Abstinence Only sex "education" - Page 4

[Adaline'sMama]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama 

I have to say that ITA agree with LDavis24 in that I have NEVER met anyone who wasn't religious that found bc to be immoral. I'm sorry that you are offended by my terminology, but a "fanatic" is described on dictionary.com as "a person who has an uncritical zeal for a cause or belief."

The 'uncritical' part is what I find offensive. It makes it sound like those of us who hold these beliefs just do so 'because our religion tells us to', that we don't think about it or question it, that we blindly follow our religion's teachings, that we are basically brainwashed or something. I think very critically about my faith -- what's the point in believing something if you don't understand it, even question it? What's the point in just accepting everything you've ever been taught without even thinking critically about it? I am deeply religious and have a very strong faith and strict moral compass, but I certainly would not consider myself a 'fanatic' in the way you used it. It's the same way those that vax are often seen as blindly following medical authority (when in fact, I know lots of people who vax (I don't) who did a ton of research & critical thinking on the matter).

I have no idea whether any people who are not religious feel like bc is immoral because it's not really a common topic of discussion. I do know I have friends who are not remotely religious but do not use birth control -- I can't attest to their reasoning, I suspect it's a mixture of avoiding something 'artificial' and likely other factors... But I feel like the last few responses have implied that because I am religious, my beliefs about bc are invalid, unimportant, or irrelevant. I can and DO think for myself, so it's just insulting to hear...

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama 

The concept that bc options shouldn't be taught in school is something I'm really confused about because I would think that if you are religious and raising your child to be as well, you should have enough faith in the teachings of your religion not to worry about the school telling your child that birth control exist and how to properly dispense it to themselves.

I agree. I also think if I raise my kids well, they will hopefully avoid drugs, excessive drinking, smoking, etc. But I still don't want someone to teach them how to snort coke or light a cigarette or how to obtain substances illegally... There's no reason to tell my child that, there's no reason to 'test' or tempt him unnecessarily, there's no reason to lead him to believe that these choices are normal, moral, and acceptable because 'everyone else is doing it'....

I think the reason you keep feeling so insulted is because you keep equating birth control with things like stealing, drug use, and smoking. To most people, birth control is a lot different than these things.

ITA with you about the vax issue, BTW. The world is full of people who dont do their research.

I dont take bc, and I guess I could say that Im "against" taking hormonal bc (for me, and me only), but I think the difference is that I believe that you should have sex for a lot of reasons besides just to make babies. So, if I feel that way, then there would be no need to not use bc. But Im sure every time a prolifer or the pro abstinence only people have sex its to make babies, so I can see why they would believe there would be a need for bc.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by RLoth 

 I don't know, showing condoms and doing "demonstrations" for young children is like giving a toddler a pistol and telling him not to shoot himself with it. They're going to get curious.

Going to "get" curious? Are you serious?

I didn't grow up in a Christian atmosphere at home and the older I get, the more so I wish I did. There is nothing wrong with talking to your kids about abstinence and teaching the importance of waiting until marriage.  Sex use to be something special shared between ONE man and ONE woman, not let me try out my new girlfriend/boyfriend to see if they're good in bed.

I had a good friend in high school, who grew up in a very strict abstinence, Catholic "sex is something to be shared between one man and one woman" household...and she used to cut class to have sex with her boyfriend, in his van, almost every day. She married briefly in her 20s, and has only had two fairly long-term relationships (one of them really abusive) in the almost 20 years since. Her upbringing didn't create a monogamous life, yk? I've never seen any evidence that a Christian atmosphere prevents curiousity .

Maybe that's why most "civilized" nations have ridiculously high divorce rates, because they marry for all the wrong reasons.

My grandmother and grandfather stayed married until he died...over 50 years. However, he was an alcoholic, and emotionally abusive, and I wouldn't want any daughter of mine to stay in a marriage to someone like that. She didn't get a divorce, not because she married for the right reasons, but because she didn't feel that she was "allowed" to do so. When my mom first tried to leave her abusive (physically, including cracked ribs when she was 7 months pregnant) first husband, her brother talked her into staying, because he was her husband, and marriage is for life. Divorce sucks (btdt), but it's not any worse than staying in horrible marriages and children growin up in abusive and unhappy homes.

We've become so superficial and in the process, destroyed the image of the woman, destroyed the home, and destroyed the family. The Christian principles teach love and respect and that the family should be protected, especially the woman and that she shouldn't be walking around showing her cleavage, and her butt cheeks to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. What's wrong with that?! This should be common logic folks.. Maybe If people would just stop hating on God and see the real message behind what the Bible says maybe they would learn something. There are reasons why God told his people to abstain from sex until marriage and it's not just because they we're going to burn in hell. Hello, VD anyone?  STDs are worse now than they ever were and that's just one reason. I'm sure others will add to this and there are plenty of reasons why we should encourage our children not to have sex until marriage. 

Especially the woman? Again, I'm forced to ask if you're serious? Why "especially" the woman? And, how is it "common logic" that someone else should dictate what she can or can't show to "every Tom, Dick and Harry". That's not about logic. It's about philosophical and/or religious beliefs on a lot of topics.

re: STDs. AIDS is really, really ugly, but STDs have been tearing apart lives and killing people in not trivial numbers for a long, long time. What do base "worse than ever" on?

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by RLoth 

I have a question. If birth control is so good, why are STDs and teen pregnancy rates so high?  Kids are so stupid nowadays they don't even use condoms or any kind of birth control.  If parents really think showing their kids all this stuff is going to improve the quality of their life, they seriously need to get their heads out of the sand. How about we start teaching our kids some morals and principles and stop letting them watch the boob tube. But then again mommy and daddy have no morals so let's just let big daddy government do it, and complain about the end results.

Exactly!!

[PatienceAndLove]

Bank robbers are still going to rob banks... so let's just give them all kevlar.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 

If I told you I had these views about BC, but instead said I'm an atheist, I feel like my words would get a totally different reaction..

I actually have to give you this point. I've never met anybody who thought birth control was immoral for anything but religious reasons, so I'd probably be very interested in the reasoning of anyone who thought so for any other reason, after I picked my jaw up off the floor. That doesn't exactly mean we're dismissing what you say, just because you're Christian, though. The belief that birth control is immoral is a religious belief, and it's one I categorically disgree with and also believe to be incredibly harmful to women and to babies. But, I don't disagree with it, because it's religious. I disagree with it, because I think it's harmful...and I also find the insistence on denying good information to our children/teens to be every bit as immoral as you believe birth control to be, so it's a very difficult issue to resolve peacefully.

[Adaline'sMama]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 

Originally Posted by Ldavis24 

you're offended at me? I hope not, I'm just kinda shocked you compared BC to stealing...a lot of folks might find that pretty offensive but you don't see them throwing their hands up in disgust unable to talk...The discussion is NOT futile, you just don't like it.

Maybe it's the way the words come across in writing -- maybe if we were having this discussion in real life, I wouldn't be offended. I just sense that you (and some others on here) have already made up your minds anyway, have already discounted what I say simply on the grounds that I am religious... It's just a frustrating discussion to have. I don't normally 'throw my hands up in disgust' and just walk away, it's just the way you stated it that I found difficult to even read. I used to have my religion in my siggy (like some others do) and I removed it because on MDC, I feel like my statements totally lose value when someone knows my religion... and right here just seems like more evidence of that. If I told you I had these views about BC, but instead said I'm an atheist, I feel like my words would get a totally different reaction. It's the judgement that's insulting to me.

I dont think its because you are religious, I think its because you are comparing something that prevents people from STD's and unintended childbirth to stealing, cocaine, cigarettes, and excessive drinking. I dont know why you have the views on bc that you do, but I will guess that it is because you believe that sex is reserved for two people who love each other very much and wouldnt mind having a baby together. Some people dont believe in bc because they think that sex is for baby making. Personally, I differ in those views quite a bit. If an atheist was against hormonal bc, I would be able to understand their view, but I cannot imagine an atheist being against the use of condoms. Honestly, even if they made their lack of religion known, I would argue the benefits of condoms with them any day.

I dont want you to feel persecuted because of your religious beliefs. Im taking what you say into consideration, and I am trying not to be judgmental about it, but we just disagree on a lot when it comes to this topic. Im sure there are other things we do agree on, your postition on vax for example. I think the major point here is that religion has no business in our public schools. So, I dont understand why its not okay to teach ALL the options. Its EDUCATION. Its up to the kid whether or not to use it, and its nothing like cocaine. (I promise, cocaine and condoms have very little in common. Condoms are no fun at all :) )
 

[laohaire]

I think that "fanatic" is a very loaded term and should not have been used here. I also think it's unfair to dismiss faith/religion as an invalid reason for a choice. That is a bias of those who are not religious, though I can certainly understand that bias.

The problem is that we have public schools trying to address the varying needs of many family values. Obviously this is a topic that really belongs to the parents, not the schools. And yet many parents fail miserably at this duty, and it does indeed become a public concern.

Personally, my objection is not that schools teach abstinence per se, but that they apparently lie and twist and distort to do so. Unfortunately, the case for abstinence for teenagers is a pretty hard sell, so apparently they do whatever they think might work. I'd be ok if they omitted stuff (that I would cover myself) as long as they told the truth about what they DID discuss, but that leads right back to the problem (STDs and teen pregnancy as a public health problem).

All I can say is that "abstinence-only," as it is currently taught, seems to be useless (or worse).

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by RLoth 

I have a question. If birth control is so good, why are STDs and teen pregnancy rates so high?  Kids are so stupid nowadays they don't even use condoms or any kind of birth control.

Let's see...maybe because kids are taught that birth control doesn't work? I'm not going to claim that every single teenager who is educated about birth control is going to remember to use it every time (heck - I know lots of adults who have had "oops" pregnancies from forgetting their pills/condom/whatever). But, it's a pretty safe bet that a teen who doesn't know what the options are and/or has been taught that those options don't work, isn't going to bother at all.

If parents really think showing their kids all this stuff is going to improve the quality of their life, they seriously need to get their heads out of the sand. How about we start teaching our kids some morals and principles and stop letting them watch the boob tube. But then again mommy and daddy have no morals so let's just let big daddy government do it, and complain about the end results.

Well, I teach my kids about sex, and I do have morals, thank you very much. They're just not the same as yours.

[Ambystoma]

Originally Posted by RLoth 

I have a question. If birth control is so good, why are STDs and teen pregnancy rates so high?  Kids are so stupid nowadays they don't even use condoms or any kind of birth control.  If parents really think showing their kids all this stuff is going to improve the quality of their life, they seriously need to get their heads out of the sand. How about we start teaching our kids some morals and principles and stop letting them watch the boob tube. But then again mommy and daddy have no morals so let's just let big daddy government do it, and complain about the end results.

Maybe kids who are told that condoms are always/mostly ineffective by their abstinence only sex educators feel there's no point in using them and will risk it. 

The CDC did a study on the programs (as have many other organizations).Whether given abstinence-only or comprehensive sex education, roughly 1/2 of 17 year olds have not engaged in sex. Abstinence only sex education does not decrease the likelihood of teens having sex. It does increase the likelihood that a teen will engage in risky behavior, like not using any contraception. Southern states that use abstinence only education have the highest teen pregnancy rates. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

Also-comprehensive sex education INCLUDES abstinence. It is presented as, "the only 100% effective way is to not have sex, but if you choose to do so, here's how to protect yourself from disease and pregnancy". 

[MamaofLiam]

.

Edited by MamaofLiam - 4/28/11 at 9:17pm

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by RLoth 

ACH SO! It's okay to steal the works and knowledge from an author without giving him credit? Now, wouldn't we call this plagiarism? Oh, wait it's called "political correctness."  LOL.

To what are you referring? I haven't seen anybody in this thread talk about plagiarism being okay, or actually anything about this topic at all. I'm also failing to follow your connection between political correctness and plagiarism.

Nothing but a bunch of kindergarten logic. I think maybe people just have a problem of wrapping their minds around having an authority figure to answer to or realizing that something bigger may exist in the universe than their own narrow minded little opinions.  

I don't believe in God. That doesn't mean I think that I'm the only thing that exists in the universe. That's a really, really big leap, and also appears to be completely unrelated to anything about this discussion.

[choli]

Originally Posted by RLoth 

I have a question. If birth control is so good, why are STDs and teen pregnancy rates so high?  Kids are so stupid nowadays they don't even use condoms or any kind of birth control.  If parents really think showing their kids all this stuff is going to improve the quality of their life, they seriously need to get their heads out of the sand. How about we start teaching our kids some morals and principles and stop letting them watch the boob tube. But then again mommy and daddy have no morals so let's just let big daddy government do it, and complain about the end results.

Because they are being taught in Abstinence Ed that condoms and birth control don't work, and they have the kind of parents who equate birth control with stealing and using illegal drugs, so they can't discuss birth control at home and find out the truth.

That is the kind of parenting that tends to lead to unplanned pregnancy.
 

[laohaire]

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama 

I will guess that it is because you believe that sex is reserved for two people who love each other very much and wouldnt mind having a baby together. Some people dont believe in bc because they think that sex is for baby making. Personally, I differ in those views quite a bit. If an atheist was against hormonal bc, I would be able to understand their view, but I cannot imagine an atheist being against the use of condoms. Honestly, even if they made their lack of religion known, I would argue the benefits of condoms with them any day.

Well, I think that there is a moral argument to be made without it being religious.

Sex, even with birth control, can lead to pregnancy.

Those who engage in sex should understand that they are risking pregnancy. If pregnancy is desired, fine.

If pregnancy is not desired, what then? This is the crux of the issue - a choice to engage in procreative behavior can have a (potentially VERY) negative effect on someone else. That is a moral issue.

I do choose condoms as the lesser of two evils ("if they are gonna do it anyway...") but using condoms to try to prevent a pregnancy that will not be taken full responsibility for (sorry for awkward grammar) is not the most moral of the three choices, imho.

However, I think there could be a pretty good argument made for teaching birth control as a best effort. Morally, I think the primary issue is the prevention of unwanted pregnancies (no matter what the ultimate outcome of those are). If, in this culture and time, realistically, we can achieve this better with birth control, I think it's the best choice in the risk/benefit analysis.

[FarmerBeth]

I am so glad that abstinence education is not the norm anywhere in Canada (except for maybe some religious schools).  I worked with pregnant teens in the past and i think there is nothing more dangerous than lack of or incomplete information.  There will always be teens who choose to have intercourse regardless of how they may have been taught that abstinence is the best choice, and they need to know how to protect themselves should they choose this.  Some kids don't even realize what choice they've even made because their understanding is so poor.  If this type of education is the norm where you live, you'll probably have to bear with it, but fill in the gaps with extra information and your own family perspective at home.  (By the way, we have a Christian home and I still think this sort of misinformation is terrible.  The harm done by not having frank discussion on sexuality far outweighs any black and white religious perspective.)

[ChristaN]

Originally Posted by laohaire 

The problem is that we have public schools trying to address the varying needs of many family values. Obviously this is a topic that really belongs to the parents, not the schools. And yet many parents fail miserably at this duty, and it does indeed become a public concern.

Personally, my objection is not that schools teach abstinence per se, but that they apparently lie and twist and distort to do so. Unfortunately, the case for abstinence for teenagers is a pretty hard sell, so apparently they do whatever they think might work. I'd be ok if they omitted stuff (that I would cover myself) as long as they told the truth about what they DID discuss, but that leads right back to the problem (STDs and teen pregnancy as a public health problem).

All I can say is that "abstinence-only," as it is currently taught, seems to be useless (or worse).

ITA.

I did also want to say that those of us who are opposed to religious based abstinance education in our kids' schools aren't all necessarily fine with our kids having sex early and often.  I've discussed with my girls that bc isn't always effective but that it is more effective than nothing and that I do not want them to have sex as teenagers (and why).  Because the only thing that I found research to support as strongly delaying sexual activity amongst teen girls is high educational and career aspirations, I have brought that into the picture often.  My oldest girl was born right when I started grad school and my youngest my last semester.  It is certainly harder to complete your education with children in tow and harder to start a career with young kids.  I've made sure that my girls understand that.  They have goals for their lives and I want them to know that having sex early can have ramifications in regard to those goals.

None the less, I don't expect them to stay abstinent until marriage b/c I'd hope that they won't get married at 20 and I don't expect that they'll want to remain virgins until their later 20s or whenever they do meet the person they do want to marry.  My goal is delay and then use bc when they are older (20s). 

[treeoflife3]

Actually, teen pregnancy rates are quite low.  Look up teen pregnancy rates in the 50s.... you'll find they are a great deal higher.  The reason we assume it is so much higher now is because we TALK about pregnant teens rather than sending them away to their 'aunt's' house for 9 months.  ETA:  easiest to read chart on rates since the 40's.  http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/TBR_1940-2006.pdf  As education increased, so did birthrate decrease.

Kids are no more stupid 'nowadays' than they ever have been.  The reason teenagers aren't using hormonal birth control or condoms is almost always because they feel they can't get it.  Every person I knew in high school who chose not to use either was specifically because they didn't know how to get it and were afraid their parents would find out.  Teenagers are going to have sex, you can't stop that.  humans are SUPPOSED to have sex.  That is why hormones make us want it, that is why women are their most interested in sex during ovulation.  A teenager in the midst of puberty where the hormones are strongest is going to have a hell of a time ignoring it and all the talk about it destroying their life and love and marriage is forever and so forth will NOT stop each and every teen.

it will however isolate them so they either don't know how to protect themselves or feel they CAN'T protect themselves.  Parents who just say 'don't have sex because it's bad, and you don't need to know about how to protect yourself unless you are having sex which you'd better not be doing' (paraphrasing the message obviously) are going to end up with teenagers who will then not seek out how to get birth control, who won't even buy condoms for fear of them being found and are STILL going to be having sex anyway.

Our teen pregnancy rates are lower than in the 50s because teens have better education now.  The rates however will not STAY low if we stop educating them, as evidenced by the rates in areas where abstinence ONLY education is taught.

It is important to remember that comprehensive sex ed does not tell teens to have sex, it simply tells them that if they are going to they need to be safe and smart about it.  Abstinence is STILL taught along with condoms and birth control.  It is taught as the ONLY way to avoid mental and emotional pain from sex too soon and the ONLY way to not get pregnant and the ONLY way to not get any diseases.  There isn't anyone who could get away with telling teenagers to have sex and lots of it, especially not in a public school setting.  It is just naive to believe that not educating teens fully on how to be safe about doing something biologically normal, something their bodies are urging them to do, will keep them from doing it.

Comparing teaching kids how to stay safe should they decide to have sex to doing drugs is faulty logic.  Drugs aren't a biologically normal part of life.  Our bodies don't hit a drug puberty where hormones tell us to go out and get speed and meth.  It is ridiculous to try to compare something human being are driven to do to keep the species alive to something humans do that has no vital or necessary purpose whatsoever.

Moreover, using birth control is not the same as stealing food.  There are many ways to acquire food legally, but there is only the use of contraceptives to avoid pregnancy and disease.  It is naive at best to expect ALL people to not have sex unless they are married.

I had sex as a teenager.  I was not stupid.  I was ready and have zero regrets.  No, it was not with my current husband.  I was smart enough to use protection because I knew my mom would support my being safe even if she didn't like the idea of my having sex already.  She helped me get birth control and although she never saw the condoms, she wouldn't have batted an eye.  My mom most definitely did have morals but she was also a teenager once.  I also had a friend who chose to wait.  She had the same education I did.  She knew she could get bc and condoms and that her mom would help her.  Her mom had morals too.  My friend simply made a different choice.  She wasn't ready when I was so she waited.  Knowing how to CORRECTLY use a condom and knowing she could get BC if she wanted didn't make her run out and have sex as much as possible.  In fact, knowing the risks and knowing what would be required to keep the risks to a minimum are exactly why she made the choice she did.  She was not ignorant, no more ignorant than I was.  She took comfort in knowing she could change her mind and still be safe just as I took comfort in knowing I was being as safe as I could be without abstaining but could still stop whenever I wanted.
 

Originally Posted by RLoth 

I have a question. If birth control is so good, why are STDs and teen pregnancy rates so high?  Kids are so stupid nowadays they don't even use condoms or any kind of birth control.  If parents really think showing their kids all this stuff is going to improve the quality of their life, they seriously need to get their heads out of the sand. How about we start teaching our kids some morals and principles and stop letting them watch the boob tube. But then again mommy and daddy have no morals so let's just let big daddy government do it, and complain about the end results.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by laohaire 


I do choose condoms as the lesser of two evils ("if they are gonna do it anyway...") but using condoms to try to prevent a pregnancy that will not be taken full responsibility for (sorry for awkward grammar) is not the most moral of the three choices, imho.

Somewhat OT, but I feel the need to mention that an unplanned, or even unwanted, pregnancy is not necessarily a pregnancy that won't be taken responsibility for (and, yeah - awkward grammar, but I'm not sure how to fix it). Two of ds1's classmates had a baby last June. I happened to run into the mom and baby at the grocery store recently, and that's one happy, healthy well-cared for baby girl. Mom is breastfeeding and APing, to the extent that she can while she finishes her last year of high school. She and the father are stil together (not married, and I honestly don't know if they plan to get married or not) and he showed up as I was saying "goodbye"...and that baby girl was awfully happy to see her dad. Yes - they're getting help from their parents, but they're both finishing school, and he's got a job, as well, and they're both taking very good care of their baby. I know much older adults who aren't taking anywhere near that much responsiblity for their children (including children that were both planned and "wanted").

And, for that matter, I got a tubal when I had dd2. I really, really, really don't want to ever go through another c-section, and I've reached a point where a pregnancy would not be a great idea, physically, for me. However, I'm also not even a little bit okay with the idea of having an abortion, and if I did happen to be one of that small percentage of women whose tubal fails (and, sadly, I've heard that it's slightly more likely if the tubal is done while already under the knife for a c-section), we'd keep the baby. So, again - not wanted, not planned, but we'd take responsibility for any baby we happened to conceive.

[MamaofLiam]

Originally Posted by ChristaN 

ITA.

I did also want to say that those of us who are opposed to religious based abstinance education in our kids' schools aren't all necessarily fine with our kids having sex early and often.  I've discussed with my girls that bc isn't always effective but that it is more effective than nothing and that I do not want them to have sex as teenagers (and why).  Because the only thing that I found research to support as strongly delaying sexual activity amongst teen girls is high educational and career aspirations, I have brought that into the picture often.  My oldest girl was born right when I started grad school and my youngest my last semester.  It is certainly harder to complete your education with children in tow and harder to start a career with young kids.  I've made sure that my girls understand that.  They have goals for their lives and I want them to know that having sex early can have ramifications in regard to those goals.

None the less, I don't expect them to stay abstinent until marriage b/c I'd hope that they won't get married at 20 and I don't expect that they'll want to remain virgins until their later 20s or whenever they do meet the person they do want to marry.  My goal is delay and then use bc when they are older (20s). 

I totally agree with you. I would not want my children having sex early and often, but I don't expect them to stay abstinent until marriage. If they want to stay abstinent until marriage, that's fine too. I honestly think that expecting your kids to stay abstinent until marriage is an unfair expectation, and creates a lot of guilt when they don't live up to it. When that point of view is pushed too far, I've seen very young kids (18-21) get married pretty much because they wanted to have sex, and a lot of times it didn't end very well. 

As far as sex education goes - correct information is way better than misinformation or no information. 

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

I had sex as a teenager.  I was not stupid.  I was ready and have zero regrets.  No, it was not with my current husband.  I was smart enough to use protection because I knew my mom would support my being safe even if she didn't like the idea of my having sex already.  She helped me get birth control and although she never saw the condoms, she wouldn't have batted an eye.  My mom most definitely did have morals but she was also a teenager once.  I also had a friend who chose to wait.  She had the same education I did.  She knew she could get bc and condoms and that her mom would help her.  Her mom had morals too.  My friend simply made a different choice.  She wasn't ready when I was so she waited.  Knowing how to CORRECTLY use a condom and knowing she could get BC if she wanted didn't make her run out and have sex as much as possible.  In fact, knowing the risks and knowing what would be required to keep the risks to a minimum are exactly why she made the choice she did.  She was not ignorant, no more ignorant than I was.  She took comfort in knowing she could change her mind and still be safe just as I took comfort in knowing I was being as safe as I could be without abstaining but could still stop whenever I wanted.
 

I believe, although I can't be 100% sure, that my oldest is still a virgin. If so, I think it's got a lot to do with the fact that his teen years have been spent watching me go through four pregnancies (dd1 was born when ds1 was 10, an dd2 when he was 16, with two pregnancies in between), together with all the ups and downs, plus four unwanted c-sections, plus a stillbirth. He has a far better than average understanding of just what pregnancy and birth entail than most people his age in our culture, and I truly believe he's extra hesitant about bringing that all down on a girl he loves, through birth control failure or whatever. And...I think he also gets that sex can be/is a lot more complicated than music videos make it look. With a solid grasp of what can be at stake, both emotionally and physically, he's not in a huge rush to take the leap, yk?

[laohaire]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

Somewhat OT, but I feel the need to mention that an unplanned, or even unwanted, pregnancy is not necessarily a pregnancy that won't be taken responsibility for (and, yeah - awkward grammar, but I'm not sure how to fix it). Two of ds1's classmates had a baby last June. I happened to run into the mom and baby at the grocery store recently, and that's one happy, healthy well-cared for baby girl. Mom is breastfeeding and APing, to the extent that she can while she finishes her last year of high school. She and the father are stil together (not married, and I honestly don't know if they plan to get married or not) and he showed up as I was saying "goodbye"...and that baby girl was awfully happy to see her dad. Yes - they're getting help from their parents, but they're both finishing school, and he's got a job, as well, and they're both taking very good care of their baby. I know much older adults who aren't taking anywhere near that much responsiblity for their children (including children that were both planned and "wanted").

And, for that matter, I got a tubal when I had dd2. I really, really, really don't want to ever go through another c-section, and I've reached a point where a pregnancy would not be a great idea, physically, for me. However, I'm also not even a little bit okay with the idea of having an abortion, and if I did happen to be one of that small percentage of women whose tubal fails (and, sadly, I've heard that it's slightly more likely if the tubal is done while already under the knife for a c-section), we'd keep the baby. So, again - not wanted, not planned, but we'd take responsibility for any baby we happened to conceive.

I do separate unplanned from unwanted. I didn't want to go into too much detail (there are at least two extremely sticky issues lurking under here) but let me just say that I meant ultimately unwanted by the parents (or at least the mother) - still unwanted after the child is born and after a reasonable period for potential bonding.

I'm real big on wanting our children. A lot of people like to bash huge families but I don't have ANY rules on the "correct" number of children - just that they should be wanted.

But it's still such a sticky subject.

We may have a moral imperative to abstain from procreative behavior when we are not able or willing to take responsibility for our procreation.

But we seem to also have a physical imperative to engage in procreative behavior.

The fact that these conflict is actually disturbing in many ways. And it raises a lot of really good questions.