If you don't want a child, then don't have sex

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mareao Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 20, 2013 7:13 p.m.

    While "if you don't want a child, don't have sex" isn't going to prevent unwanted pregnancy, it's still true. And it's a good message, because trouble starts when you ignore the truth.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    To "mark" so then you agree. Pre-marital sex is not a good idea because neigher party knows for sure if they will or will not marry the person that they are having sex with.

    Uh. . . I'm sorry, where in anything that I have posted (ever) do you get the idea that I would agree with that comment?

    Again, I think the problem here just might be reading comprehension. Try reading things and take the effort to understand what you've just read. Personally, I believe that consenting adults should engage in intimacy based on what they and their partner have decided they want to do and for reasons only they need to determine for themselves. It's no one else's business. No ones.

    Also, its wise if the decision making process for having sex includes consideration of possible STDs, and potential for pregnancy and taking steps to avoid pregnancy if its unwanted, including contraception and "morning after pills".

    By doing this abortions should be able to be avoided. But if that's a decision that must be made, its absolutely the woman's decision to make, with whoever SHE chooses to make it with.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Sept. 20, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    Deep Space 9, Ut

    To "mark" so then you agree. Pre-marital sex is not a good idea because neigher party knows for sure if they will or will not marry the person that they are having sex with.

    If you agree with my, why do you have to attack?
    8:20 a.m. Sept. 19, 2013


    Because you are completely OFF topic RedShirt.
    That's why.

    Let me reiterate the topic FOR you;
    'If you don't want a child, then don't have sex’

    There was nothing in the letter suggesting or singling out pre-marital sex.
    It was any and all sex.
    Your forte.

    Even for Married, 1 man 1 woman, Temple Worthy, heterosexual, legally and lawfully wedded, committed relationships.
    Zero, nadda.

    So, why do you support such non-sense?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 19, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    To "mark" so then you agree. Pre-marital sex is not a good idea because neigher party knows for sure if they will or will not marry the person that they are having sex with.

    If you agree with my, why do you have to attack?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    "To "mark" if they refute the study, give me the quote. At best they question its methodologies for collecting data.

    Again, they cannot refute the study."

    Okay, I think I might see the problem here: reading comprehension.

    Allow me to repost: "They weren't trying to refute the study. They were pointing out what a badly structured study it was."

    "At best they question its methodologies"

    Question its methodologies? Yes that's what they are doing. Question is a nice way to say it. Another way to say it is that they totally dismiss the study.

    Do you really think people will not go and read the article? Really? And you want to stand behind it? And the study? 2% dude. 2%. That's all the study found, even if you take it at face value, which the author of the article most certainly does not.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    To "mark" if they refute the study, give me the quote. At best they question its methodologies for collecting data.

    Again, they cannot refute the study.

  • Vastslayer414 Pleasant Grove/United State, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    When he says, "IF you don't want a child don't have sex" I imply take full responsibility for your actions. If you become sexually active take heed that there are consequences.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Sept. 18, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    The letter writer makes a good argument for being gay or lesbian.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    You have got to be kidding. They couldn't refute the study? They weren't trying to refute the study. They were pointing out what a badly structured study it was. They totally dismissed it and were highly critical of it. The study itself, if you take it at face value, only showed an extremly small difference in couples that were more "happy": 2%.

    And you really want to use that article and that study to back what you are claiming?

    Again people, don't believe me and definitely don't believe RedShirt, go read the article.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    To "mark" I don't think you read it either. The article attempted to be critical of the BYU study, but in the end couldn't refute the BYU study. The BYU study concluded "that not only did the couples who waited until after marriage to have sex rate their sex life better, they reported that their marriages were more stable and satisfying, and their communication was better than couples who had not waited."

    Again, the psychology today writer has questions, but he cannot disprove what BYU found.

    Lets take a logical look at their findings. If a woman is dating a man, is there any guarantee that she will not eventually marry that man? If there is no guarantee that she will not marry that man, why risk the future for a moment of pleasure today?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    RedShirt, I always wonder if you really don't think other people will read the articles you recommend. I sometimes wonder if you yourself read them. If you do read them then why would you put forward an article such as this to support your argument? This article "Did a Study Really Show that Abstinence Before Marriage Makes for Better Sex Afterwards?" is highly critical of the BYU study discussed.

    But first of all the BYU study itself doesn't even say what you claim. You say that it shows that women who abstained from sex before marriage were more happy after marriage. (And for some reason you correlate this with "mental health".) But the study isn't claiming that women who were virgins (who had abstained) at marriage are more happy afterwards. It claims that couples who had waited in their relationship were happier in marriage.

    Be that as it may the article is highly critical of the study, very much dismissing its claims. Don't believe me? Actually go read the article.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 18, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    One correction 2bits, "I don't understand why abortion at ANY TIME for ANY REASON... is so important to Democrats." Any time any where is not the Democratic position and never has been. The Roe v Wade standard of viability except for special circumstances is the Democratic position.

    Viability is generally accepted at the 26 week period thus the opposition to the 20 week standard. 20 weeks is not necessarily reasonable it's just close enough to 26 to erode medically accepted standard.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 17, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    "To "Truthseeker" if you read the original article, it calls for women to seek men that will be responsible for a family."

    Article? What article?
    I was commenting on this letter to the editor.

    Please highlight the sentence where the letter writer is callling for women to seek responsible men.

    Why doesn't the letter writer, a man, write a letter telling men not to have sex until they are married and are willing to support a child?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" work on your reading skills. The writer is responding to a previous article that was seeking approval of pre-marital sex, and allowing women to kill their unborn children for no other reason than they just don't want it.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    RedShirt --

    Stop going off topic and making this a red herring to suit YOUR twisted agenda.

    What this letter writer is suggesting is that even MARRIED, Temple worthy, 1 man and 1 woman committed relationship people should not have sex at all if they don't can't have anymore children.

    It goes right along with that All-or-nothing thinking.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    Re Redshirt

    I don't recall saying anything about premarital sex. My statements were about sex .. period.

    I stand by what I said. If people don't want a child they should use protection. If the protection fails they should take responsibility put the child up for adoption or raise it.

    If you don't want a child foregoing sex makes as much sense as not ever riding in the car because you don't want to get into an automobile accident.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    To "cjb" actually many people are willing to forgo sex. I personally know at 8 people that are at least 35 years old that have willingly forgone sex, and are willing to wait until they are married before having sex.

    People are not dogs, we can control our desires and urges. You realize that that pre-marital sex is linked to many problems, especially for women. Why do you want to damage the mental health of women?

    According to various sources, the mental health of women engaging in pre-marital sex suffers. In Psychology Today the article "Did a Study Really Show that Abstinence Before Marriage Makes for Better Sex Afterwards?" finds that people who abstain prior to marriage have better sex after marriage. They also find that " their marriages were more stable and satisfying, and their communication was better than couples who had not waited."

    Why do you want to damage future marriages by telling people that sex before marriage is good?

    To "Truthseeker" if you read the original article, it calls for women to seek men that will be responsible for a family.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    So the writer is suggesting we adopt Catholic doctrine? Sex for procreation only?

    Another man calling for women to be solely responsible for pregnancy.

    Pregnancy requires a male.

    Maybe men should step up to the plate, stop making excuses and justifying their "needs."

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    most people are not willing to forgo sex, nor should they.

    the only way to avoid an automobile accident is never to get in a car

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    RE: "Ever hear of accidents"? (from Thinkin\' Man)

    Uhhh... that's the whole point of the letter. You can't have "accidents" IF you practice abstinence. That's the beauty of the abstinence approach. There is no chance of "accidents".

    Now we all know all people aren't going to choose abstinence, but it doesn't hurt to bring it up, and to consider it. I mean that's it's whole advantage... you don't have to WORRY about "accidents"!

    I mean what "accidents" do you have to worry about IF you abstain?

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 17, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    to "glendenbg" you said "Abortion is often the least bad option for women with unplanned pregnancies. Respecting women's moral agency requires trusting them to make morally correct choices without coercive laws." That sure sound like you are ok with using abortion to terminate pregnancies simply because a woman doesn't want to deal with having a child.

    If a woman can terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want to have a baby, why can't she legally kill her newborn because she now realizes that she doesn't want a baby? What has changed?

  • CynicJim Taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    Well, I told my girls as they were growing up that the best birth control method was an aspirin, held FIRMLY between the knees. My objection is having to pay for abortions, if that option were taken away much more care would be shown. You play, YOU pay!

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Sept. 16, 2013 7:16 p.m.

    No ranch it is not your body there are at least three lives involved. People slept together out of marriage for a long time. There were many records of less than 9 months between marriage and birth of first child. Two people can choose not to engage in sexual relations and that will solve any issue.

    Sex out of marriage always had and always will be wrong. As for too many people argument didn't God know what he was doing when he created the earth. Can't he find a way to feed them. Hong Kong and England do fine though they are dense. Some of the places where people atarve the most are were there is good resources and few people. Matter of lifestyle and Government.

    Best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy don't do things to bring it on. And no one is forcing anyone to sleep together they make that choice. Suffer consequences not baby.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 16, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    The metaphors are disturbing. But here another dumb one; If you don't want to starve to death, make sure you eat your dinner.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    Mr. Peter Smith,

    When you can get pregnant you are entitled to an opinion.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    @RedShirtMIT - Nothing I've written is about avoiding consequences of one's actions. Sexuality serves many purposes in human life - intimacy, expressing love, sharing pleasure and procreation.

    I think a better metaphor than ice cream is pizza. You don't always want pizza but when you do it's the best thing in the world; it can be shared or eaten alone. You want everyone sharing the pizza to enjoy it, so you communicate and negotiate ("what toppings, what kind of crust"). Different kinds of pizza are equal to each other, there's no pizza hierarchy. You want enough but not too much. That's enough of that.

    Fr. John J. McNeill once wrote that the only moral guideline one needed for sexuality is that it be "Mutually agreeable and agreeably mutual." Although some people may choose to reserve sexualtiy for procreation, I believe doing so means missing out on its other purposes. There are unhealthy ways to be sexual (ie abuse, addiction, assault, coercion), just as there is unhealthy eating.

    Healthy eating and healthy sexuality enrich our lives in many ways. The goal is each person finding the way that works for them.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    One of the major purposes of sexual interaction is to build a strong and loving bond between the parties in a marriage. It sounds like Peter wants to deny the married couple that bond. He must like the idea of divorce.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 16, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    To "FreedomFighter41" when were women given the right to commit infanticide?

    Who is restricting birth control? If your OB/GYN gives you a prescription for birth control, who is stopping you from purchasing it? Is there anybody restricting its production so there is a limited supply? What restriction is there on a woman obtaining birth control?

    What restriction is there on Sex Ed? Are you against the liberal groups that only want to have safe sex taught, and want to restrict or limit any talk of abstinance?

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Sept. 16, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    Hey letter writer,

    Ever hear of accidents?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 16, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    I'm wondering how many babies are aborted when the father and mother are married to each other. It can't be very many. A father would never let anyone kill his children. A mother would defend her children to the death. Does anyone have verifiable statistics that show what percentage of all abortions were performed on a woman who was married to the father of that unborn baby?

    There is no method except abstinence that will ever guarantee that pregnancy will not occur if a man and a woman have sexual intercourse. Killing the innocent unborn child is not the way to handle an unexpected pregnancy. As any judge will tell you, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." That goes for having sexual relations. If you can't handle the possible pregancy without killing the innocent unborn child, you have no business participating in the procreative process.

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    Geez! No one has mentioned the C word.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    As a woman, let me express my appreciation for Peter deciding how I should feel, treat my body, and decide my life. Thank you for deciding my life for me.

    Now I must have missed the ballot box when it was decided that Viagra would be provided in health insurance. Please, let me have a voice on this issue since men are deciding my life.

    It's so sad and offensive to me that the same people who restrict birth control and sex ed are also the same people who want to decide abortion too. These men don't have to live with their decisions. yet, they feel like we're still in 19th century Victorian England and can decide life for 50 percent of the population.

    Sorry boys!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    Wasn't this issue decided decades ago?

    Do we not have any other issues to discuss? Is the economy booming? How about health care? Has peace finally broken out in the world? Have we finally cut our bloated defense budget in half to sustainable levels?

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 16, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    To "glendenbg" lets look at it from another viewpoint since you are equating sex with more than procreation.

    Lets look at this in terms of eating. The primary purpose of eating is to supply nutrition to your body. Now lets assume that you like to eat ice cream. Now you are eating a bowl of ice cream after every meal because it makes you feel good, and you often take others with you to get ice cream because it is a good social atmosphere and you have a good bonding moment. After a year or so of doing thing, you find that you are over weight and diabetic. Yes you have built friendships and become closer to people over ice cream, but did you ever consider the risk of the behavior? Should you be absolved of the consequences?

    You want to have all the ice cream you want and not have the consequences. Had you abstained from using ice cream as a way to bond with other people, you would have avoided the weight gain and associated problems. The same can be same for sex. If you want it, be prepared for the consequences that can follow.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    When the God of the natural world created life there was only one commandment. That commandment was simply to survive. It was not written in a book and it did not need any messengers to spread the word, it was put into every cell of every living thing.

    Because of the hazards of life, the most important part of survival was procreation. There were few rules other than just do it. So the driving force for sexual activity is second only to survival itself.

    Human beings are the only ones who make rules and limitations on sexual activity. The rules are really not necessary and give us cause to suspect the motives of the rule makers.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    This letter is a good example of framing; it hides its moralizing in plain sight.

    The language in the letter assumes pregnancy = choice and sex = procreation. The author frames abortion as a choice between sex and murder. It's a shaming argument that says women who have sex for nonprocreative purposes prioritize their physical pleasure over the lives of their potential children. This framing attempts to reduce the complexity of conception and abortion to simple choices. It elides the experience of millions of women who have trouble conceiving or those women who conceived against their will. It prioritizes the rights of a potential person over the rights of an adult person.

    A different view holds that sexuality has many purposes in human life - sharing intimacy and pleasure, expressing love and, potentailly, procreation. To respect the procreative potential, we should use contraceptives consistently and correctly if we wish to avoid pregnancy but total abstinence from non procreative sexuality the other purposes of sexuality in our lives.

    Abortion is often the least bad option for women with unplanned pregnancies. Respecting women's moral agency requires trusting them to make morally correct choices without coercive laws.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 16, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    To "cjb" yes, not having sex is the best way to avoid pregnancy. Even using protection is not 100% protection. If you play with fire, even if you protect yourself as much as you can, you will get burned.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    Nobody's advocating abstinence by force. Show me somebody who has said that. But nice straw man argument.

    I've only seen people advocating people CHOOSE to not have sex if they don't want a baby.

    Of course that all depends on the individual's ability to choose whether they will have sex or not. But nobody has said we should FORCE people to not have sex. Just pointing out that it's an option... and it's 100% successful (where all other forms of birth control have varying success rates, even when used appropriately).

    Nobody said "Force".

    Please also not that nobody has proposed preventing people from using any of the other forms of birth control as well (at least from what I've read so far). We just want people to do what it takes to avoid aborting babies (as we find that a barbaric form of birth control).

    Use birth control. Use abstinence. If we did this... there would be a lot fewer abortions in America.

    That's all.

  • Lasvegaspam Henderson, NV
    Sept. 16, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    Peter is 100% correct. Unlike both my own parents, I will NEVER become alcoholic because I never drink alcohol. Whine about this fact all you want, but it's 100% true.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    Oh Peter, Peter, Peter, what a sheltered life you live. Are you advocating abstinence by force? Are Utah women going to need to get some sort of license to procreate? I hate abortion as much as the next guy but until you address the other issues then you have nothing but rhetoric. You believe in birth, not life. Your life is not indicative of everyone's life. God Bless you though.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    Anyone who has immoral relations has already made a big mistake which hurts many victims. To compound the mistake by ending a life who was invited into our world is even more egregious. The biggest victims are the perpetrators themselves, made weaker by every failure to exercise restraint.

    Fortunately, both they and their innocent victims are subject to the atonement of Christ, which offers relief to all. It provides a pathway out of destructive behavior patterns and also offers sure restitution to all innocent victims.

    God didn't just give us commandments. He gave us way to follow them more easily. It never has been impossible to be chaste, no matter how many people pretend that it is. All cynics in this matter need only pay attention to the many, quiet, family-oriented people around town who still provide secure, stable, homes for children to be born into. To them there is no such thing as an "unwanted child."

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    RE: "As long as the earth has more that 500 million humans on it, I am in favor of anything that will reduce the population" from Crusader Layton...

    How about mass executions, forced sterilization, war, etc? I mean you said "Anything" that would reduce the population, right?

    The thing that confuses me most about the left is... they will fight and wail and cry to prevent the execution of a murderer who was convicted of atrocious and violent crimes... but they will end an innocent baby's life with a clear conscience. They will actually fight for the right to legally kill innocent babies (because the population is too high for them)! I don't see how they rationalize that. Save the murderers... but execute innocent babies to save the planet.

    It just seems like twisted and perverse logic to me.

    Overpopulation may be a problem in some places like Africa with limited ability to develop their resources. But overpopulation in the United States is a myth that's been debunked decades ago.

    Fly across the United States. Most of the time you can't even see a human village.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    First, we need to acknowledge that people are going to have sex, whether we want them to or not. Not just for procreation, but pleasure and fun as well. Then, we need to bring it out into the open, and start treating sex like adults, not giggly 8 year old boys. Easy access to and societal acceptance of contraception is the next big step. Prevent unwanted pregnancy, because you're never going to prevent unwanted sex.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    Hey Peter, is it your body? No? Then mind your own business. You have no business telling other people what they can and can not do with their bodies, including abortion or having sex.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    It's quite obvious that not having sex IF you don't want to get pregnant is the only 100% sure way of making sure you don't become pregnant.

    But the reality is... there is a large percentage of the population that can't do that. So there has to be another solution. But there are still many options that still don't require abortion of the fetus. And even if all of them fail... there's still adoption.

    Abortion should be a last resort for special circumstances. IF it were only used in cases of rape or a known threat to the health of the mother... there would be very few abortions in America.

    I don't understand why abortion at ANY TIME for ANY REASON... is so important to Democrats.

    Seems like a limit like 20 weeks should be acceptable... but did you see how they responded when Texas tried to pass even that common sense restriction? I don't get it.

  • Danny Chipman Lehi, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 9:29 a.m.


    So are you arguing for the elimination of six and a half billion people? Are you volunteering?

    I hope your silly post was as tongue-in-cheek as mine is.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    A male author placing the full responsibility of a woman getting pregnant on the woman. Last time I checked, it took two to create life.

    There are other functions, and roles that sex plays other than the creation of life. President Kimball did teach in the Miracle of Forgiveness that while husbands and wives are not meant for other people or objects, they ARE for each other. Sex is an important part of any intimate relationship. I'll openly and happily admit my wife and I have had sex with no intent of having another child beyond what we have.

    Unless the letter writer has only had sex for the express intent of creating a child, he is a hypocrite and in no place to judge anyone else decisions on how and when to have sex. What is needed is a more realistic and healthy attitude of what sex is, and an atmosphere in which it can be more freely discussed without shame.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Genius idea Peter!

    Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

    Why even have birth control when they could just refrain from having sex!

    BTW, has Peter done any research into this? If I were him I'd check out the stats on teen pregnancy and abortion here in America. The red "religious" states where sex ed barely exists, are among the leaders in teen pregnancy and abortion. The blue "godless" states where comprehensive sex ed is required, are leading the way in lowest pregnancy and abortion rates.

    Food for thought!

  • Crusader Layton, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    As long as the earth has more that 500 million humans on it, I am in favor of anything that will reduce the population.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    Though not Mormon myself, I stand with the Mormon prophets on this one.

    Abortion is wrong and it should be acceptable only in cases of incest, rape, and when the mother's life is in danger.

    In no other cases is it permissible.

    I stand with the Mormon prophet on this.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 16, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    The question is if it should be illegal or not. If you really want YOUR wife or yourself investigated for homicide after a miscarriage then keep on down this silly road.

    The fact is that even the Egyptians had means of aborting a pregnancy and in some parts of the world they use a simple tea. is it right? No. Can you investigate every time a pregnancy ends? Try it and see how that goes for you.

    If that's the police state you want then keep on with the nonsense.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Sept. 16, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    LDS policy is against it except in rare instances. Many LDS Liberals call lds people to repentance for opposing elective abortions. Dallin H. Oaks said we must be for the right choice in a talk he gave at Byu in 1999 I think. Saying people are to right of church and on and on.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    OH! I didn't know it was just so simple. A simple solution for the most complicated of problems! Of course!

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 6:58 a.m.

    If you don't want a child don't have sex? What is this the 1800's? How about .. If you don't want a child don't have unprotected sex.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 6:47 a.m.

    Oh, brother...

    All I can say is,
    as a Latter-Day Saints I will follow the Prophet and official LDS Church policy,
    and simply ignore the rest.

    So, that will include this silly letter.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 16, 2013 12:10 a.m.

    Telling people "don't have sex" is never going to work. Countless centuries of human history proves that. However, making contraceptives and sex education readily available has been shown to reduce abortions by two-thirds. The abortion rate has already fallen by one-third, which wold give you a 78% reduction from where it was in 1980. Something that both pro-choice and pro-life folks should celebrate.

    The abortion rate has never been zero, it will never be zero. Even countries where abortion is illegal under all circumstances have abortions.