Jib,

I think that you might have me on ignore, so you probably won't read this, but I really have to ask. How on earth to you rectify being an ardent follower of the Christian faith with your laissez-faire attitude towards fornication? I can understand you having fornicated as a 20 year old, and then asking god's forgiveness for this sin...but now you're saying that you'd be okay with your son fornicating as well? And not only that, but you're suggesting that he use birth control? You're piling one sin on to another.

I honestly don't mean this as an attack. I just *really* need to know how you justify being a Christian while also believing that sex before marriage is permissible. I've always been told that it is *very* clear in the bible that sex before marriage is a sin. Do you just choose to ignore this sin, or do you have some alternative interpretation of God's "no sex before marriage" edict?

I would accept that arguement if there were an equal number of people saying, "I wish I aborted that unplanned pregnancy instead of carry it to term" or something along those lines.

at that point in my life i probably would have told him to go **** himself. but again, different story.

that is a tough question. i think that i probably still would not have done it. there are a couple of reasons. at that point i was not married nor was i sure this was the person that i would marry. nor was i at a point in my life where i wanted a child. i was still drinking 6 nights a week and living pretty much moment by moment.

with these things considered, i think that because of my mindset and my inability to actualize true love for a child, it would not have that great of an impact as it would now so i would abstain.

Fine, but since you have 7 children, I would hardly call you an "average person". I asked if the average person would think it was a good idea for unmarried 20 year olds to have unwanted pregnancies.

As has been stated numerous times in the thread, it is really impossible for people to answer the question with any certainty. They can't look into the "What if?" machine to see how their lives would be different if they had not had unwanted pregnancies.

To claim that people shouldn't use contraception because parents generally love their children is a little silly. Would parents love the children they had as unmarried, poor 20 year olds any less than the children they had as married, financially stable 30 year olds? They might not love them any less as 30 year olds, but they'd sure be able to give them a much better start in life than they could have as 20 year olds.

Why? You dont demand there to be a whole bunch of people saying "I wish I hadnt aborted that pregnancy".

Again - (ignoring the pro-life anecdotal testimonials) people are, in general, happy with what they have and are skeptical of dramatic change (unless it has no perceived downside - like being rich or famous or something)

I quoted the whole thing so jibninja's can see it if he has you ignored.

Hopey I think you're being disingenious when you say Jibnijas thinks its okay his son fornicates. He is merely acknowledging that his son may fornicate.

What do you think a 16 year old mother is likely to tell her daughter when her daughter turns 12 years old?

A) Go ahead and get pregnant at 16. It will be the best thing that ever happened to you!

B) You were the best thing that ever happened to me. However, I gave up a lot in order to raise you at such a young age. Please be more careful than I was, and wait until you are much older to have children. I don't want you to miss out on the things that I did.

I think thats a cop out answer. People can make general assumptions about how their lives would be different if they made different decisions. They then can compare their current lives to the model based on the assumptions they made.

Again this is not intended to be a discussion about the morality of birth control. Why do you obsess yourself with that?

To clarify my position, I don't think parents are purposely lying to themselves. I just think that they could not imagine a scenario without their beloved child that would make them happier. I mean think of the implications of telling yourself that if you had to do it over again you would choose to not have the child. Think of how bad you'd feel if you told yourself you'd be happier without the unplanned child.

I'm pretty sure if I ever have an unplanned child I'll do the same thing.

i have a very realist attitude toward life. if you noticed i never said that i would condone this act, but said that if he chooses to this is what i would say to him. i cannot live my sons life. nor do i know if at that point in his life he will be christian. i hope that he will, but i do not know that until the time comes.

at this time in my life i was no christian. i was not at all concerned with what the bible or the church or my parents told me what was right or wrong.

i am not ******ed. i know that if i tell my 20 year old son not to have sex, it does not bear much influence. i know it had no influence on me. So why would i pretend that he was going to listen and not inform him of what might happen if he chooses to have sex and how to prevent certain situations. i think that i would not be a very good parent if i just ignored the situation, dont you?

lol. have you ever asked a catholic or anyone that believes birth control is a sin, where they back that up with scripture? if you are not aware of were they get that from i will inform you of that one passage.

just to reiterate, i do not believe that it is right, nor do i believe that the bible justifies sex before marriage in any way. But with that said, me telling a 20 boy that will probably have very little impact if any, so why not plan for the worst as the say. i believe in living life as it is, not in some fairy tale utopia. i know that you already think that i do, which is why i do infact have you on ignore, but my views of christianity and the bible and how we should live our lives is almost as opposite from so many other christians that i would be put closer with the atheists then the christians. Now the atheists would not think so, but many christians would call me a heretic and tell me that i am going to hell. but do not worry, i sleep very well at night.

hope that answers your questions. i am always more than happy to answer any question that you might have that is genuine. asking why i am ******ed, is not a genuine question, and seems to be the theme of most of you responses to me.

True, but you'd think that a true Christian would be so concerned with his son's eternal soul that in talking to his son about sex, he would not entertain the mere possibility of his son fornicating at all. To advise him to use contraceptives while committing the sin of fornication is mind-boggling to me.

The Bible is pretty clear that fornication is a sin. This isn't a grey area. If Jib responds that the bible isn't clear, he'll just be rationalizing his sinful ways.

I agree with that statement....but I don't think it completely explains the birth control paradox.

Morality has nothing to do with it. Your question in the OP was as follows:

My answer was that people who have unplanned pregnancies are generally not in a position, be it financially or emotionally, to take care of a child. They may love the resulting child to death, but if they looked at their situation objectively, they'd admit that they would have been better off waiting for their personal situation to improve before bringing children into their lives.

I dont think there's a paradox at all if you factor out the moral element which seems to distinguish having a child vs using birth control.

There is a choice - A or B. You point out that the people who choose A are, in general glad they've done so and avow that they're happier having made that choice. I think the same can be said for people who've chosen B. The very fact that the choices are mutually exclusive suggests that either people are bad at evaluating the relative benefits of what they've got with what they could have had, or that they are very good at making whichever choice is best for them. Personally, I think it's the former.

Jib,

I appreciate the response. As an atheist, your response makes sense to me. You have a very responsible attitude towards your son in regards to teaching him about sex and contraception. It is no different than what I'll be telling my daughter about sex when she gets to be of age.

However, I believe that you would be labelled as a "weak theist" by many of the other theists on this board. Many of the hardcore theists on this board would tell you that it is not okay to discuss pre-marital sex with your son (unless the conversation is "don't do it"), and it is definitely not okay to discuss contraceptives -- as every act of copulation should have the possibility of producing a child.

The hardcore theists on this board would accuse you of picking and choosing your beliefs based on your own intuition, and not what the bible tells you. To me, this is perfectly fine, but this attitude won't get you invited over to NotReady's or pacopaco's for Easter dinner.

You're ignoring the opportunity cost of the children. Assuming you have a maximum amount of child that you can support. The happiness in the lives of you and your children would most likely be maximized if you have the children at a later age. So when you decide to have a kid at 18, you then don't end up having your 3rd kid that you would have had at say age 33. So the correct question to the parents would not be, would you go back in time and not have your child at 18, the correct question would be, u lived two lives, one having the kid at 18, and the other at 33, now go back and time and choose which child to keep.

I think the bolded part is the crux here. Not wanting to undo what you've already done is not the same as not wanting to prevent it in the first place.

Analogy (I think it works):

We try to prevent heart attacks. Yet so many older people say having a near death experience like surviving a heart attack changed their lives for the better as they slow down and appreciate what they have. Conclusion: We should try to have a (survivable) heart attack in our 50s.

the point is he is happy he played THAT hand and would not want you going back and taking away his winnings by having him fold it. He loved the result and he wants to keep it.

I've worked with too many messed up families and non-families to put any weight to the nonsense that virtually all children are loved ( and treated as such) by their parents. Added to that false premise, the going back and treating it as an erasure is even worse thinking.
Every fertile woman should be knocked up today since they will surely regret in the future that they don't have the missed opportunity for a child? Do we need to keep them barefoot too, or is merely pregnant ok?

Remember, today is the day you returned to from the future, so whip it out and put it to work.

thank you.

i am ok with that. i feel confident in my basis of my beliefs.

i would definitely 100% disagree with them. i would simply ask what scriptural basis they have for this belief. and then we can look at it together to find out what the bible actually says about the matter. Again, have you ever asked someone where it is in the bible that it says birth control is a sin?

again, then i would have to tell them to show me where it says that, and that if they are going to accuse people of things they better have something to back it up. With that said, i do not believe that these guys would disagree with me, but i could be wrong, i will let the speak for themselves.

Stu,

Personally, I think your argument in the OP is silly. Assuming it isn't, however, I believe I can destroy it with this one statement:

Abstinence is a form of birth control.

You've destroyed nothing, I have repeatily said I am not making a moral argument about birth control. I am asking why we want to prevent something we would not want to prevent if it wasn't prevented in the first place.

You skipped my response. You are asserting we would not want to prevent it in the first place. Again, not wanting to undo an act which has already occurred != not wanting to prevent these types of acts in the first place. By ignoring this factor, I believe you aren't really interested in the answer to your question.

My statement had nothing to do with morality.

Not having sex would accomplish the same thing as using birth control, no?

I don't think they're lying, but I don't think they have a good understanding of the situation. I think their emotional attachment to their children will tend to make them less rational in considering the value of those children.

No

I am asserting we want to prevent something, but if we don't prevent it we would not want to go back and prevent it even if we could. We know all this is true even before we make the choice wether or not to prevent it.

For example: Women often have abortions instead of giving up the baby for adoption because they know once the baby is born, they would love it so much they would be incapable of giving it up.