A future with only planned children

 

Everything would be much easier if there were only planned children in the future.

When contraception fails as part of family planning, couples are left with a question: Should we, and are we allowed to, have an abortion?

Does the woman’s right to self-determination or the human embryo’s right to life apply?

The buzzword “pro-choice” originated in the US for the position that abortions should be generally permitted. Opponents organize themselves under the buzzword “pro-life” as part of so-called right-to-life movements.

The New Testament does not address the issue, but the Catholic Church, in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, holds that elective abortion is always a grave moral offense.

I can well understand opposing abortion on religious grounds, but the New Testament gives no indication that you can impose your own convictions on those who disagree.

According to WHO estimates, 40% of all pregnancies are unplanned and about one fifth of all pregnant women decide to abort.

This corresponds to about 42 million abortions annually, 20 million of which are legal and 22 million of which are against the law at the place where they are carried out.

Abortions can of course be prevented through the consistent use of contraception.

However, this isn’t an option everywhere in the world. 225 million women in the world’s less developed regions today still lack access to safe and effective family planning methods.

About one-third of the world’s population growth today is due to unwanted pregnancies.

This is leading to rapid population growth, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. (Wikipedia Jan. 2021: Family Planning)

The majority of illegal abortions are performed by laypersons and therefore usually under medically and hygienically precarious conditions. The number of abortion deaths is declining because women are increasingly using medications to terminate pregnancies.

The rate of abortion in countries with liberal legislation is lower or comparable to the rate in countries with restrictive legislation.

However, there is a direct correlation between the level of sex education and the abortion rate. Sex education and easy access to contraceptives reduce the abortion rate. Restrictive laws only encourage illegal abortions.

There have been many studies that have attempted to capture how often women suffer from mental health issues after an abortion. The results of these studies vary widely. However, it is clear that the moral pressure of society and the perceived stigmatization have a strong burdening effect.

However, mothers who have been denied abortions can also suffer consequences, according to a systematic review. It is reported that many women found it difficult to adapt to the unwanted role of mother and tended to see the child as a burden. The children of affected mothers perform worse in school on average, have behavioral problems such as delinquency more often, and require psychiatric treatment more frequently (Wikipedia: Abortion).

I would like to emphasize here that these are statistical data and that there are certainly also many women and couples who, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, eventually look forward to their child and raise it with love and care.

 If we enable voluntary family planning around the world, we will achieve 3 goals:

1.    We will make it easier for women and men to be together in developing countries and prevent fatal abortions.

2.    Economic and social conditions in third-world countries will improve more sustainably and rapidly. 

3.    Global warming will slow down.

Left-Green supporters and religious organizations prevent development aid money from being spent on family planning.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: ...any act is reprehensible which, either with forethought or during consummation... prevents procreation... (see post “Self-determined sexuality also in developing countries”).

Left-Green supporters postulate that better education for women automatically leads to lower numbers of childbirths. But that could take another 30 years or more in Africa.

According to UNESCO estimates, 58 million children of primary school age do not attend school. How is self-determined sexuality possible under these conditions?

The Left-Green supporters fear that we could be accused of racist motives by promoting family planning. Certainly, this danger exists, but that should not be a reason to make family planning a taboo subject.

This encourages famine and the neglect of children, who are left on the streets by their parents because they can no longer feed their large flock of children.

Every 12 years, the world population grows by 1 billion. It does no good if we significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions if greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries are increased by the same amount. More information on this can be found in the post “We can’t meet the climate goals”.

We cannot sufficiently reduce CO2, methane and N2O emissions through restrictions and new technologies alone, and we run the risk of a climate catastrophe.

Even if it were possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions substantially worldwide, the earth could not support 10 or 11 billion people. Species extinction would be unstoppable.

The number of children per woman has fallen sharply in industrialized countries and is now well below 2.1 in most cases. It is astonishing that in Iran and Brazil, for example, the number of children has also fallen to 1.8.

But in Niger, for example, the number of children is 6.6 and in Nigeria 5.1. As soon as a school is built another one has to be in the planning. Help with family planning here has nothing to do with racism! The sustainable development of these countries is almost impossible under these conditions.

We should not see this problem through the glasses of ideologues.

The world population has to slowly decrease as soon as possible. This would be possible without any problems if the means for voluntary family planning were available free of charge all over the world.

At the same time, couples around the world should be able to have as many children as they want.

What do we need to change to make that happen?

Women who do not have children should no longer be made to feel that they are not fulfilling their “biological destiny.” Women with and without children are absolutely equal.

On the other hand, health insurance companies should continue to pay for artificial insemination for couples with an unfulfilled desire to have children. Many couples suffer when their desire to have a child is not fulfilled.

For teenagers, finding out they are pregnant is a huge shock. Unwanted pregnancies should be avoided through good education and ease of obtaining contraceptives.

There is also a medical reason to advocate for planned pregnancies. To prevent babies from being born with spina bifida, women who wish to have children are advised to take folic acid before they become pregnant.

But if we have fewer children, who will fund health care for the elderly? Retired people hardly pay any taxes and health care costs are rising, but on the other hand the costs for kindergartens, schools and universities will decrease. The cost of expanding infrastructure will also fall significantly.

Business fears that there will be too few workers; conversely, many fear that automation and digitalization will result in the loss of many jobs in the future. Both fears are unfounded. You can find more information on this in the post “Citizens are more important than the economy”.

Can liberalism be dangerous?

The guiding goal of liberalism is freedom of the individual, primarily vis-à-vis the state. Every person is supposed to live as they want to, as long as they don’t violate the freedom of others.

I’m sure everyone can agree on that. But what happens when someone’s inheritance or abilities make them so economically powerful that others become dependent on them? What if they are only focused on maximizing the profit for their company and abuse their power?

This kind of behavior can lead to predatory capitalism (also called turbo-capitalism or ultra-liberalism).

Some economists have promoted the  f r e e  economy. But today most economists advocate a  s o c i a l  market economy.

How social should the market economy be? If an economy is only social, the driver for accomplishing great things is missing. In a free market economy, people’s selfish pursuits can contribute to the well-being of society as a whole.

When an economy is only “free", employees in non-privileged positions receive unfairly low wages. The economy has to be regulated so that everyone gets a fair share of the profits.

Unions can help defend the rights of wage earners. Unions are needed. Everyone needs to be able to defend themselves and assert their rights.

But when unions push wages up against the realities of the market through strikes, they use tools closer to cartels. Just as the formation of corporate cartels, fixing wages through cartels is poison for the economy.

Why are wages rising insufficiently in lower income brackets? If we assume that the principle of supply and demand also applies to wages, then we have to conclude that people with low-skilled jobs are forced to compete with workers from China because of globalization. The employees at a company producing vacuum cleaners can’t achieve higher wages through strikes, because the vacuum cleaners would be imported from China then. Unions have lost influence in the manufacturing sector.

Wages, and therefore the prices of products, are no longer rising and we have almost no inflation.

Employers can also bring in almost unlimited numbers of workers from low-wage countries. Tweaked “studies” by economists would have us believe that wages are no less likely to rise as a result of immigration. And many unions also accept these studies because they are committed to socialism, which wants to open borders to everyone.

There is an unholy alliance between representatives of the free market economy and trade unions influenced by socialism, which has the effect that the “supply” of workers with low qualifications is always large and wages do not rise by themselves.

Uncontrolled globalization benefits international corporations the most.

Organisms in nature consist of cells that are protected by cell walls. Each cell determines what is allowed to pass through the cell walls and what isn’t. Organisms do not consist of a fluid in which everything can move everywhere.

In the same way, all countries also need to determine to what extent they want to keep their borders open.

The social market economy needs carefully balanced laws. But everything can’t be regulated by laws. Companies and institutions have to have good reputations in society to survive. Blacklists can have a lot of influence here.

When companies indulge in predatory capitalism, they need to be pilloried by the political parties.

The social market economy can’t entirely prevent large wage differences. Income disparities have to be mitigated through taxes. Tax rates are progressive in most countries. However, tax progression has become skewed by inflation in almost all countries. Cold progression means that small and medium incomes are taxed too heavily and the top tax rate takes effect too early. The same is true for property taxes.

Dogmatic liberalism has the characteristics of an ideology and is harmful to society because it leads to injustice and promotes communism and dogmatic socialism.