[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

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?

A lot of our grandparents or great grandparents had children in their teens. It wasn't at all unusual not that long ago.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Sean

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

We know a young lady who had a baby at 14. Her parents adopted her son but she does the majority of caring for him and they plan to tell him that she is his mother. She is an amazing young woman. Her family stood beside her, helped her to decide what would be best for her son, supported her at every turn, and all of us who know her have had the joy of watching her grow into a strong and beautiful young Christian woman.

Anyone who has sex outside marriage is irresponsible, it makes no different what age they are.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

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?

We don't know how old Mary was... some say 13, but I honestly have my doubts... the bible never mentions it...

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

We don't know how old Mary was... some say 13, but I honestly have my doubts... the bible never mentions it...

We don't know how old Mary was but we do know that less than 100 years ago women married at a much younger age and it was not unusual for them to be mothers while teenagers. I'm not trying to say that it was a good thing or we should go back to that, but the idea of when a girl becomes a woman has changed a lot over the years.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

We don't know how old Mary was but we do know that less than 100 years ago women married at a much younger age and it was not unusual for them to be mothers while teenagers. I'm not trying to say that it was a good thing or we should go back to that, but the idea of when a girl becomes a woman has changed a lot over the years.

I'd say people mature a lot slower now because we coddle them... My parents never coddled me... I matured faster than the people around me because my parents taught me responsibility... it may not show on this website (I'm a completely different person here) but believe me it happened...

[redbaron]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

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.

whether or not they are blessed because of their parents sacrifice is something that depends a lot on the situation and people involved doesn't it?

Even though it's not politically correct to say so, the fact of the matter is, children do best when they have a mommy and a daddy. It's one thing to have parents split up when they're adults for whatever reason. It's another thing to tell a 13 year old that they should raise the kid rather than letting someone who can give the child a better, healthier life.

In my opinion, a barely pubescent child is not capable to raise a child, nor should they be. Frankly, it strikes me as nothing more than selfishness.

As for the argument of people in previous era's having children younger, maybe you're right. Perhaps we should not have girls attend school so that they can learn home-making and child rearing, and go back to a 45 year lifespan as well.




cliffs:

13 year old should give child up to loving family who can't have their own kids. This blesses the adoptive parents because they can't have their own children, and blesses the child by giving it two parents.

The biological parents can take solace in the fact that they did what was best for their child even though they made a mistake.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by redbaron

Even though it's not politically correct to say so, the fact of the matter is, children do best when they have a mommy and a daddy. It's one thing to have parents split up when they're adults for whatever reason. It's another thing to tell a 13 year old that they should raise the kid rather than letting someone who can give the child a better, healthier life.

In my opinion, a barely pubescent child is not capable to raise a child, nor should they be. Frankly, it strikes me as nothing more than selfishness.

.

It may be your opinion that a 13 year old is not capable to raise a child, but history proves you wrong. A couple generations ago most young women were married at not much older than 13 and they had children quite young and did a very good job of raising them. I would even say they did a much better job raising them than the majority of women today.

Selfish for a young woman to take responsibility for her actions and love and care for her child? You have a strange idea of what is selfish. I guess following your train of thought, every couple out there who doesn't have much should give up their children to richer parents who can give them more. After all, it would be selfish to deny a child everything a rich family can give them. That kind of logic is very flawed.


So should a woman whose husband dies when the children are young give them up so they can have a "better, healthier life"? Should a woman who adopted a young girl's child turn around and give it to someone else if her husband dies? This is where what you propose leads. Of course the best situation is for a child to be raised in a loving, mom and dad home, but life doesn't promise us the best and its amazing what one can do if they decide to take responsiblity and do it.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

I'd say people mature a lot slower now because we coddle them... My parents never coddled me... I matured faster than the people around me because my parents taught me responsibility... it may not show on this website (I'm a completely different person here) but believe me it happened...

In many ways I agree with you. I work at the high school and I am shocked at what is allowed to go on and the excuses made for some of these kids behavior.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It may be your opinion that a 13 year old is not capable to raise a child, but history proves you wrong.

Well, I don't think that age per se, has a great deal to do with it. It's the society that's changed. You don't have to go back that many generations before you find the concept of the "teenager" to be nonexistant. The word itself wasn't even around before the early 1950s. Since then a "youth culture" has developed. Children are different today because their environment is different, the culture they're brought up in is different.

Nowadays people are living longer than they ever have (excluding those ancient biblical guys), people are getting married later and later than they ever have, and people are coming into adulthood later. In this case looking to history won't necessarily provide us accurate cues. But of course, with such a strong support system as you describe it isn't impossible. I just don't think redbaron is off base here.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I believe the strongest argument against birth control is the fact that God clearly tells us that children are blessings and gifts that He gives. It seems to me that one should want God's blessings and gifts, not take an active part to try to prevent them. God is far wiser than us and I am absolutely sure that He knows better than us when we are "ready" for a child. None of us knows what tomorrow holds. All our "preparation" and "readiness" could go out the window overnight. Trust God instead of man is the best advice I can give about this issue.

God also tells us to be good stewards, and to manage our finances wisely. So you recommend no believers get married until they are financially able to introduce a new child into their home every nine months, correct? Which I don't necessarily disagree with, though not every blessing is meant for every person. Children are blessings, but so is a life of celibacy. I don't see why two married Christians can't forego the blessings of children any more than two dating Christians can decide to forego the blessings of celibacy and get married.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It may be your opinion that a 13 year old is not capable to raise a child, but history proves you wrong. A couple generations ago most young women were married at not much older than 13 and they had children quite young and did a very good job of raising them. I would even say they did a much better job raising them than the majority of women today.

Selfish for a young woman to take responsibility for her actions and love and care for her child? You have a strange idea of what is selfish. I guess following your train of thought, every couple out there who doesn't have much should give up their children to richer parents who can give them more. After all, it would be selfish to deny a child everything a rich family can give them. That kind of logic is very flawed.


So should a woman whose husband dies when the children are young give them up so they can have a "better, healthier life"? Should a woman who adopted a young girl's child turn around and give it to someone else if her husband dies? This is where what you propose leads. Of course the best situation is for a child to be raised in a loving, mom and dad home, but life doesn't promise us the best and its amazing what one can do if they decide to take responsiblity and do it.

actually, a few generations ago, a 13 year old girl was not having periods yet... The age of sexual maturity has been lowering. There are quite a few studies on this if you are interested or had forgotten. Furthermore, my grandmother was scandalous in backwoods appalachia getting married at 16. And she did quite a technically horrible job of being a mother the first few years by all accounts. She was not ready by her own estimation. And she was as least coddled as anyone living that I can think of. The hardscrabble daughter of a drunken stonemason and an irish washingwoman in backwoods appalachia is not a very coddling situation.

God never promises to care for all his children in the ways you claim. Or else, no faithful servants of God have lost children to drought and poverty in Sudan. That is a form of health and wealth philosophy fundamentally because all God's faithful servants do not have their physical needs met. Not even some of the most faithful.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

God also tells us to be good stewards, and to manage our finances wisely. So you recommend no believers get married until they are financially able to introduce a new child into their home every nine months, correct? Which I don't necessarily disagree with, though not every blessing is meant for every person. Children are blessings, but so is a life of celibacy. I don't see why two married Christians can't forego the blessings of children any more than two dating Christians can decide to forego the blessings of celibacy and get married.

I have good friends who have 10 children and none of them are 9 months apart. The average is about 1 1/2 years. Most people I know who never used birth control have on average 4 children. Women simply don't get pregnant every time they have sex.

I don't think anyone should get married until they are able to accept all the responsiblities that come with marriage. God designed sex to be a part of marriage and He designed sex to be the means of procreation. Therefore it seems logical to me that God designed marriage, in part, to lead to children. I'm not saying everyone has to have children, but it does seem that that was part of God's plan for marriage.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Well, I don't think that age per se, has a great deal to do with it. It's the society that's changed. You don't have to go back that many generations before you find the concept of the "teenager" to be nonexistant. The word itself wasn't even around before the early 1950s. Since then a "youth culture" has developed. Children are different today because their environment is different, the culture they're brought up in is different.

Nowadays people are living longer than they ever have (excluding those ancient biblical guys), people are getting married later and later than they ever have, and people are coming into adulthood later. In this case looking to history won't necessarily provide us accurate cues. But of course, with such a strong support system as you describe it isn't impossible. I just don't think redbaron is off base here.

I don't think its age per se either, which is why I disagreed with the post that stated that a 13 year old could not be a good mom. It will certainly be more difficult, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

[nix]

I went on the pill about 3 months before getting married. I went off it in May last year because I had put on so much weight so quickly. I changed the pill only once because the first one made the chest area very painful for 3 weeks solid, the second pill I had no problems except for the weight gain. It was easier to remember to take the pill around my bed time.

I'm no off it and we use condoms. You get used to them and there are some great cons to them, but I won't go into detail.

We have been married for almost 2 years and we won't be having kids for at least another year.

[domnastics]

Thank you very much for the responses, they are very helpful in determining what to think about and how to go about it. This is going to help me in knowing what to think about each option.

*Weird point: the two previous posts were exactly 24 hours apart.*