Evangelical Logic: Birth Control and Government


1. Abortion is immoral

2. Birth control reduces abortions

3. Government mandates that increase the cost of insurance are equivalent to wealth redistribution

4. Wealth redistribution is immoral

5. The government mandate reduces abortion and redistributes wealth


Opposition to government mandate indicates wealth redistribution is more immoral than abortion, therefore money is of higher value than human life.

  6 comments for “Evangelical Logic: Birth Control and Government

  1. March 5, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    That’s not the argument I’m hearing. Instead it centers around government mandates for Catholic insititutions pay for birth control despite their long-standing, religiously based objection to birth control.

    The issue key issue for Evangelicals should not wealth redistribution (as in the red herring of Limbaugh’s comments) but government mandated violation of conscience.

  2. March 5, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Matt, there are two issues going on simultaneously. There is the argument about forcing RC institutions, which I agree is much harder to settle. I sympathize with all positions in that debate. There is also a general opposition from the religious right to “subsidizing other people’s sex lives.” This second argument is not really related the first, and it is the second I am really addressing. I’d handle the first with more nuance. Thanks for always making useful comments!

  3. JL
    March 5, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    I hadn’t heard premise 3 beyond the Limbaugh coverage, probably because children cost much more than birth control. From a financial standpoint, it’s a no-brainer to cover birth control!

    I went to a Catholic high school, and, while we were taught that it’s best to practice natural family planning to allow for God’s will in our lives, we were told that the main problem with birth control pills or the morning-after pill was that they could cause abortions. For those who believe life begins at conception, the new health care mandate requires them to fund what they believe is potentially murder. One doesn’t need to be RC, or even religious, to be pro-life, or to object to certain forms of birth control, and to then object to the government mandate (as these individuals value human life more than financial savings).

  4. JL
    March 5, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    I just read the last line of my comment and realize that may have sounded like supporters of the mandate don’t value human life as much as money. That’s wrong! I don’t think this is a financial issue for supporters or opponents, and I do think that both sides are trying to do what’s right for people. And for the record, I’m a big fan of birth control. I’m just sympathetic to those who oppose it and to the difficult moral position this mandate creates for them.

  5. March 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Well, we already know that human life is less important than money.

    Try to convince most pro-lifers that the government should ensure prenatal health care for all, and see how that goes.

    I say that, by the way, as an actual pro-lifer. I’m generally anti-abortion, but also think that we SHOULD provide such medical care. Single payer would be nice.

    As for this whole “freedom of conscience” argument … where are most Evangelicals when the Quakers talk about their tax money being used for the military? Cue the crickets …

    Sometimes I wonder why I still have any friends in real life …

  6. April 24, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Birth control reduces abortions in the same way that aborting two out of every three black babies reduces crime. There is definitely a relationship, but not a causal one.

Leave a Reply