The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[LeSellers]

Mousellemins

Please tell me you did this on purpose!!!

Of course I did. What's the problem?

I am sure that Dr. Peterson could verify this, but Arabic has no vowels in its alphabet. The vowels in a word are somewhat arbitrary, and change over time space, even with the same speaker.

I take my cue from Lawrence of Arabia in his preface to the book Seven Pillars of Wisdom. where in he complained that others had whined about his use of several different spellings of his own name, and that he wished he had used many more.

Lehi

[bluebell]

In terms of raw dollars, you are correct that it is indisputably more expensive to have and raise a child. However, what I believe Lehi is arguing is in terms of what are called "real" dollars; in other words, inflation-adjusted, etc. What Lehi has failed to thus far, is provide the data which support his conclusions that it is NOT more expensive in terms of inflation-adjusted real dollars (and, for some reason, he keeps ignoring my request to produce such information).

Yes, i do realize taht Lehi is talking in terms of 'real dollars'.

But since a couple hundred years ago the 'real dollar cost' of being pregnant, delivering a baby, and raising it to the first year was practically zero, compared to just those costs to do the same thing today, it seems obvious that the 'real dollar' cost of simply having children, let alone raising them, has indeed increased significantly.

[ttribe]

Yes, i do realize taht Lehi is talking in terms of 'real dollars'.

But since a couple hundred years ago the 'real dollar cost' of being pregnant, delivering a baby, and raising it to the first year was practically zero, compared to just those costs to do the same thing today, it seems obvious that the 'real dollar' cost of simply having children, let alone raising them, has indeed increased significantly.

While my gut instinct agrees with you, I'd certainly like to see the data that make up the basis of Lehi's assertions. I'm beginning to think that he has put me on his "Ignore" list now since there's been absolutely no response to any of my requests.

[bluebell]

While my gut instinct agrees with you, I'd certainly like to see the data that make up the basis of Lehi's assertions. I'm beginning to think that he has put me on his "Ignore" list now since there's been absolutely no response to any of my requests.

Data would indeed be helpful.

Going back to Lehi's other assertion, that finances is never a reason to limit the number of children, i think that the obvious rise in cost of simply giving birth to a child also shows the untruth of such a blanket statement.

There was a time in my life when i desperately wanted another child, and our family could have easily afforded the cost of raising another child-but what we could absolutely NOT afford was the cost of me actually giving birth to another on. We didn't have the thousands of dollars on hand to pay for it and therefore it absolutely was the reason we put it off until later when the resources were there.

My experience alone (which i don't believe to be unique) implies that Lehi's pronouncment of 'never' is demonstratably false.

[ttribe]

My experience alone (which i don't believe to be unique) implies that Lehi's pronouncment of 'never' is demonstratably false.

Agreed. It is a risky thing to use such absolute terms as "never" when discussing sociological issues.

[bluebell]

Agreed. It is a risky thing to use such absolute terms as "never" when discussing sociological issues.

And really, i think this is what i and others, such as yourself, are really disagreeing with Lehi about.

It's not that some people (mabye many, maybe few) use unrighteous justifications for their reasons not to have any/more children, and that finances might be one of those justifications.

The disagreement is with Lehi's blanket statment that finances are NEVER a reason for limiting the number of children a family has, a blanket statement that is already false by my own experiences and is also completely unsupportable with any data to back it up.

[ttribe]

And really, i think this is what i and others, such as yourself, are really disagreeing with Lehi about.

It's not that some people (mabye many, maybe few) use unrighteous justifications for their reasons not to have any/more children, and that finances might be one of those justifications.

The disagreement is with Lehi's blanket statment that finances are NEVER a reason for limiting the number of children a family has, a blanket statement that is already false by my own experiences and is also completely unsupportable with any data to back it up.

Bingo!

I'm becoming very intrigued by his silence in response to my data requests at this point.

[LeSellers]

The disagreement is with Lehi's blanket statment that finances are NEVER a reason for limiting the number of children a family has, a blanket statement that is already false by my own experiences and is also completely unsupportable with any data to back it up.

But I have not said that finances are not part of the considerations involved in having a(nother) child, what I have said is that one cannot say it is too expensive to have another child as if that alone is sufficient reason to avoid him.

If only one family can do it, and many have, then any family can do it. Whether any family will do it is another question, and one I'm not trying to get involved with.

What I am saying is that the financial questions are an excuse, not a reason, certainly in most cases.

BTW, when assessing whether a claim is factual, the person making the positive claim, e.g., it is more expensive today to raise children in the past, is the one who is under the obligation to support his case. The person making a negative claim, e.g., that is is not, is not required to make the case, nor, indeed, can.

I do submit, though, that in today's world, a t-shirt is less expensive in 2008 than it was in 1958, a pair of jeans is less expensive in 2008 than in 1958 (designer jeans aside â?? they are an anomaly). Shoes are less expensive, brad is less expensive, milk is less expensive. All these in terms of the time an average worker spends earning the money to buy each item. This corrects automatically for inflation. Diapers today are less expensive than then, but I am comparing cloth-to-cloth, not to-disposable. Baby food, in 1973 when we were first parents, was 10

[LeSellers]

But since a couple hundred years ago the 'real dollar cost' of being pregnant, delivering a baby, and raising it to the first year was practically zero, compared to just those costs to do the same thing today, it seems obvious that the 'real dollar' cost of simply having children, let alone raising them, has indeed increased significantly.

CFR that a child was free in say, 1958.

You made the charge, you should back it up.

Lehi

[ttribe]

BTW, when assessing whether a claim is factual, the person making the positive claim, e.g., it is more expensive today to raise children in the past, is the one who is under the obligation to support his case. The person making a negative claim, e.g., that is is not, is not required to make the case, nor, indeed, can.

Your made-up rule is non-sense and fails to capture the essence of what has gone on here . I made no "positive" claim in the way you have characterized. Furthermore, if you have something to say to me, say it directly.

What I said in post #5 was - "...the fact that it is not as economically and emotionally feasible for couples to have as large of families under the current circumstances...."

That is not nearly in the same vain as the narrow counters you have provided. In fact, it was INTENDED to be a broad commentary on the current economic pressures which face people worldwide (which we ARE now a worldwide Church) and, given the underlying complexities, cannot be easily reduced to a simple analysis of average 30 year inflation rates for a single municipality.

You, on the other hand, have set forth two very distinct and identifiable affirmative assertions (which you are so fond of repeating). The notion that they are neither "required" nor "can be" supported is absurd. Let's recap; you said (in post #246):

"My only position is that the two blanket statements:

1. it is too expensive to have a(nother)child; and

2. it is more expensive today to raise children than it was in days past

are both false."

This statement needs to be backed up and it should be very easy for you to produce the data if, in fact, you are as certain as you let on. I want to know what inflation rates you used to come to these conclusions, where you got them, what you included in the cost of living estimates, and your sources for the data. You have set yourself up here as some type of expert in the economics of raising a child (remember, you did write a book and you've done "studies" on this) and expected us all to take your word for it; now back it up.

[ttribe]

Just for giggles and grins, Lehi, let's start here with this - according to the data put together by the USDA, it is estimated (there are severe limitations here) to cost approximately 13% more (in 2000 dollars) to raise a child to age 18 when comparing the cost from 1960 to 2000 (again, inflation adjusted) in the United States. Here's the reference before you CFR me: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EU...i_78166940/pg_3.

There's your affirmative statement and support. Now refute it.

PLEASE NOTE: I've not said one thing about it being "too" expensive to have/raise A child, or ANOTHER child. Those are relative statements and I won't be dragged into that argument.

[Edited for spelling]

[bluebell]

CFR that a child was free in say, 1958.

You made the charge, you should back it up.

Lehi

First show me where i made the charge that a child was free in 1958, and then we can go on from there.

[bluebell]

But I have not said that finances are not part of the considerations involved in having a(nother) child, what I have said is that one cannot say it is too expensive to have another child as if that alone is sufficient reason to avoid him.

If only one family can do it, and many have, then any family can do it. Whether any family will do it is another question, and one I'm not trying to get involved with.

Another blanket statement that isn't supported by any facts.

OF COURSE some familes can do things that other families cannot do. Every family has different talents, abilities, lives in different places in the world, and has different resources at their disposal.

What one family can accomplish living on a farm in Nebraska would not be possible for another family living in the middle of New York city and vice versa. That you would even think you could logically and accurately make such a claim is extremely odd.

What I am saying is that the financial questions are an excuse, not a reason, certainly in most cases.

Actually you said it was an excuse in EVERY case. If you didn't mean EVERY case, then you should retract that statement.

BTW, when assessing whether a claim is factual, the person making the positive claim, e.g., it is more expensive today to raise children in the past, is the one who is under the obligation to support his case. The person making a negative claim, e.g., that is is not, is not required to make the case, nor, indeed, can.

On this board, the rule is that if someone asks for a reference, the person must provide it-if you want to abide by other rules, then you can take that up with the moderators and see if they are alright with that.

Regardless though, this issue is between you and ttribe as he's the one who asked for references, not me.

I do submit, though, that in today's world, a t-shirt is less expensive in 2008 than it was in 1958, a pair of jeans is less expensive in 2008 than in 1958 (designer jeans aside â?? they are an anomaly). Shoes are less expensive, brad is less expensive, milk is less expensive. All these in terms of the time an average worker spends earning the money to buy each item. This corrects automatically for inflation. Diapers today are less expensive than then, but I am comparing cloth-to-cloth, not to-disposable. Baby food, in 1973 when we were first parents, was 10

[katherine the great]

So, in these two case, yes, it is more costly, but one wonders if these parents would prefer a funeral (or two) to the medical. I know which one I'd rather have. Nonetheless, it is a choice. An unpleasant choice, to be sure, but a choice.Lehi

Would you please clarify what you mean by that remark? What parent would rather bury a child than care for him/her?

If it is more expensive, lay the blame on those responsible: government. Lehi

What good does it do to assign blame? It is what it is. We work around our circumstances--that's what people do.

CFR that a child was free in say, 1958. You made the charge, you should back it up.Lehi

She said a child was free 200 years ago--not in 1958.

[katherine the great]

My mother and father bought the house I grew up in 1957 for $11,500. It was 1,700 sq ft. Our son and his wife bought one the other day at 1,850 sq ft for $128,000. That's $6.76/sq ft and 69.19/s ft. Given inflation of about 10X, they're essentially the same.

Where does your son live? The average cost per square foot where I live is $120.00 per square foot and I live in an area where housing is considered extremely affordable. This is average--not fancy.

[bluebell]

Where does your son live? The average cost per square foot where I live is $120.00 per square foot and I live in an area where housing is considered extremely affordable. This is average--not fancy.

Home prices are such a tricky issue, because each area is so different.

Our last home cost us 88,000 and it was 2200 square feet on a fenced, landscaped 11,000 lot in the nicest subdivision in town. Just 40 miles away the same house would have cost us over 120,000.

In the town we live in right now-we can't even afford to buy a house as the cheapest home listed is 105, 900 and it's been abandoned and would need tens of thousands of dollars to make livable and it's a mere 675 square feet.

If we go buy Lehi's stats, in my area-then yes, homes are more expensive than they were when his parents bought one. However, i don't know that such can be determined simply by comparing home prices as it seems one would need to know the average home price of by 1957 and now to be accurate.

[ttribe]

Home prices are such a tricky issue, because each area is so different.

Our last home cost us 88,000 and it was 2200 square feet on a fenced, landscaped 11,000 lot in the nicest subdivision in town. Just 40 miles away the same house would have cost us over 120,000.

In the town we live in right now-we can't even afford to buy a house as the cheapest home listed is 105, 900 and it's been abandoned and would need tens of thousands of dollars to make livable and it's a mere 675 square feet.

If we go buy Lehi's stats, in my area-then yes, homes are more expensive than they were when his parents bought one. However, i don't know that such can be determined simply by comparing home prices as it seems one would need to know the average home price of by 1957 and now to be accurate.

$88,000?! $120,000?! $105,900?! Maybe I need to move to WY! I won't even tell you how much I just spent on the house we just built.

[bluebell]

$88,000?! $120,000?! $105,900?! Maybe I need to move to WY! I won't even tell you how much I just spent on the house we just built.

I know, in other places, people would kill for such home prices.

Considering the area where we live though, and the average salary, it's pretty expensive. If you want a garage and more than 2 bedrooms, and are o.k. with an older home in need of some repairs you're going to pay over 200,000. For that and move in ready, it's almost or over 300,000.

You want to live in the country-get ready to pay 600,000 plus! I was just looking at some land the other day and for 1 acre in what we call 'the badlands'-desert sagebrush, no water hook ups or irrigation, no utilities, no road into the property, no trees and no bushes-and it was 100,000 just for the land! Crazy.

[LeSellers]

OF COURSE some familes can do things that other families cannot do. Every family has different talents, abilities, lives in different places in the world, and has different resources at their disposal.

But we're not talking about anything to do with "talents" or "abilities". We're talking about choices and the values that drive them.

What one family can accomplish living on a farm in Nebraska would not be possible for another family living in the middle of New York city and vice versa.

That is true, and I do not claim otherwise. What I do claim is that living in New York is a choice, and it is based on the family's values. If they want to do what someone living in Nebraska is doing, they might need to move to Nebraska. There are probably a host of other options, too, but unless one is willing to put all the options on the table, including moving to Nebraska, one has no basis on which to say it's too expensive.

Our choices reflect our values in every case.

My Jacquie and I moved to Colorado for no other reason than we wanted to be near most of our grandchildren. Our younger daughter and her family moved here so they could be near us. I do not like the weather here. I do not like the threat of tornadoes, and hail damage. I do not like the short growing season. But we willingly traded those dislikes for the superior preference for being near our children and their families.

Every person has a story of this same kind of choice. Some people refuse to move to get a better job (or whatever), and the only reason for that choice is that they prefer to live where they are above whatever benefits would present themselves. That's the nature of choices, and it's an irrefutable law.

That you would even think you could logically and accurately make such a claim is extremely odd.

Actually you said it was an excuse in EVERY case. If you didn't mean EVERY case, then you should retract that statement.

It is an excuse in every case. There are excuses and there are real reasons. "Too expensive" is just a description of the reason, but it tells us little about the real reason itself. The reason is the answer to the question "too expensive compared to what?

The real reason is what the family chooses to do with the resources (not all of which are financial) that having a(nother) baby would cost. Let's say the family decides that having another baby would mean they cannot move into a new home. The excuse is that the cost of having another baby is too high, but the reason it is "too high', is that they value a new house more than they value a new baby.

This is also true viewed from the other side. What a family does without (not all such sacrifices are financial) in order to have a(nother) baby. They prefer a child to a new house, or a new car, or a vacation, or something. They might prefer, as did Sarah Palin, prefer another child to the costs of raising a Down Syndrome child, or her daughter prefers a child to the costs of having an abortion. Every child represents a choice, and every choice represents the values and trade offs of the person(s) who make that choice.

On this board, the rule is that if someone asks for a reference, the person must provide it-if you want to abide by other rules, then you can take that up with the moderators and see if they are alright with that.

Well, as I said, he who makes the affirmative assertion must provide the support. Logically, it is impossible to prove a negative.

I never claimed, or as i already said, never meant to, that it was more expensive to raise a child today than a couple hundred years ago, i said it was more expensive to have a child.

There are probably cases when this is true, just as there are cases where it is not. But the issue has not been about giving birth, but about the entire process of having a child.

Again, this is nothing that i asked about, but i will say that I don't know that anyone is going to just take your word for it Lehi. You'll need to show some actual statistics and not just compare prices and then claim 'it's exactly the same'.

I need show nothing as it has not been I who has made the positive assertion.

However, I am researching the source I have relied on. It will take time as it was many years ago, and I read the way lions eat gazelles: constantly. I do believe, however, that my informal study shows it it more than merely possible that I am correct.

Lehi

[ttribe]

Well, as I said, he who makes the affirmative assertion must provide the support. Logically, it is impossible to prove a negative.

Another dodge.

I need show nothing as it has not been I who has made the positive assertion.

And another. Feel free to answer my "positive assertion" (post #261) not to mention my numerous calls for your references anytime.

[bluebell]

But we're not talking about anything to do with "talents" or "abilities". We're talking about choices and the values that drive them.

You may believe the issues are that black and white, but i disagree.

Obviously, not everyone can be a farmer-it's simple logic. If everyone in the US tried to farm, the available farm land would simply become urban. We need to be realistic.

Moving, especially out of state, is VERY expensive. Saying that someone suffering from financial difficulties can simply move is not accurate. Moving away from places of employment is also not always an option.

That is true, and I do not claim otherwise. What I do claim is that living in New York is a choice, and it is based on the family's values. If they want to do what someone living in Nebraska is doing, they might need to move to Nebraska. There are probably a host of other options, too, but unless one is willing to put all the options on the table, including moving to Nebraska, one has no basis on which to say it's too expensive.

What i am asserting is that it is possible that one HAS put all the options on the table and that even then the family is not financially able to add to their family.

That you completely disregard that possibility is the whole point behind our disagreement.

Our choices reflect our values in every case.

Not so. Sometimes our choices reflect our options. Again, it's your black and white thinking that i am disagreeing with. I don't believe you have enough knowledge to speak in the absolutes you are speaking in.

My Jacquie and I moved to Colorado for no other reason than we wanted to be near most of our grandchildren.

How wonderful that that was an option for you. Please recognize that moving is not an option for everyone. Jobs, health, money, etc. can all limit our options in ways that make certain choices impossible.

Our younger daughter and her family moved here so they could be near us.

Again, just because this option is available to your family does not mean it's available to everyone in the US.

I do not like the weather here. I do not like the threat of tornadoes, and hail damage. I do not like the short growing season. But we willingly traded those dislikes for the superior preference for being near our children and their families.

Again, you had the choice-some people don't.

Every person has a story of this same kind of choice.

I disagree.

I have an uncle that has medical issues-because of those, he HAS to live where he does as it's the only place he can get treatment for them. I feel comfortable in saying that i'm sure my uncle is not the only person in america (and the world) who's place of residence is by necessity and not choice.

Some people refuse to move to get a better job (or whatever), and the only reason for that choice is that they prefer to live where they are above whatever benefits would present themselves. That's the nature of choices, and it's an irrefutable law.

I agree. Some people DO have that choice.

What i disagree with is your statement that EVERYONE has those choices.

It is an excuse in every case.

No, it's not.

There are excuses and there are real reasons. "Too expensive" is just a description of the reason, but it tells us little about the real reason itself. The reason is the answer to the question "too expensive compared to what?

I agree, there are excuses and there are real reasons.

I again assert that financial reasons can be legitamete reasons to stop or postpone having more children. You've not said one thing that has given me any reason to change my assertions. You stating your opinion over and over again is not very convincing.

The real reason is what the family chooses to do with the resources (not all of which are financial) that having a(nother) baby would cost. Let's say the family decides that having another baby would mean they cannot move into a new home. The excuse is that the cost of having another baby is too high, but the reason it is "too high', is that they value a new house more than they value a new baby.

Lehi, please try to listen. NO ONE has asserted that the reasoning you have stated above is a righteous or legitamete reason for choosing not to have another baby. You are arguing something that isn't even in dispute.

What IS in dispute is whether everyone who chooses not to have another child due to economic reasons chooses that due to the reasoning you have put forth.

Your reasoning above certainly does not apply to every couple who has ever had to make this choice.

Well, as I said, he who makes the affirmative assertion must provide the support. Logically, it is impossible to prove a negative.

And as others have said, your rules are inapplicable on this board. It IS possible for you to provide evidence to support your statements. If you refuse to do so, you MUST retract or be in violation of the board rules.

There are probably cases when this is true, just as there are cases where it is not. But the issue has not been about giving birth, but about the entire process of having a child.

Yeesh lehi, do you even read have the posts that you respond to? I specifically stated, twice, that I was speaking about the issue of having (carrying and giving birth) more children, not in raising them.

I need show nothing as it has not been I who has made the positive assertion.

Maybe if you say it three times fast, it will be true.

However, I am researching the source I have relied on. It will take time as it was many years ago, and I read the way lions eat gazelles: constantly. I do believe, however, that my informal study shows it it more than merely possible that I am correct.

Lehi

That's fine, i'm sure ttribe is fine waiting-obviously sometimes such reference finding can take some time, there's nothing wrong wtih that.

ttribe has himself put up some data that so far as contradicted your claims, but it will interesting to see what others find on the subject.

[cjcampbell]

Well, that's one person's opinion. But there are some realities that you need to face. First, people work further away from their homes nowadays because affordable homes are not to be found in major cities.

That would be why, of course, that only the wealthy live in the inner cities? Oops.

[cjcampbell]

That's an interesting point. It raises an interesting question about why so many Mormons are conservative on this issue. Are they against â??socialized medicineâ? because they really think that our healthcare system ought to be a business geared towards making insurance companies, lawyers, and healthcare providers very wealthy? Or are they against â??socialized medicineâ? because the current system makes babies prohibitively expensive, thus providing an excuse for family planning?

They are against socialized medicine because they know that socialized medicine would make health care even more expensive, once government throws in the cost of a huge bureaucracy to administer it. Rationing always creates black markets. Perhaps once women see that there are suddenly long waiting periods to get an abortion then there will be an uproar over socialized medicine.

I don't doubt there are people out there who might try to argue that. Its almost as absurd as arguing that LDS people practice birth control in order to shop at Nordstrom.

John Nordstrom is a neighbor of mine. I am sure he would not be amused by this thread.

[katherine the great]

They are against socialized medicine because they know that socialized medicine would make health care even more expensive, once government throws in the cost of a huge bureaucracy to administer it. Rationing always creates black markets. Perhaps once women see that there are suddenly long waiting periods to get an abortion then there will be an uproar over socialized medicine.John Nordstrom is a neighbor of mine. I am sure he would not be amused by this thread.

Huh?

[drift away]

I think that generally children are not as expensive as people make them. They are very consumptive of time. I had a conservative baptist friend with 4 kids, one 4 (had luekemia), one 3, and two 1 year olds (one of which had multiple heart surgeries and was awaiting a transplant). I think they were about at the limit, and he had his tubes tied because they had all they could handle. In a very few cases, money is a huge concern. With the way they were going the next kid would have a brain tumor. It gets pricey. I think in the vast majority of the cases, people can afford more kids financially, but there are a couple exceptions

If you look at our current batch of GA's, their family size is interesting. I saw 10 names with family size listed on Wiki (I may have missed some).

Christopherson, 5

Uchtdorf, 2

Cook, 3

Monson, 3,

Holland, 3

Eyring, 6

Packer, 10

Bednar, 3

Hinckley, 5

Nelson, 10

Ballard, 7

Some people can't have large families for health reasons. It is statistically very unlikely that that was the cause for so many GA's. It looks like they thought it was between them and God, largely. There example tells more then the words could. It is also interesting that, given their age, they were raising families in a "no birth control" era.