Planned Parenthood

                                                                                              

The world's population at the moment is about seven billion, one hundred eight million, and we're breeding like rabbits. Something has to be done about it.ⁱ A wide set of options exists, and many of them have proved somewhat helpful.

One of the most extreme of these is China's one child policy.ⁱⁱ (In addition there are other extreme remedies imposed by various governments. See below.) By this policy, a second child is only permitted if both parents are, themselves, only-children. In rural settings a second child is permitted if the first is a girl, but the rules are more regularly enforced. Although a future easing of this policy is being considered, it remains in force at present, and there is a 30,000 yuan fine [about $5,000] for violations.ⁱⁱⁱ Since there are currently about sixteen million births annually in [mainland] China and their total population – the world's largest – is nearly one billion three hundred fifty million, it's likely that an increase there will have a significant effect on the world population. It is estimated that since the institution of the policy, four hundred million births have been avoided.^iv

Many other such policies, as well as other a variety of compulsory or unrevealed methods, have been employed by a variety of countries. One author^v writes of the work of Steven Mosher:

For over half a century, policymakers committed to population control have perpetrated a gigantic, costly, and inhumane fraud upon the human race. They have robbed people of the developing countries of their progeny and the people of the developed world of their pocketbooks. Determined to stop population growth at all costs, those Mosher calls "population controllers" have abused women, targeted racial and religious minorities, undermined primary health care programs, and encouraged dictatorial actions if not dictatorship. They have skewed the foreign aid programs of the United States and other developed countries in an anti-natal direction, corrupted dozens of well-intentioned nongovernmental organizations, and impoverished authentic development programs. Blinded by zealotry, they have even embraced the most brutal birth control campaign in history: China's infamous one-child policy, with all its attendant horrors.

There is no workable demographic definition of "overpopulation." Those who argue for its premises conjure up images of poverty – low incomes, poor health, unemployment, malnutrition, overcrowded housing to justify anti-natal programs. The irony is that such policies have in many ways caused what they predicted – a world which is poorer materially, less diverse culturally, less advanced economically, and plagued by disease. The population controllers have not only studiously ignored mounting evidence of their multiple failures; they have avoided the biggest story of them all. Fertility rates are in free fall around the globe.

Movements with billions of dollars at their disposal, not to mention thousands of paid advocates, do not go quietly to their graves. Moreover, many in the movement are not content to merely achieve zero population growth, they want to see negative population numbers. In their view, our current population should be reduced to one or two billion or so. Such a goal would keep these interest groups fully employed. It would also have dangerous consequences for a global environment.^vi

Specifically, Mosher reports^vii the use of experimental contraceptive drugs,^viii infanticide, abortions, forced sterilizations, coercion and bribes. He notes that the Netherlands permits the use of euthanasia – and that is certain to help in any campaign to lower the population.

But it is not only governments that act to control the population. Individuals do so on their own. Contraceptives, IUDs and chemical abortofacients, voluntary sterilization, and even infanticide are used (legally or illegally) to permit the pleasures of intimacy without the responsibility of having or raising a resulting child. More interesting, however, is society's response to pregnancy.

In a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal^ix by Professor Emily Oster of the University of Chicago raised questions about modern society's limitations on pregnant women, warning them about wine, cigarettes, cold cuts, and sushi, among other things. She pointed out that the scientific evidence to support all the fears of these toxins is, at best, weak, and in some instances research favors the use of the prohibited substance. Of course the article provoked numerous comments and letters. The letters were interesting, but the alarmed cautionary reactions were not surprising. We live in a society that thrives on the whims of “experts” who hypothesize based on “common sense,” and on unproved doctrines, especially when they “seem” reasonable. It is not necessary to prove them because that means exposing the fetus to the theoretical hazards.^x And studies that undermine the most severe strictures are not to be believed because of the risks involved. So a gullible, self-righteous population takes the responsibility for enforcing the craze.

In this instance, a society that permits and, in some instances, promotes, the termination of pregnancies, has found a way to “punish” those who actually favor a pregnancy's continuation. We make life unpalatable for the prospective mother. Peer pressure and repeated warnings are our weapons. In the paper, opposite the letters, was an article by Peggy Noonan on the loss of privacy. It cautioned us on the risks inherent in the pressure of knowing that others are watching us and limiting what we say and do.^xi I suspect that many pregnant women are feeling the effects of that kind of pressure.

It can't be good for the fetuses they are carrying. But maybe that's the point.

Next episode: “The Bottom Line” – Fear and respect, or indifference.

I       Life expectancies are also increasing. The countries leading, Japan, Switzerland, and San Marino, boast an average age of eighty-three years. The United States is thirty-third on the World Health Organization's list with an average of seventy-nine years. Oh, well. There's not much we can do about that. Except, perhaps, refuse to pay for end-of-life care if some panel decides that particular people aren't worth the investment. But that discussion is for another time.

ii      Copied since by Viet Nam. In neither case is it for altruistic reasons, but it is very useful for economic ones and for improved ability to manage the population.

iii     Forced abortion and sterilization are other punishments for the heinous crime of having too many children. CNBC (August 5, 2013) reports: “In Jiuquan today, though the one-child policy is relaxed, women are still subject to strict family planning rules. They are fitted with intra-uterine devices after their first child, sterilized after their second. Anyone who defies the two-child quota pays a 30,000 yuan fine.”

iv     See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

v       In a summary of his book (see next note).

vi       Summary of the book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, Steven Mosher, Transaction Publishers, 2008.

vii     Ibid. Figure 5.1

viii    Sometimes without informed consent, or even the patient's knowledge. In some instances they are given to teen-agers without parental consent.

ix      August 10, 2013.

x       Which the self-proclaimed experts are sure exist.

xi      Of course, that means more wine and sushi for them. And a chance to stick it to those who are pregnant.