Abortions, Family Planning & Respect for Women

An abortion isn’t a pretty thing. Not only does it take the life of the fetus, but all too often the mother dies as well. This is especially the case in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, as recently reported by the New York-based Guttmacher Institute.

First the good news. The Guttmacher report shows that the number of abortions worldwide fell about 8.6% from 45.5 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003. The reason: more women are using contraception, which increased to 63% in 2003 from 54% in 1990. However, contraceptive use lags badly in Africa where it is used by only 28% of married women.

Now the bad news. Shockingly, the report estimated that almost half of the abortions in 2003 were unsafe, that is, self-induced, performed by unskilled people or done in unhygienic settings. About 70,000 women died and another 8 million suffered complications. Almost all of the unsafe abortions were performed in less-developed countries with restrictive abortion laws. The most restrictive laws are found in Africa and Latin America where birth rates are also the highest. The report concluded that legal restrictions do not stop abortions from happening, they just make the procedure much more dangerous. Is there a lesson here for the Vatican and far right Christians?

The future for the world and human society looks grim. The basic causes for our woes can be summarized as over-consumption by the wealthy and over-birthing by the poor.

How simple this sounds. Yet how difficult to find solutions. The Guttmacher report presents one step we can take. The report urges rich nations like the U.S. to sharply increase financial support to poor countries for family-planning programs. This would also save a lot of women from suffering. Africa needs our help and giving women respect and dignity is a good place to start.

The Light from the Christian Right

Recently I suffered a perplexing and, frankly, difficult situation. I asked a lady acquaintance how she justifies having six children in this age of degrading environment and dwindling resources. “Think of the stress it places on an already over-crowded world,” I stated.

“Jesus guides my life. He wants me to have children,” she countered. “I’d like to have even more,” she smiled, gently patting her tummy and looking at me with pitying disdain as though I was a piece of flotsam adrift without a moral compass.

I was floored. “Jesus told you to have six children?” I asked.

“The Bible says we should go forth and multiply,” she responded with the smug sanctimony of one who has multiplied more than average.

I pointed out that religion teaches that we should love and help our neighbours. But when we in the rich nations over-multiply and over-consume it causes our “neighbours” in the poor nations to starve, live in squalid conditions and suffer desperate wars over resources.

“Oh, that doesn’t matter, they’re not Christians,” she responded righteously.

“What about global warming and energy and water shortages?” I asked desperately. “Your grandchildren will face horrible conditions.”

“Not to worry, the Lord will look after them,” she smiled beatifically.

As I spluttered, trying to find a response, she said, “Sorry, I’d love to stay and help show you the light but I’ve got to run to the ‘Ban Teaching of Evolution’ meeting.” With that she climbed into her Hummer and roared off.

When Environmental Writers Are Part of the Problem

Many thanks to guest blogger, John C. Feeney, Ph.D., a psychologist turned environmental activist and writer. The full article can be viewed at http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/when-environmental-writers-are-part-of-the-problem/

-

When talking about causes and proposed solutions for our ecological plight, few environmental writers tell us more than half the story. There is a near universal tendency to focus on the importance of cutting fossil fuel use while staying mum on the topic of population growth.
That the size and growth of the global population is a root cause of ecological degradation is well known to scientists who recognize, for example, that the ecological footprint for the world is the product of population times per capita consumption. Yet we hear all about the need to save energy by switching to florescent light bulbs. We read about the ethanol debate and carbon trading schemes. But in all the talk of ways of reducing per person consumption, how often does anyone mention the need to address the other factor in the equation?
Why the silence? Population growth received a good deal of attention in the 1960s and 1970s. But then came China’s draconian one child policy, right-wing groups pushing free market capitalism by cheerleading growth and dismissing the need to limit our numbers, and political wrangling among environmental and social justice groups. The result was the demotion of population from its status as social and environmental issue number one.
Indeed, many writers avoid the subject of population despite recognizing its importance. For instance, David Roberts, environmental writer at Grist, acknowledges he never writes on the subject. His reason? “Talking about population alienates a large swathe of the general public. It carries vague connotations of totalitarianism and misanthropy and eugenics. It has been used quite effectively to slander and marginalize the environmental movement. It is political poison.”
Is Roberts’ view wise? I don’t believe the subject of population is, in fact, “political poison.” Though they do so too infrequently, a variety of groups and writers do grapple with it. And there’s no evidence their work has set back the environmental cause. They identify population growth as a problem because it’s the truth, and they know bringing people the truth is productive while avoiding it is ultimately damaging.
Addressing population growth means taking humane measures to assist with the social and economic issues which drive it. That means improving education for girls and economic opportunities for women in developing countries. It means increasing access to family planning and reproductive health care services, and encouraging positive attitudes toward smaller families. And it means reducing infant mortality rates. Any notion that it need involve involuntary measures such as “totalitarianism and misanthropy and eugenics” is simply wrong.
True, some have tried to use the population topic to try to slander and marginalize the environmental movement. But these groups presenting irrational arguments from such vantage points as the Christian right and the libertarian right have had, at best, a marginal impact. Their attacks are best dealt with head on, exposing their agenda-driven illogic.
I frequently raise the population issue with people and have encountered almost universal recognition that it is a problem needing more attention.
Environmental writers who have avoided the subject of population should rethink their stance. Let’s embrace truth, not avoidance.