According to this story, Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, in conjunction with a few Democrat lawmakers, is proposing Christian support for a new bill ostensibly designed to reduce the number of abortions.
“Helping young people to delay sexual activity, preventing the pregnancies that people don’t want, economically supporting low-income women to give them real choice about having a child, and encouraging adoption all will reduce abortion in America; and who could be against any of that?” the progressive Christian leader [Wallis] added.
The answer is, “I could.” I could very easily see opposing such a piece of legislation and being against some of the provisions in this proposal. First, I would most likely be in favor of the first provision–delaying sexual activity–if that means delaying until monogamous, heterosexual marriage. If that is not what the provision intends, then I might could say I am against it.
Second, I could definitely be against “preventing unwanted pregnancies” if that means, as it did under the last democrat President, passing out condoms in schools. That will not prevent unwanted pregnancies; it will rather encourage more of them. Indeed, the category of “unwanted pregnancy” is pernicious at best. I suspect this provision is actually a full-scale “birth control” program which might include RU 486 but probably does not emphasize abstinence.
Third, I could easily oppose some plans of economically supporting low-income women to give them the choice of having a child. I certainly could not oppose helping needy women or men. However, welfare programs that do not encourage work or responsibility tend only to hurt women and destroy families. So, on this provision, I could oppose such legislation if it encourages and rewards promiscuity while dimishing responsibility. I’m not sure what a “real choice” about having a child means.
Finally, when it comes to adoption, I am completely on board. I do think adoption is a much better choice than abortion. I agree that adoption should not be opposed. Though I could possibly oppose three out of these four provisions, I would support fully the last one. So, the bill is clearly only one-fourth of a pro-life bill.
What do you think?