Birth control... for your teens?

CoilyFields

Well-Known Member
I just had a conversation yesterday with some moms, all Christian, about putting your teen girls on birth control.

Everyone agreed that they didn't want their teens having sex but we diverged on if we as parents should put them on birth control (or for boys supply condoms).

The issues that came up were that if they are doing it anyway then you are just trying to protect them. Another was that if their were physical consequences (ie a baby or std) that you as a parent would bear a huge part of the solutions (financing the child, insurance etc for health issues/medicine) so why not be preventative?

What do you ladies think?

Unfortunately no matter how much we teach them the word there is no way to have total control over our kids actions (sex in bathrooms at school is more common than I'm comfortable thinking about).

So what would you do? What did your mom do?
 

JaneBond007

New Member
Isn't that the nature of the bible anyway, though? You know what to do. You get full instruction and if you veer off the path, you run into consequences. G-d doesn't give us a vaccination against sin nor a "condom" for just-in-case we rob a bank or something. We have free will. I think the best one can do is to live what they preach. Why put a child on bc or give the condoms for just in case? With life, there are consequences. We can control ourselves. When shame went out the door, everything else came flooding in. I think that some forms of "shame" are healthy.
 

mrselle

Well-Known Member
The only talk my mother gave me was, "Don't do it." Needless to say, that didn't stop me from engaging in premarital sex, but I can't say with certainty that a more in depth talk would have made me wait. I hope that I am able to have candid talks with my girls when the time comes and I hope that they are comfortable enough to come to me. That being said, I think that if someone feels like they are grown enough to engage in the act then they need to be grown enough to pay for protection and anything else that may come about as a result. There is a fine line between having candid conversations and giving the signal that premarital sex is ok. If I am providing birth control then I am sending the signal that it is ok.
 

LiftedUp

Well-Known Member
Not all teens are having sex. I am going to nurture my children in such a way that our expectations of them would be not only known but agreed upon. Additionally, the lines of communication will be very open where we could talk about these things openly.

My mother likes to say that these things were happening before her time, during her time and after her time. We need to stop acting like this is something new.
 

Belle Du Jour

Well-Known Member
I think it's shameful that the church has started bowing to the world's standards. (I'm not even going to go there about why contraception doesn't belong in ANY christian marriage.) But we have effectively sold ourselves short and have come to believe that it's impossible to not have sex. This mentality has even invaded the church. Teach children that it is possible to wait. Teach children that they can hold themselves to a higher standard than what the world expects. Teach children about the Theology of the Body and that sex is beautiful, holy and pure and for marriage only. Teach children that they will be living a radically different life than everyone else. Contraception is not preventive care PERIOD. Is is a poor band-aid for a deeper problem.
 

dicapr

Well-Known Member
I wasn't put on birth control. But it was an option. My mom always maintained that their was no need to bring a child into the world to live a hard life do to my mistakes and stupidity. She always stressed that using birth control would be due to my failure to obey God and her consenting to putting me on birth control would be an effort to prevent me from ruining an innocent child's life. It was never presented as a fact of life or something that was even expected. It was presented more along the lines so that if I was going to mess up my life don't bring an innocent child in it to suffer along with me.
 

naturalgyrl5199

Well-Known Member
I wasn't put on birth control. But it was an option. My mom always maintained that their was no need to bring a child into the world to live a hard life do to my mistakes and stupidity. She always stressed that using birth control would be due to my failure to obey God and her consenting to putting me on birth control would be an effort to prevent me from ruining an innocent child's life. It was never presented as a fact of life or something that was even expected. It was presented more along the lines so that if I was going to mess up my life don't bring an innocent child in it to suffer along with me.

I like this! Especially the underlined.
I have a 1 year old daughter and my mom didn't put me on birth control but I wish to God we did. I was pregnant by age 16 and lost that baby, but its something I struggle with 18 years later.....

Now I know how to frame it. We can feel however we want to feel but if you don't communicate it THE RIGHT way then its all for nothing.
 

JaneBond007

New Member
@Belle du Jour
I know that Pope Benedict XVI said it was ok for sex workers to use condoms as a humanitarian act. They are already sinning - why not prevent HIV to keep unfaithful spouses from killing the whole family? That's the only pro-contraception I know of in the RCC, the humanitarian ok. Do you mean the RCC or the general church? We don't all have the same theology. I know that the orthodox Coptics allow for contraception to prevent child abuse from poverty. I know one can lose wealth after children but they allow it to hold off bringing in children if financial situations are not best for a child and to prevent from having too many children that would strangle finances. I know the RCC position but it seems to me that having more than you can handle is not wise.
 
Last edited:

CoilyFields

Well-Known Member
Thank you ladies for your thoughts.

My mother did not put me on bc but when I went off to undergrad my Aunt snuck and did it because she said my mom was being naive.

I will not put DD on bc because that would be giving her permission to sin...with protection.
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
I can't believe that students are having sex in the school bathrooms.... :nono:

Where are the school's hall monitors?

As for giving contraceptives to a teen, it only weakens their values and resistance to temptations to sex as well as other sins. Self value and being taught that sex is sacred is a far better virtue to cherish.
 

BEAUTYU2U

Well-Known Member
I can't believe that students are having sex in the school bathrooms.... :nono:

Where are the school's hall monitors?

As for giving contraceptives to a teen, it only weakens their values and resistance to temptations to sex as well as other sins. Self value and being taught that sex is sacred is a far better virtue to cherish.

That happened when I was in high school. And oral sex in between lockers. The monitors caught them but students still did (or attempted to do) it anyway.
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
That happened when I was in high school. And oral sex in between lockers. The monitors caught them but students still did (or attempted to do) it anyway.

Children are getting away with far too much... :nono:

It's heartbreaking.
 

HappilyLiberal

Well-Known Member
So this is slightly off topic but birth control within a marriage is wrong?!


In Catholicism and use of artificial birth control is wrong. Sex, within marriage, is designed to produce children. If there are grave reasons to delay childbearing Catholics are allowed to use Natural Family Planning which really takes the cooperation of both partners.
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't provide my teen daughter or son with it but will be open and honest about our values and expectations, not only as Christians, but also as a family. By modeling to my kids (hopefully!) how marriage is the foundation of the family and the best environment to bring children into, they will incorporate this into their hearts and way of life, and treat sex with the respect and proper place it deserves. We often complain about rape culture, wouldn't a GREAT counter to that be to raise our boys to be gentlemen who reserved sex for the woman they chose to care for and spend the rest of their lives with and raise children with? And wouldn't it be awesome to shrug off the societal ideals that sexualize our girls all too early?

I know it can be scary or stressful to deal with a teen pregnancy, but it's not a death sentence and not the worst that could happen. Do we give kids safe ways to smoke cigarettes or use drugs? No. Even if some teens go ahead and smoke or use drugs, how many parents or community leaders are throwing their hands up saying we should give them protection and let them smoke or take ecstasy?

Of course sex isn't like these things, but I use these as examples of instances where we expect and practice a zero tolerance policy on a certain activity. Maybe we should start having higher expectations of our teens.
 

CoilyFields

Well-Known Member
I'm not gonna lie. This is a scary subject for me.

It is going to be hard to teach DD not to do something that is seen as "normal" for the rest of society, including authority figures.

Ive been teaching teens for years and some of them have literally grown up in church, but when they start to open up about the things that they are doing...its a shocker. They know SOOOOOO much already from outside sources, and they know the Word, but they are still doing what they're doing.

I know that ultimately all i can do, is teach, model, and pray for DD but man...its a huge task!
 

Belle Du Jour

Well-Known Member
Not for most protestant denominations.

All Christians were unified on the issue until the 1920s. Once the Anglicans broke away then the other denominations followed suit. I would encourage every Christian to examine why it is wrong within marriage (ie, the spouses are not truly becoming one flesh since they hold back on their fertility and they essentially block God out of the marriage bed). There is a reasons couples who don't use contraception within marriage have a <5% divorce rate. That is the blessing of God on a fruitful marriage.
 

JaneBond007

New Member
A catholic will be held accountable, not a protestant. They aren't under the umbrella. Divorce rates are sky-high, contraception or not. I'm not trying to argue, sorry mami, but it just doesn't fly. We can't force other people to be legalistic. For us, it's part of the faith.
 

Belle Du Jour

Well-Known Member
A catholic will be held accountable, not a protestant. They aren't under the umbrella. Divorce rates are sky-high, contraception or not. I'm not trying to argue, sorry mami, but it just doesn't fly. We can't force other people to be legalistic. For us, it's part of the faith.

I don't think it has anything to do with being legalistic--it is truth, which isn't relative based on denomination. Also, I've never heard that people won't be held accountable for mortal sins, just because they choose not to adhere to it. It's one thing if they don't know but it's another if they are told and choose to ignore it. :perplexed This is something I will have to ask my priest because I have never heard that someone won't be held accountable for a sin just because it's not a part of their belief system.
 
Last edited:

CoilyFields

Well-Known Member
I don't think it has anything to do with being legalistic--it is truth, which isn't relative based on denomination. Also, I've never heard that people won't be held accountable for mortal sins, just because they choose not to adhere to it. It's one thing if they don't know but it's another if they are told and choose to ignore it. :perplexed This is something I will have to ask my priest because I have never heard that someone won't be held accountable for a sin just because it's not a part of their belief system.

I would say it falls under the 'don't argue about holy days and eating food offered to idols etc. Each will be judged by their consciences on these kinds of subjects'
(totally paraphrased from Paul's letter in Colossians 2).
 

Belle Du Jour

Well-Known Member
I would say it falls under the 'don't argue about holy days and eating food offered to idols etc. Each will be judged by their consciences on these kinds of subjects'
(totally paraphrased from Paul's letter in Colossians 2).

I don't want to derail the thread but it's SO much more serious than eating food of celebrating Holy days. :nono: It really is a serious matter and goes beyond a simple matter of personal choice.
 

fifi134

Well-Known Member
I disagree with the notion that sex within marriage is only for reproductive purposes. Song of Solomon is quite clear that sex is for pleasure as well.

I agree with CoilyFields that this is a difficult thing to deal with. You can keep your child in the Word, preach and teach them to walk in the way of the Lord but they may still fall. I know plenty of people who have and yet there parents were doing as much as they could to protect them from that. Homeschooling is not an option for everyone either, and some may not even want that. How do you deal with society's conflicting messages?

And I also agree with naturalgyrl5199 in that a baby as a teen drastically impacts the mother/father's life. I can't sit here and say I know what I'd do. Thankfully I'm nowhere close to being a mom yet!
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
Can catholics use IVF if they are having fertility issues?

No. One of the biggest problems with it would be due to the multiple conceptions that happen at a time, there tend to be abortions done in order to get the number of conceptions down. Another issue is treating human conception and life as a commodity.
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
I disagree with the notion that sex within marriage is only for reproductive purposes. Song of Solomon is quite clear that sex is for pleasure as well.

I agree that marriage has the dual purpose of 1) procreation and 2) the unitive (physical, emotional, etc.) & mutual comfort of the spouses. However we live in a society where we've thrown away #1, trampled it with contraception and abortion, and replaced God and His teachings on sexual morality with an absurd veneration of #2.

A lot of sexual immorality that we see today demonstrates this. This is why many Christians defend marriage as between a man and woman--because of #1, the procreation and duty to our children who may come from the union of husband and wife.

Our society has twisted sex into something only for pleasure that you can do with either a man, woman, yourself, while watching porn, etc., and we are seeing its negative effects and consequences.

This is what happens when you abandon #1--procreation.

There's always going to be a negative consequence when you abuse something and take it out of its proper and natural context. Eating is natural, good, and pleasurable (helloooo, chocolate!). However, gorging on junk food is going to have a negative consequence.
 

Belle Du Jour

Well-Known Member
I disagree with the notion that sex within marriage is only for reproductive purposes. Song of Solomon is quite clear that sex is for pleasure as well!

I agree with you. And the Church teaches that as well. :yep: However, each act should be open to the possibility of procreation. Doesn't mean you want a baby each time but if a pregnancy results, then it should be welcomed.
 

MissNina

Libra Girl
I agree with you. And the Church teaches that as well. :yep: However, each act should be open to the possibility of procreation. Doesn't mean you want a baby each time but if a pregnancy results, then it should be welcomed.

I believe that gets tricky, particularly when you marry young. Lots of young Christians i know, trying to truly live by the Word esp. in regards to sex, got married by 22. So, if you do the math, you are theoretically stating that the couple should be open to welcoming 10+ kids into the world. I dont think that's particularly healthy in various ways - to the children, mother or the marriage.

I understand the reason for your belief, but it just gets very "gray area" to me biblically and personally.

So what would be the alternative, IYO, if the couple was NOT open to welcoming pregnancy each time? The only thing i can think of without introducing contraception would be to not have sex, but the Bible is very clear that you should not cease sex in a marriage or withhold sex from your spouse either. Im really curious on alternative options in this view.
 

FemmeFatale

Well-Known Member
I believe that gets tricky, particularly when you marry young. Lots of young Christians i know, trying to truly live by the Word esp. in regards to sex, got married by 22. So, if you do the math, you are theoretically stating that the couple should be open to welcoming 10+ kids into the world. I dont think that's particularly healthy in various ways - to the children, mother or the marriage. I understand the reason for your belief, but it just gets very "gray area" to me biblically and personally. So what would be the alternative, IYO, if the couple was NOT open to welcoming pregnancy each time? The only thing i can think of without introducing contraception would be to not have sex, but the Bible is very clear that you should not cease sex in a marriage or withhold sex from your spouse either. Im really curious on alternative options in this view.

We share the same concerns cause hunty I'm open to two babies.
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
Swiped this from blogger Matt Walsh (this is about sex-ed and introducing kids to BC, etc.):

A reader sent me a message declaring quite excitedly that I’m ‘not gonna believe’ what’s happening at this public school in California. Apparently, Planned Parenthood has taken over sex-ed duties at a local high school and has begun teaching 13-year-olds that, among other things, they’re ready for sex so long as they think it will feel good. Planned Parenthood also has some informative tips on effective lubricants which they eagerly passed along to an unsuspecting collection of barely pubescent children.

In other words, that reader lied. I can totally believe this. Honestly, at this point I’m not sure there’s any public school related atrocity that would shock me. Send me something about kids being trained in ritualistic cannibalism, or being given reading materials from the Satanic Temple, and then maybe I’ll be surprised. (Wait, that second one is actually happening, and no, I’m still not surprised.)

Our government school system, like most every other institution in this country, has plunged into a state of intellectual and moral chaos, making it fertile ground for the depraved perverts at Planned Parenthood to spread their gospel. And before you accuse me of claiming that every person who works for Planned Parenthood is a depraved pervert, please understand that, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

Anyway, I’m not trying to downplay this latest bit of debauchery. It’s outrageous — even if it is routine — and it deserves attention. The whole thing is made all the more egregious by the fact that parents were not properly informed about the ‘lesson’ plan ahead of time. The school didn’t make it clear that the sex-ed class would be conducted by Planned Parenthood – a detail that may have been pertinent, considering Planned Parenthood is a business which makes hundreds of millions of dollars aborting babies. The conflict of interest here is staggeringly clear. Having this organization teach sex-ed is like bringing in spokesmen from McDonald’s to talk about proper nutrition. In both instances, the ‘teachers’ are financially invested in making sure the kids do anything but make healthy choices.

Sorry, that analogy is ridiculous. McDonald’s could never set foot inside an American public school. It would never be allowed. We wouldn’t want the kids to be scandalized by soda and french fries, especially when it might distract them from learning about anal sex and transgenderism.

Speaking of which, the school in California found some creative ways to instruct the students in warped leftwing gender theory. Just in time for the holidays, here’s the ‘genderbread person.’

This is science, folks. Pure science. Well, either science or progressive superstitions cloaked in absurd faux-complexities. I can imagine that many of the parents probably didn’t realize they had to preemptively sit their children down and say, ‘listen, ‘agender’ isn’t a thing, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they’re either on drugs or on the payroll at your school, or both.’

Another worksheet was supposed to help the children decide if they’re ready to get busy.

According to adults who’ve taken it upon themselves to entice children into having sex, any child is ready provided they want to and they can find someone else who wants to. Who could foresee any pitfalls to raising kids using this strategy?

‘Dad, can I –’

‘Stop right there, son. Whatever you want to do, do you want to do it?’

‘Yes.’

‘Well, that settles it then. You’re always ready to do anything as long as you want to do that thing!’

‘Wow, thanks Dad! So where are your car keys?’

The learning materials also explain how a boy should obtain consent from a girl. Specifically, he should ask important questions like, ‘can I take my pants off?’ and ‘do you want to go back to my place?’

These are 13-year-olds, remember. A bunch of 13-year-olds who can, it turns out, invite their booty calls back to ‘their place.’ I’m sure their parents won’t mind, unless their parents are sex-hating prudes. Indeed, as creepy progressive weirdos constantly insist, we parents just have to resign ourselves to the fact that all kids — all kids — will start having sex approximately three or four years before they’re able to get their ears pierced without permission from a legal guardian.

That’s the nature of a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you assert it as fact often enough and loudly enough, eventually it might become one. The question, then, is why do progressive want this to be a fact? And when I say want it, they really seem to want it. They want it in graphic detail. Take this sex conference for students in Oregon as an example. Kids as young as 11 were encouraged to ‘wear each other’s underwear,’ ‘watch porn together,’ ‘eat Pop Rocks while making out’ (this is just getting way too specific), and ‘masturbate while someone else is watching.’

That’s all pretty bad, but not as bad as the sex-ed presentation given to students at Pine Valley Middle School, which featured a poster of a man with a bloody face and a caption reading: ‘A real man loves his woman every day of the month.’

And this is relatively in line with another sex-ed curriculum, also in California, that taught students about the wonders of bondage and vibrators.

All of these examples happen to be from the West Coast, but this is not a regional problem. It’s inevitable that government sex education will take a sharp left turn into grotesque and lascivious places in any school, anywhere in the country. That’s because a discussion of sex will be unavoidably wrapped in the moral and philosophical beliefs of whoever is leading the discussion. It’s one thing to teach about the human anatomy, but once you veer into sexuality, you’ve entered a realm that is just as spiritual as it is scientific. Therefore, if the sex-ed course is run by hedonists, the children will be taught hedonism. There is no way around it.

And this is why sex-ed has no business in public schools at all. If you want your kid’s school to teach him about sex — homeschool him. Public school should be a place for pure academics, and nothing else. To be clear, I’m not advocating for ‘abstinence education’ here. I don’t want a government employee training my kid in how to avoid sex any more than I want her to train him in how to have it. Abstinence education, in my view, has to be grounded in something deeper than scare tactics and STD statistics. My convictions on abstinence before marriage have to do with not just my views about sex, but my views about marriage itself, and about love, and about loyalty, and about self-control, and about virtue, and about faith. Everything is wrapped up in everything, and if you try to teach abstinence using just the practical aspects (‘sex might cause AIDS!’) without any of the deeper, spiritual substance, you’ll end up with a lesson plan that’s equal parts superficial, paranoidm and unconvincing. Sex is just too big a topic. There’s too much there. It’s too important. The schools cannot handle it, either way, and they shouldn’t try.

(more below...)
 
Top