Moral Outcry

If there’s an aspect of the abortion debate that makes me want to lose my reasonable rhetorical skills it’s the one that goes like this: You can’t expect people not to have sex, and not everyone can raise a baby. If we outlaw abortion, people will still use coat hangers.

According to a major study released this week, we can expect young people not to have sex, and not just the ones with religious beliefs. In the study, appearing in the February edition of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, researchers found,

“Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.”

This randomized controlled trial was a scientific study, not a religious theory or a moral lesson. And the results show that abstinence works.

The Washington Post notes that,

“The Obama administration eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted at abstinence programs after a series of reports concluded that the approach was ineffective.”

However, this study, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, provided several options and studied students over an extended period, which lends itself to scientific accuracy, and not just theory.

The fact is, everyone seems to agree on wanting to “reduce abortions,” but when we cut a program that obviously will—there is no reason to consider abortion if there is no way to get pregnant—then cutting funding for such a program in light of scientific evidence provoking it works probably isn’t the best decision.

Even though this program wasn’t  “moralistic” and did not espouse Christian principles of sexuality, it is a step toward an answer. The fact is, sexual activity comes with a chance of pregnancy. And if you are willing to do one, you better be willing to do the other.

Tony Campolo created waves with his analogy during the 2008 election where he said “Consider these questions:  If 10 children are drowning in a swimming pool, and you can only save six of them, should you save the six?  Or, should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?” He was discussing the need to “reduce abortions” rather than outlaw them in this article.

With all due respect to what he was trying to say, we are not called on to choose one over the other. We save the six and we fight for the other four, as well. We fight for the will of God, which is the absence of all abortion without regard for political correctness or common thought, and we support efforts that reduce abortion such as abstinence-only education, which don’t conflict with our mission to stop it.

Any steps that prevent abortion are good. But for the record, we won’t close down until 1) Jesus returns or 2) abortion ends.

Fortunately, a scientific study has now shown us that we have another weapon in the battle.