The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[katherine the great]

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.

Do you mean "no birth control pill" era? Different types of birth control have existed throughout human history; just none as generally safe and effective as the pill.

[ttribe]

[drift away]

By "no birth control era" I mean that they lived in an era when the church frowned on birth control. I recognize that the could have used natural methods. My main point is they decided that their degree of multiplying was appropriate for them. The decision was between them and God. I think it is between us and God.

[ttribe]

By "no birth control era" I mean that they lived in an era when the church frowned on birth control. I recognize that the could have used natural methods. My main point is they decided that their degree of multiplying was appropriate for them. The decision was between them and God. I think it is between us and God.

Which is exactly what Pres. Hinckley said on the subject. Nevertheless, there appear to be some who want a "hard and fast" rule for universal application to all members of the Church; which results in all manner of judgmental behaviors. Let it be said - the litmus test for righteousness is not the number of children one has.

[LeSellers]

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

This is not my original source. but here is a first hack at the question, which, again, I do not believe I am required to make, since my statement is negative, and the others' are positive. By all of the rules of logic, the negative position does not require such.

The data I am referring to here come form this source: Ending the Tax Code's Anti-Family Bias.

In 1948, the dependent tax exemption was set at $600 per family member. This was to exempt that much income from taxation because it took that much money to support an average person, man, woman or child for a year.

In 1989, the exemption was up to $2,000/per person. However, the inflation-adjusted number ought to have been $6,300. This higher figure is justified by two separate methods: first, simple government numbers showed a greater than ten-fold increase in general prices forced by government policies (fiscal and monetary); second, the increase in the cost of maintaining one person had risen essentially by the same amount. (Obviously, the two intervening decades have raised this number. However, I haven't found a more recent, comparable study.) If we accumulate the official inflation rates from '89 to '02, we get a 64% increase, meaning that the personal exemption should be $10,300. This is about 40% more than the official cost per the USDA for a low income family (c. $7,000/child). Thus, as I have said, the cost of raising a child is not more, but probably less than it has historically been.

This does not take into account the fact that we have no children dying of starvation in XXI USmerica while starvation was a common occurrence as little as two centuries ago. Parents do not routinely let their children die when they have the means ot prevent it. The conclusion is that they could not save their children, and they cold not do so because they could not afford to buy food for them.

For another source (not my original, either), see this article: Cost of Raising a Child Not as High as Government Would Have You Believe. The author, H. Swint Friday, is a professor of finance at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. He has a doctorate in finance and a master's in economics from Florida State University. He states:

One mother who is an astute and prudent money manager cited on these sites calculated the cost of raising her eight children at approximately $2,900 per head each year for a total of $52,000 for each child over 18 years. This is nowhere near the $190,000 or so that the USDA claims it takes to raise one child. So, you do not have to be Bill Gates to afford a few children or even a lot of children. However, you may have to watch your finances a little more closely. Children, though not nearly as expensive as reported, definitely aren't cheap to raise.

The last sentence is what I have been saying, it is not more expensive to raise children today than it has beenin the past, but we should not discount that it has always been expensive to do so.

The sentence prior to it is also a direct restatement of my posiotn, You do not need to be wealthy to afford children. It is not too expensive to have them.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

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

Your statement was in the very message you replied to, here:

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.

So, please support your assertion that having a child was essentially free in 1958.

Lehi

[LDSMusic483]

Your statement was in the very message you replied to, here: So, please support your assertion that having a child was essentially free in 1958.

Lehi

I think you'll not get them to prove it, they did say a couple hundred years ago, but didn't say they held the same idea for 1958.

[katherine the great]

How does one reason with a person who thinks we are living in the twenty third century?

[LDSMusic483]

How does one reason with a person who thinks we are living in the twenty third century?

aren't we?

[LeSellers]

How does one reason with a person who thinks we are living in the twenty third century?

Pardon?

I think you'll not get them to prove it, they did say a couple hundred years ago, but didn't say they held the same idea for 1958.

Okeh. CFR that is was essentially free to have a child 200 years ago.

Lehi

[bluebell]

How does one reason with a person who thinks we are living in the twenty third century?

[LDSMusic483]

Pardon?

Okeh. CFR that is was essentially free to have a child 200 years ago.

Lehi

Much better

[bluebell]

CFR that is was essentially free to have a child 200 years ago.

Lehi

Really? I thought it was pretty obvious.

In 1808, the majority of medical care was done by women in the home. History of midwifery

During this general time, only those who could pay for a doctor had one deliver them-the poor still used midwifes or family attendants. A short history of childbirth.

And, there were some other articles that had more specific numbers on babies born in the home during that time period, but i had to pay to view them, and that just wasn't going to happen.

[ttribe]

The data I am referring to here come form this source: Ending the Tax Code's Anti-Family Bias.

In 1948, the dependent tax exemption was set at $600 per family member. This was to exempt that much income from taxation because it took that much money to support an average person, man, woman or child for a year.

So, let me get this straight - the idea that the exemption has not kept pace with the amount of expected increase in costs to raise a child, is evidence that it is not more expensive now than in the past? Please connect the dots here, because I'm just not seein' it.

For another source (not my original, either), see this article: Cost of Raising a Child Not as High as Government Would Have You Believe. The author, H. Swint Friday, is a professor of finance at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. He has a doctorate in finance and a master's in economics from Florida State University.

Impressive background; how come this "study" wasn't published in a refereed journal? Where's the data for everyone to look at? Agenda?

The last sentence is what I have been saying, it is not more expensive to raise children today than it has beenin the past, but we should not discount that it has always been expensive to do so.

The sentence prior to it is also a direct restatement of my posiotn, You do not need to be wealthy to afford children. It is not too expensive to have them.

For the millionth time, Lehi, NO ONE HERE SAID IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE TO HAVE A CHILD!!!!!!!!

Again, I am reiterating my call for proof that it isn't more expensive to have and raise a child now than in the past. You've said you've done studies, but produced nothing from those studies other than a couple of brief articles from the Internet. You have made positive assertions that it is not more expensive - where's the data? Again, what inflation rates did you use? What's your source?

You've done nothing to rebut the positive assertion I made that the USDA data show a potential increase in said costs of approximately 13%. Your credibility is on the line here, Lehi. I do hope you can do better than these links.