{"id":208580,"date":"2019-08-16T10:10:49","date_gmt":"2019-08-16T15:10:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=208580"},"modified":"2019-08-15T23:23:46","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T04:23:46","slug":"obgyn-contraception-prevent-overpopulation-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/obgyn-contraception-prevent-overpopulation-question\/","title":{"rendered":"OB\/GYN thinks we need more contraception to prevent overpopulation. We should question that."},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Dr. Deborah Anderson<\/a>, a professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Boston University, has published a piece<\/a> in the New England Journal of Medicine arguing for a new \u201ccontraceptive revolution.\u201d\u00a0The professor argues that the world is faced with an urgent problem of a rapidly increasing global population that will put unsustainable pressures on the environment, and that countries need to heavily invest in new contraceptive technologies to \u201cprovide options for the diverse populations that are not currently being served by modern contraception.\u201d<\/p>\n

But as is the case with many population control zealots, both the problems she identifies and the solutions she proposes are deeply flawed.<\/p>\n

Population explosion by 2100\u2026 or decline by century\u2019s end?<\/b><\/p>\n

The author\u2019s basic assumption, that the global population will continue to increase exponentially, is questionable. Dr. Anderson\u2019s entire argument rests on a prediction<\/a> from the pro-contraception United Nations<\/a> that the global population will reach 11.2 billion by the year 2100, up nearly 4 billion from Earth’s present 7.7 billion people. Yet as Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson — authors of “Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline” — pointed out earlier this year in The Guardian<\/a>, many respected demographers are questioning the methodology behind the UN\u2019s calculations: \u201c[A] growing body of opinion believes the UN is wrong. We will not reach 11 billion by 2100. Instead, the human population will top out at somewhere between 8 and 9 billion around the middle of the century, and then begin to decline.\u201d<\/p>\n

The warning signs are evident in many parts of the world. Birth rates in half of all countries are at or below replacement levels <\/a>of 2.1 live births per woman. In 2018, the fertility rate reached<\/a> the lowest level in 30 years in the United States. China<\/a> faces a potentially devastating demographic crisis tied to decades of disastrous population control policies. And Norway, whose fertility rate dropped<\/a> to the lowest rate in 33 years in 2018, has become emblematic of the problem faced by many countries. As the country\u2019s prime minister stated, demographic shortfalls threaten the very foundation of Norway\u2019s society. \u201cNorway needs more children! \u2026 In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model. There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state,\u201d Prime Minister Erna Solberg said, according to Norway Today<\/a>.<\/p>\n

READ:\u00a0Why the idea of overpopulation should not be used to justify abortion<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In a Live Action Pro-Life Replies video<\/a>, Dr. Stephen Mosher of the Population Research Institute points out that the true danger is the opposite of population growth:\u00a0 \u201c\u2026 [T]he evidence indicates that the world isn\u2019t in danger from overpopulation; it\u2019s in danger from underpopulation. Around the world, birth rates have fallen, work forces are shrinking, while the numbers of elderly are dramatically increasing.\u201d In fact says Mosher, underpopulation<\/em> could lead to great societal challenges. \u201cOverpopulation is not only a myth; it is a myth that kills. And it kills both people, and economies,\u201d he said. \u201dIn the world of the 21st century, we need more babies, not fewer.\u201d<\/p>\n