty of miscarriage? (divine overides give the near to this situation) I ask because if the situation is wrong, its wrong in both, you can't say one is wrong and one is not.



But... if we take this argument past where most people take it and apply it to where I live, it really, really breaks down.

Yes, it happens naturally, but I still don't see how you can say its the exact same thing. In the case of the pill you are putting something in to your body that is designed to make the uterine lining hostile to implantation. You are taking an active roll in making this happen. If we follow your argument to the final conclusion, then abortion is never wrong because babies die during all stages of pregnancy, so you would be doing nothing different than what nature does. I can't see how you can reconcile that it is ok to kill the baby right after conception and its ok because it happens in nature, but then not feel it is ok to kill the baby any time during the pregnancy because babies die at all stages of development in nature. I would find it hard to hold your position and ever say that abortion is wrong.

[redbaron]

You think she should keep it?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to respectfuly disagree vehemently.

A 13 year old is a child.
Children do not make good parents.

Aside from that, how does the child get blessed? Certainly not by having a mother and a father who are married, since at 13 I don't even know if you can marry with parental consent.

How about education, are we going to suggest that having no way to finish going to at least highschool (so that you can properly provide for your children, once you're an adult) is a good decision?

Oh, are we supposed to get grandma & grandpa to raise the kid instead?

I think the best thing for the BABY, may not be the best thing for the CHILD who decided to go out and have a baby before they were ready.

The best thing for the baby, is to be adopted by a mother & a father who will love it, raise it in a godly environment, and give it two parents. Adoptions don't HAVE to be closed either, you can pick the family very carefully, and the girl could stay in touch as much as she wanted (just not as "mom").

The blessing to the 13 year old may not be the child itself. It may be blessing a childless couple. Does that make up for the initial sin? Are we justifying the means with the end at that point? Or are we making the best of a bad situation. Is that any different?

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by redbaron

You think she should keep it?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to respectfuly disagree vehemently.

A 13 year old is a child.
Children do not make good parents.

Aside from that, how does the child get blessed? Certainly not by having a mother and a father who are married, since at 13 I don't even know if you can marry with parental consent.

How about education, are we going to suggest that having no way to finish going to at least highschool (so that you can properly provide for your children, once you're an adult) is a good decision?

Oh, are we supposed to get grandma & grandpa to raise the kid instead?

I think the best thing for the BABY, may not be the best thing for the CHILD who decided to go out and have a baby before they were ready.

The best thing for the baby, is to be adopted by a mother & a father who will love it, raise it in a godly environment, and give it two parents. Adoptions don't HAVE to be closed either, you can pick the family very carefully, and the girl could stay in touch as much as she wanted (just not as "mom").

The blessing to the 13 year old may not be the child itself. It may be blessing a childless couple. Does that make up for the initial sin? Are we justifying the means with the end at that point? Or are we making the best of a bad situation. Is that any different?

Do we raise children in a vacuum? What do you think used to happen 100 years ago? Young women had babies and families banded together to help in raising them. No, its not the best situation for a single teenager to have a baby, but its wrong to assume that because a girl is young she cannot learn to be responsible and raise her child. I know several young ladies who had children before they were 15, kept them or the parents did, and they are doing a great job. Young women can make excellent parents, they may just need a little extra support to do so. What on earth is wrong with grandparents helping to raise a grandchild? SInce when does family just mean mom/dad/ and child?


You don't think a child is blessed when they have a parent who sacrificed to raise them? I certainly do. Young women who have children can finish school, it happens all the time. I know in our school system they have an alternative school that has a daycare right next door. Child care is free and they teach the moms and dads how to care for their babies. They help the dads find jobs, they help them get medical care, they help them apply for WIC or whatever other aid they need, etc. Just because something is a challenge doesn't mean it can't be done. It will take a lot of prayer, a lot of support, a lot of making mistakes and learning from them, but there is no reason a young woman cannot make a good mom.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Young women can make excellent parents, they may just need a little extra support to do so.

An irresponsible 13 year old girl having sex is not a woman...not even a young woman.

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by Sean

An irresponsible 13 year old girl having sex is not a woman...not even a young woman.

In today's world, in America, I would agree with you about most 13 year olds. However how old was Mary when she had Jesus? At what age did women have children in generations past?

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Sean

An irresponsible 13 year old girl having sex is not a woman...not even a young woman.

So I guess you would also say that an irresponsible 20 year old who is not married and has sex and gets pregnant is not a woman?