The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn
 |
| Newsletter No 23 Autumn 1984 |
The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn
40 BEDFORD STREET, LONDON, WC2E 9EN
Patrons of the Association: The Rt. Hon. Lord WHEATLEY; the Rt. Hon. Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN
Editor: M. N. M. BELL, M.A. (Cantab.)
Autumn 1984
Number 23
News and Comment
It is hoped that all members of the Association who can do so will attend our London conference on Saturday 27th October. This is the only conference being held by the Association this year. It will take place at Westminster Cathedral Conference Centre, starting at 2.30 p.m. Full details of speakers will be available nearer the time. Tickets are £5 each and may be obtained from our Vice-Chairman Mrs. Gabrielle Lumsden at 28 Tyiney Avenue, London SE19 1LN. There will be no further charge for the refreshments which will be available.
We also urge all members of the Association who are also members of the Law Society to attend the discussion on "The Sanctity of Life" at the Law Society's National Conference at Bournemouth on Saturday 20th October 1984. If you do not want to attend the whole conference, it is possible to register for this day only. This is the first time that the Law Society has ever debated this topic 'which is of crucial importance to lawyers, and the outcome of the debate will have a considerable impact on the profession as a whole. Full details are given in the Law Society's Gazette of 4th July 1984.
********
United Nations Convention
In our Autumn 1983 Newsletter (Number 19) we reported on the views of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, relating to the proposed new Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since then we have had further correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who have asked us to draw the attention of our members to the following points: —
(1) The United Nations Working Group which is drafting the Convention only meets once a year, and it could therefore be several more years before the drafting is completed.(2) The attitude of the British delegation will be governed by British law and policy, and no decision on whether the United Kingdom should ratify the Convention will be taken until the drafting exercise has been completed.(3) The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 20th November 1959 was not legally binding and did not create legal rights. However, because the new document is a Convention, if the United Kingdom is to become a party to it our domestic law would have to be such that we could comply with our international legal obligations arising under it.
Although it may be some years before the Convention is finalised, we must nevertheless make every endeavour whilst the document is still in the draft stage to ensure that it will protect the rights of children before as well as after birth. Once an agreed draft has been produced it will be much more difficult to get an amendment. Furthermore, a first draft has now been produced, and is under consideration, so it is appropriate for our Members of Parliament now to direct their minds to the wording of this draft, and to consider in what ways it should be amended.
********
The Warnock Report
It is clear that the Warnock Report and the subjects with which it deals will be of concern to this Association for a considerable time to come. The most immediate action needed, however, is legislation to protect the life of children who begin their existence "in vitro". This Association will be sponsoring a Bill drafted by Mr. Gerard Wright Q.C., which will make it illegal to do anything with the child who begins life in vitro except to return him or her to the womb of his or her mother.
"Can a fertilised egg be said to be on its way to humanity until it implants in the wall of a womb?" This question from the editorial of "The Economist" of 14th July 1984 expresses the new "gradualist" theory of humanity which lies behind many of the recommendations of the Warnock Committee. According to this theory, which has been given publicity by Dr. R. Edwards and others, we only become human beings "gradually". It supposes a process which starts at conception, and which, according to some theorists, only becomes complete at around the age of five years. The theory carries the implication that as we grow up we somehow become more human, and only thus do we acquire human rights. This undoubtedly lies behind the recommendation of the Warnock Committee Report (para 11:30) that
"legislation should provide that research may be carried out on any embryo resulting from in vitro fertilisation whatever its provenance up to the end of the fourteenth day after fertilisation".Because this Association totally rejects this absurd theory we have asked Dr. Teresa Iglesias of the Linacre Institute to expose the fundamental fallacy behind it in this issue of "News and Comment".
The Beginning of Human Life:
A Current Objection
by Dr. Teresa Iglesias, Lic.Fil., B.A., M.A;, D.Phil. (Oxon)
Consider the following argument. If we recognise human embryos as human beings or human persons in embryonic form, and if we maintain the two universal moral principles that (a) no human person is property, and (b) it is impermissible to destroy the life of an innocent human person, then we are necessarily led to this conclusion: human embryos must be respected as persons in embryonic form; this means that we should not kill them, harm them, treat them as property or as a mere means, or exploit them for any purpose whatsoever.
Is the embryo a human person?
Many of our current medical, scientific and social practices do not accord with this conclusion. Such practices must be then founded on one of the following tenets:
(i) Human embryos are not human persons in embryonic form.(ii) Human embryos are human persons but they may be treated as property by (e.g.) parents, doctors, the state, etc. in view of the benefits these may derive from them (slaves were once that kind of beneficial property).(iii) Human embryos are harmless (innocent) human persons, yet we may destroy them in view of the benefits to be derived from them (i.e. some innocent human beings can be directly destroyed for the sake of others).
It is difficult for any of us, whether lawyers, scientists, doctors, statesmen or ordinary laymen, to maintain openly that our professional and social lives are guided by the utilitarian principles (ii) or (iii) above. The immorality of these principles is too obvious. Hence the principle to which we should have to appeal in order to justify experimenting on, or destroying, human embryos is (i): human embryos are not human persons in embryonic form. This line of defence is, in effect, adopted by many.
The "uncertainty" argument
Let me mention as an example Dr. R. G. Edwards, one of the pioneers of the methods of in vitro fertilisation in human beings:
"Research on embryos raises questions about the fundamental rights of the human embryo — such questions as when life begins, and whether embryos have any rights at all.
Some people object to such work because they believe that life begins at fertilisation ... I cannot share this opinion . . . Life is continuous: it does not start at any appointed time. There are no convenient points where a definite line between life and non-life can be drawn." (Test-tube babies: the ethical debate, The Listener, 27 October 1983, p. 12).
There are important points for the understanding of our human beginnings in saying that "life is continuous". It is indeed important to recognise that the word 'conception' (and also 'fertilisation') refers to a complex process and not an event occurring at a single instant. Also, life is indeed continuous and so is humanity, for only living and human cells can transmit human life. Yet the question upon which we must focus is not related to the meaning of 'life' in its general abstract sense, but rather to the concrete reality that life is: you and I, every human being, the concrete individual organisms of the species in which alone life exists, is sustained and transmitted. Apart from individual organisms which are members of the species there would be no life at all. Hence the relevant questions are: When did you and I begin to exist? Were you and I, or little Louise Brown, once a zygote or an embryo? If there is no disagreement at all - and there is not — that babies, as well as other mammals, are conceived at fertilisation whether in vitro or in vivo, why, then, is it claimed that I or you or little Louise Brown did not begin to exist at conception? One answer currently given is this: life is a process; we do not know where to draw the line which marks the beginning of a new life; drawing the line is a decision for which we have no definite grounds; hence, we must remain uncertain where we should draw the line, and the drawing of it will always be somewhat arbitrary.
Can the starting point of a human being be ascertained?
Let me consider the significance of these claims in three parts.
(i) Biologically, fertilisation and conception are indeed processes. All living activities are processes. Our whole organic life is a unified series of processes, including death — understood as the organic decay and final collapse of the individual organism. Thus, strictly speaking in biological terms we should talk about the beginnings or moments when our individual lives come into existence and go out of existence. It is indeed true that there is not a single instant at which fertilisation occurs, for it is a process spread over time.
(ii) Nevertheless the limits of a process can be set out within a span of time in which a particular result comes about (e.g. fertilisation or death). For there are clear signs as to when the process has started, and signs that indicate the process is at an end. The particular event does not indeed happen at a particular instant. But it cannot be denied that it happens.
Let me illustrate this with an example. Think of the beginning of a race. The runners begin to move at a precise moment - say, when they hear a shot from a starting pistol. But if we have a chronometer capable of dividing up that apparently precise moment into thousandths or millionths of seconds, then in the light of this new possible measurement the race would not any longer appear to have a precise beginning in terms of our ordinary appreciation of time, and of ordinary language. For ordinary language expresses the scales of our common sense, and so it would be indicating only a span of time and not any precise moment within it.
But this fact would not entitle us to say that we did not know when the race began, or that since we could never draw a precise line without seizing on some wholly arbitrary point in time, we could not be sure that the runners had definitely started the race. Neither would it make much sense to suppose that we could not say the race had started until 14 metres, or 17 metres or 30 metres had been run. Our common sense way of relating to events has its own scale, which is as important and as real, as the more and more minutely calibrated scales of modern technology. It is a fallacy to claim that because we do not know precisely, we do not know at all, and that the drawing of our lines and distinctions are wholly arbitrary.
I am a person not a process
(iii) There is another important truth to be considered in this respect. It is undeniable that every individual human being comes into existence (and goes out of existence) by means of a biological process, that our lives are lived in and through biological processes, and that our constant development and decay as living entities, are processes. But it is equally true, equally an experienced truth (with which philosophy is concerned) that I, my person, the subject I am, the entity I am is not a process. I am not a process. Thus, at any particular moment in the living process, this personal entity which I am is present in the process or is not there at all.
A person cannot half-exist. The person, the subject which I am, is not a process and so cannot come into existence as a process, or in instalments. Individual human persons are not built up of blocks. Living human beings are not like, for example, clocks, that progressively come to be and can be assembled and dismantled. Whereas you can reasonably speak of having half a clock, you cannot reasonably speak of having half a person.
This means that when we can in all reasonableness know that the process whereby a new member of the species comes into existence is over (i.e. when fertilisation is over which is currently judged by biologists to be at syngamy) then the new individual is present. His organic life is a process but he is not.
How a spiritual subjectivity — you and me even as adults — lives in time, in a process, in matter, is a mystery difficult to explain. But that it is a reality factually manifested and experienced is undeniable.
The zygote possesses personal life
We know that at fertilisation the new individual, the zygote, has become then a distinct entity, containing within itself, actually present (and not merely potentially) that capacity which will come to full exercise and lead to full personal manifestation in adulthood; while the organism develops, the individual remains the same individual all the time. What anything can become is a possibility based on what that thing is. Becoming has its only basis in what really is.
Thus the kind of life that a human zygote has, because of the dynamisms and capacities it presently possesses is personal life, i.e. the life of a personal being or a personal subject. Hence, the answer 'yes' to the question 'was I a zygote?' is not truly challenged by the biological evidence we have available. It is rather supported by it.
Identity is invisible but real
We must consider that from a biological point of view the mystery about a tiny embryo being a person is not of a different kind from, or greater than, the mystery of your organism and mine being persons. Microscopes do not reveal personal identities; yet the reality of such personal identities cannot be denied. In cutting me up or looking with a microscope into the different tissues of my body you will not find out more about the person I am; nor will you find by this method whether the zygote or the embryo are persons or not. I am a cluster of cells as much as the embryo is.
That is why, if I were a biologist or scientist, I would not be correct in maintaining that because I do not know how I am both a person and a living organism then I do not know that I am one, or that I am uncertain that I am one, or that I am entitled to deny that I am one, or to ignore it altogether. The fact that we do not know how a zygote or an embryo can be a person does not entitle us to claim that they are not. To think so is to blind ourselves to knowledge of realities which are not open to the scientific 'eye' and to its experiments and analysis, but which nevertheless are undeniably manifested to us.
********
Population Control
Because strenuous efforts have been made by the organisations which fund pro-abortion propaganda to portray abortion as a feminist issue and a matter of "women's rights”, it is often not realised that those who fund this propaganda are not concerned in the least about the rights of women, but about population control. The Abortion Act 1967 was drafted and promoted by the Royal Medical Psychological Association, who made clear in their original draft that its purpose was to control population. They explained it, a few years later, to the Lane Committee by saying that our island was overcrowded, and that the working population was having to support too many young people.
Despite a long history of ethical opposition to abortion by the medical profession, the concept of legalised abortion was made acceptable to them by the powerful organisation known as "Doctors and Overpopulation" which is said to have more than 2,500 members in the medical profession. The president of this group was for some time president of the British Medical Association, and other members of the group have been in a position to influence the policies of the Department of Health and Social Security.
It is wrong, therefore, to believe that abortionism is really about a woman's choice. Legalising abortion does not liberate women. What it really does is to give a medical and political establishment which is operating a policy of population control the means to manipulate women to act in the interests of that policy. A survey1 of women obtaining abortions in the Wessex Regional Health Authority found that 95% of the abortions were requested and obtained for non-medical reasons.
Once abortion is legalised a Government can always bring socio-economic pressures to bear on women so as to achieve the number of abortions considered desirable in the interests of population control. Many women who seek abortions regret that their expectation of a baby cannot be fulfilled for socio-economic reasons which seem to them at the time to be compelling and overwhelming. In reality such women are simply being manipulated by population controllers.
Population control is very big business. It has been estimated that every year one way or another the United States Government spends about 100 million dollars on population reduction overseas and private American foundations spend approximately another 25 million dollars. The International Planned Parenthood Federation, which is the principal organisation funding pro-abortion propaganda in this country and the Commonwealth, receives more than 10 million pounds a year for this purpose. The expenditure of these enormous funds on propaganda for abortion and birth control has led to saturation of the media by pro-abortion propaganda.
In order to attract this sort of financial support it is, of course, necessary for these organisations to persuade Governments and foundations that population control is necessary. Many theories and supposed "facts" have been advanced to achieve this. In August 1984 a World Population Conference was held in Mexico under the auspices of the United Nations. Its whole purpose was to promote population control theories, to bring pressure on Governments to spend more money on population control, and to remove any legal restrictions which stood in the way of abortion on demand.
Population Theories
For these reasons it is necessary for anybody who is concerned about abortion to understand population control theory. This is all the more important, because the moment one considers the facts objectively it becomes apparent that virtually all the arguments advanced for population control are false. Unfortunately, for the reasons already given, it is very difficult to obtain any publicity for the contrary arguments. It is the purpose of this article, therefore, to examine some of the population control arguments and to expose the fallacies contained in them.
Population control theory began with Malthus. He believed that, if unchecked, population would always expand faster than the resources available for consumption. He wrote: "Either birth rates must be reduced or death rates will rise due to lack of food and other resources." Unfortunately Malthus did not appreciate the economic consequences of population growth. Nor was he able to foresee the effects of the technological advances which it made possible.
He believed that any increase in population in this country would reduce food resources and shorten life expectation. He wrote at a time when the population of this country was around ten million. Today it is around 50 million. During the time when this population explosion has taken place the yield of wheat per acre has risen by five times, and life expectation in this country has doubled.2
Population does not in fact increase inexorably. Looking at world history as a whole there have been three occasions when population has suddenly and rapidly increased. If Malthus' theory had been correct, subsequently the population would inevitably have fallen back to its previous level on each occasion. History shows that this does not happen, but that the population tends to stabilise at the higher level, or to continue expanding more slowly. Malthus based his theory on what he saw happening in Europe. But if we look at Europe today we see that after a period of rapid population expansion population is now static.
Present fertility rates in the United Kingdom are about 1.75 children per woman, compared with a replacement level of 2.1.3 In Germany it has been estimated that 200,000 more babies would need to be born every year to maintain the population at the present level. Otherwise it will fall from 56.9 million at present to only 38.3 million in 50 years' time.4 The population of the European Economic Community is expected to grow by less than 3% by the end of the century. The excess of births over deaths in the Community has fallen from 9 per 1,000 of population in 1965 to 2 per 1,000 in 1981, and is still falling.5
Despite the evidence of Europe, the population controllers are still arguing that population growth is inevitable unless Governments intervene to stop it, and that it reduces food, increases unemployment, reduces services and health, encourages disorders, destroys resources and the earth's ability to support life. Because the stable populations and massive food surpluses of the developed countries prove exactly the opposite to what they are claiming, they are more and more forced to resort to third world countries for examples to support their theories. In some of these countries population growth is a comparatively recent phenomenon and the benefits which result from it are not yet apparent. In other countries there are special political situations or extreme climatic conditions which have prevented population growth from having the beneficial effects which it has had in the developed countries. Nevertheless because many Western Governments still continue to be hoodwinked by the theories of population control, it is necessary to look a little more closely at these theories.
Food — An Expanding Resource
Contrary to what Malthus believed, additional people produce more than they consume. This century has seen a great expansion in world population, made possible by modern science, particularly medicine. But apart from a few places which have suffered some natural or man-made disasters, most people in the world today eat better than they did a hundred years ago. The per capita production of food has been increasing steadily for the past 30 years. It has increased by 40% since records began to be kept in 1948. Only 20 years ago predictions that by now hundreds of millions of people would be starving to death were commonplace. In fact ten times as many people died from starvation in the 19th century as have so far done in the 20th century. Most 20th century famines have been due to a combination of inefficient Governments, unprecedented droughts and inadequate road systems. They have not been due to a world food shortage, or to a sudden population growth in the country concerned.
At the beginning of the 1970s the food produced in the world was enough to supply everyone with a diet of 2,420 kilo-calories per day. The World Health Organisation recommendation for a healthy diet was 2,344 kilo-calories per day.6 It was assumed at the 1974 World Food Conference that rising demand due to population growth would outpace cereal production and push up the price of cereals worldwide. This assumption has been proved to be wrong. 1982 saw the lowest real market price for cereals for 30 years.7 Figures published by the American Department of Agriculture in October 1983 showed excess production of corn leading to a store of over 3,000 million bushels.
These cannot merely be written off as short-term effects. Over the past 200 years the price of wheat relative to other goods has remained constant, despite a huge increase in population during that time. In other words, supply has remained approximately equivalent to demand over that period. For several years now the developed countries have been producing more food, especially dairy products, than they can possibly consume. In the world as a whole the stock of land which can be used for growing food has been increasing at 1% per annum for the past 20 years. Even now only half the land suitable for crops, even with present technology, is actually being used for growing them.
Nor can the credit for this be taken by the population controllers. Food production in the developed world has been expanding more rapidly than population for very many years. It may be true that animals breed to the limits of food available, but human beings have always controlled their fertility. There are many reasons for this. Urban communities tend to have less children than communities which are largely rural, because in rural communities children are seen as a wealth-producing asset. Another reason is that the number of children which people want depends on the percentage of them who survive, so that as income rises and health improves, fertility falls. The extent to which women-go out to work also affects the number of children they want.
Population increase tends to reduce food shortages, because it leads to capital being used more efficiently. For example, it makes better roads necessary and possible. And it is well known that good roads make goods cheaper, and that poor roads, or no roads at all, are one of the principal problems in relieving famine. Population growth also increases productivity due to economies of scale in farming. A larger population makes farming more efficient, and increases incentives to produce. Farmers bring more land under cultivation, and the amount of land cultivated by each farmer tends to increase. Farmers also have an incentive to make their land more fertile. Thus irrigated land in India has increased by 50% since the last World War. Even so in Japan three times as large a proportion of the agricultural land is irrigated as in India.
Population and Pollution
Another argument against population is that it increases pollution. It is true that more pollution can be caused by producing more goods, but it is equally true that the surplus wealth created can be used to decrease pollution, and technological advances may in themselves decrease pollution. For example, a hundred years ago it was predicted that if the population of London increased the need for increased transportation would mean that the streets would be buried in horse manure. In reality London is far cleaner today than it was a hundred years ago, when the population was much smaller and the air was heavily polluted with smoke which produced the infamous London fogs. The number of fish in the Thames is again on the increase. All this does not show that in creasing population will never produce pollution, but it proves that it need not do so if the increased wealth produced is sensibly applied to solve the problem.
There is no evidence that life expectancy has been shortened by pollution in the developed countries where the population has increased. On the contrary, life expectancy has increased and is increasing. Roads, rivers and air are cleaner than they were even 50 years ago.
In 1840 life expectancy for males in the United Kingdom was 35 years in London and 40 years outside London. A hundred years later, despite the big increase in population, the life expectancy was 67 years in London and 66 years elsewhere. The same period saw an enormous increase in the conquest of infectious diseases, so that today malaria is the only important infectious disease which has not been brought under control. A more intensive population has a direct effect on improving health, by making health care easier. There is no evidence that a high density of population in itself harms the health of people. Nor does there appear to be any link between population density and war.
The assertion that developed countries such as the United Kingdom are overcrowded is absurd. Even at a low density of 16 houses per acre, it has been shown that a circle of 23 miles radius would comfortably house the whole populations of the United Kingdom and Ireland.8
Conservation of Resources
Another argument advanced by population controllers is that when population expands it uses up the available resources of the earth, thus reducing the standard of living of the expanding population. Once again, history has shown that precisely the opposite is true, and has never been more true than during the population explosion which has been experienced in the 20th century.
The expanding pace of development of new technology more than makes up for the decline in easy accessibility of ores. This is shown by the fact that their price has continuously fallen for many years in terms of the amount which you can buy for one hour's work. The falling cost is evidence of a fall in scarcity.
Furthermore, scientific advances have meant that known reserves keep on increasing. It has been estimated that the amount of minerals in the world would last for one million years at the current rate of consumption. In theory an increase in consumption should lead to an increase in price of resources, but in reality even a small price rise makes possible exploitation of vast amounts of previously unprofitable resources. An expected price rise leads to increased efforts to find resources, and the increased amounts thus made available in turn lead to a fall in prices. For example, mining will only continue as long as the cost of extraction is less than the cost of recycling already extracted materials. At the point when recycling becomes cheaper than mining, mining of many resources will no longer be necessary.
In the past there have been many estimates of future shortage, but these have been consistently proved wrong because they have been based on the assumption that technology is static and will not develop. Yet population controllers still continue to prophesy future events on an assumption of no technological advances. All the evidence is that technology will continue to develop alternative sources of energy, and that assumptions based on known resources are almost certain to be proved false.
The advantage of the benefit of new technological inventions over the benefit of new discoveries of resources is that the former benefit all future generations. Technology does not have to be rediscovered. History shows that expanding populations tend to create technological advances, and that static population leads to static societies such as that of ancient Egypt.
It was predicted in 1875 that England's coal would run out by 1900. In fact, even today we can produce more coal than we need for consumption. In 1891 it was predicted that no oil would be found in Texas. Everything depends on the amount of effort put into exploration and exploitation. One reason that Africa is a poor continent is that very little exploration for resources has been done. It has been estimated that exploration in America is 1,000 times greater than in Africa.
It is generally accepted that there is enough gas in the world to last a thousand years, and it appears likely that nuclear fuel will be developed to the point where it is virtually inexhaustible. It is argued that here the problem is nuclear waste, but it has been estimated that a family of four over 70 years relying entirely on nuclear energy would only produce 4 Ibs. of nuclear waste. Indeed the advance of technology may mean that what we regard as nuclear waste today will be regarded as the basic fuel of the future.
The use of resources is as much a matter of economics and technology as it is of geology. Economically the use of resources is controlled by supply and demand: as sources become more scarce, prices rise to reduce demand. Although technology may initially increase consumption of resources, after a time it tends to reduce consumption by making the use of resources more efficient. Furthermore, more people means more technological innovations, both due to more brains being available and to there being more incentive to develop inventions. Population growth also increases productivity due to economies of scale and a more cost-effective infrastructure. As you turn out increasing quantities of goods you increase skill and efficiency, and you lower cost. Size efficiency has always meant that people in big cities tend to have a higher living standard.
Population and the Economy
Another argument advanced by the population controllers is that an expanding population depresses the economy. Once again history shows that the very opposite is true. The static population of the United Kingdom today results in an economy where millions are unemployed. America has a more healthy economy because its population is still expanding. There are more American jobs because there are more Americans. In the labour market, supply creates its own demand. Each extra person has needs whose satisfaction must tend to create employment for other people. Between 1973 and 1982 the U.S. population rose by 14% while Britain's population rose by 0.6%. In that period jobs in the U.S. increased by 11.7% whilst in the United Kingdom they fell by 6%.9
There are many reasons for this. To produce a strong industrial base a steadily expanding population is essential. Today in this country two million children who would be aged between one and sixteen are not alive because of abortion. Had those children not been killed they would all, today, be non-producing consumers. Meeting their needs would be giving employment to a very great number of people. The Abortion Act 1967 is without doubt one of the biggest causes of Britain's unemployment problem.
The reduction in the proportion of young people in a community inevitably in time leads to a reduction in output, because of the corresponding fall in physical activity, in invention and in initiative. At the same time a steady increase in the proportion of the elderly who are unable to support themselves means that less and less people are working to contribute more and more to the support of the elderly. This creates a steadily increasing burden on the economy.
Although over the short term more children in a family may tend to reduce the standard of living in that family, over the longer term the children will mean more wage earners in the family who will eventually be available to support the retired parents. Over a generation, rapid population growth tends to mean a rapid increase in per capita production. This is because young people tend to produce more than they consume in wages, whereas old people tend to consume more than they produce. A rapid increase in population pays off after about 30 years, but to maintain the advantage it is necessary to maintain the increase.
Population growth not only increases consumption and thus creates employment, but it also stimulates production. Between 1950 and 1975 the per capita production in the third world grew at 3% per annum, as opposed to 2% in the developed world, due to the fact that there was a faster population growth in the third world. There are many reasons for this. The growing population made possible economies of scale. People with large families tend to work harder than people who only have themselves to look after. Increased demand stimulates production, and workers tend to shift from agriculture to industry. Thus in the long run higher population growth benefits future generations, and, contrary to what current population theory suggests, in no way penalises them or endangers them.
The History of Population
The theory of the population controllers, that without population control only starvation will stop population from expanding without limit, is not borne out by history. In fact on three occasions in the past population has increased by a factor of ten. Previous population explosions were caused by the same reason as the present one, that is, technological advances, such as the invention of tools. When the gain from a population explosion reached its natural limit of benefit, then the population stabilised. The most recent explosion of population began 300 years ago with new technological advances, and there is no reason to doubt that this will also level off. The new factor is increased life expectancy due to medical advances, but this too appears to have an upper limit.
In fact the number of births per family was far higher in the past than it is today. Thus of the 77 billion human beings who have ever lived, only 4 billion are alive today. World population forecasts during the present century have been consistently proved wrong. Between 1969 and 1977 the United Nations forecast for the year 2000 dropped from 71/2 billion to 51/2 billion. When errors of this magnitude can be made by population experts who claim to have all the facts available, it is only reasonable to view with considerable suspicion the estimates which they are making today.
Apart from situations where sudden changes in climatic conditions or the imposition of unrealistic political dogmas have affected the situation, there is no reason to doubt that the third world will experience the same benefits from its population explosion as the developed world has experienced. Already in some formerly undeveloped countries rapid population growth has led to a rapid increase in the standard of living. The Chinese with the highest standard of living are those in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, where the population density is among the highest in the world. They are not in mainland China, where the number of persons per acre is about half that in the United Kingdom.
The Reasons for Population Control
In the light of all these facts, why do the advocates of population control continue to receive such enormous financial support in the developed countries? There are a number of different reasons for this.
One reason is that population control has now become very big business, which, in order to attract the funds it needs to continue at its present level of activity, has to insist that the situation is continuing to get worse. A great many people are dependent financially on the continuation of the population control business, and they thus have a "vested interest" in peddling their doom-and-gloom predictions. Far more significant than this, however, is the concern with which the developed countries view the increase in population in the third world. We have today the situation of a small number of rich countries with a static or falling population, surrounded by a large number of poor countries with an expanding population. A number of influential people in the rich countries see a threat posed to them by this. There is also a deep reluctance to share with these poor people the wealth which we have achieved by exploiting their natural resources. There may also be a feeling that if population growth makes countries economically stronger, then population control in the undeveloped world will keep them economically weak, and thus more easy to exploit. When to these fears are added arguments which purport to prove that the population explosion in the third world is swallowing up the resources of the globe, it is easy to see why many wealthy capitalists in the West are supporting population control policies.
The Future of Population
It was estimated in 1950 that there were about 2,500 million people in the world, and that today there are about 4,500 million.10 Population planners have used these figures to suggest that population is going to continue to increase at the same rate, reaching ten billion by the year 2030. They then use this as an argument that the developed world, where population has virtually ceased to grow, should use its financial power to force population control on the undeveloped world.
In fact it is now widely recognised that this prophecy is almost certainly wrong. A report published by the United Nations on the 13th June 1984 accepts that population growth is now slowing down everywhere. The average number of children per woman world-wide has declined from 4.5 in the period 1970-1974 to 3.6 since 1980.n Some countries such as China have cut fertility rates by about 20%. Nevertheless the United Nations' gloom-mongers are still prophesying that world population will not stabilise until it has reached the figure of ten billion, although they now place this in the year 2100.
Even this estimate is probably far too high. The Henley Centre for Forecasting produced a book in June 1984 called "Full Circle Into the Future". This estimated that population will stop growing around the year 2000, and that because food production is growing faster than population, the world as a whole at that time will have more and cheaper food. The report also points out that the huge known deposits of oil-bearing shale ensure that there will be no shortage of oil at this time. And the same can be said of other commodities.
There appears to be no reason whatever to believe that any further steps need to be taken by the world as a whole to reduce population. Indeed, all the evidence is that if further steps are taken they will be counter-productive, producing stagnant economies, and preventing the undeveloped countries from reaching the point of industrial take-off.
Conclusion
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the above facts. One is that doctors who say, as many of them still do, that population control is itself sufficient justification for abortion on demand are basing their assertion on a fantasy.
Another conclusion is that it is vitally important that our Members of Parliament should be made aware of the true position, so that steps can be taken to stop the enormous amount of Government funds being poured into organisations like the Family Planning Association and the International Planned Parenthood Federation who produce utterly unsound propaganda for abortion and contraception.
This article is not concerned with the morality or otherwise of contraception, nor with the medical dangers inherent in many forms of contraception. It is only concerned to show that the claim that legalised abortion is needed to control population is false.
Since population control has for many years been the main argument advanced for making abortion easily available to whole populations, it is evident that Government policy-makers should pause and rethink the whole of their policy on this issue. Above all, Western Governments should cease putting pressure on undeveloped countries to introduce policies of population control which are unwanted by their peoples and are damaging to their economies.
Michael Bell
1. 1979 University of Southampton. Report "Induced Abortion in Wessex" Table 15.
2. The Tablet 25/12/83
3. The Times 10/5/84
4. The Times 15/12/83
5. The Economist 16/6/83
6. Report by Cribbin and Marstrand Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex 1979.
7. The Times 15/2/84
8. E.S.S.R.A. School of Economic Studies 1982
9. Sunday Times 29/4/84
10. The Times 25/6/84
11. The Times 13/6/84
Reference has been made in these notes to newspaper reports for the sake of simplicity. Reference to the actual reports will usually give the original source of the statistics. Many of the facts in the above article which are not otherwise attributed are derived from "The Ultimate Resource" by Professor Julian Simon of the University of Illinois, to whom the author acknowledges a deep debt of gratitude.
The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn accepts the undisputed finding of.modern embryology that human life begins at conception. The Association accordingly holds that natural justice requires that the unborn child, no matter how young, should enjoy the same full protection of the criminal law as is enjoyed by his or her mother or father or by any other human being. The Association was founded by eight lawyers in May 1978 and already has well over 1000 members.
