Abortion as Population Control

Abortion as population control

A U.S. study on world population growth stated that no country has reduced its population without resorting to abortion.

  • The report suggested that 'population assistance' be channelled through the UN and the World Bank.
  • The UNFPA has been implicated in China's coercive abortion population control policies.
  • Advocates for population control and abortion approve of China's coercive abortion policies.
  • Developing countries have been provided with abortion services but not funds for basic health care.
  • Many environmentalists and heads of global organisations advocate population control and promote access to abortion.
Population control advocates insist that expanded access to abortion is essential to improving the status and health of women throughout the world.

Many of the early abortion advocates and activists were also supporters of eugenics. Margaret Sanger and many of her followers and American Birth Control League Board Members wrote articles and spoke openly of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains."

In "The Birth Control Review" Sanger openly supported the "infanticide program" promoted by Nazi Germany in the 1930s. In the years prior to World War II Margaret Sanger commissioned Ernst Rudin, a member of the Nazi Party, and director of the dreaded German Medical Experimentation Programs, to serve as an advisor to her organization

Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilising those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization. She also spoke of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those "whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."

The conclusion of this report was that overpopulation of developing countries was regarded as more serious than any nuclear threat.

The document pointed out that growing nations need to provide for their growing needs and were likely to make increased demands of foreign investors. Under such circumstances, western corporate holdings "are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary inter- vention."

The report added that this could be a consequence of "government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance," and concludes: "Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" (pages 37-38).

Imperialist motivation
Worried that leaders of less developed countries would be suspicious about US motives, the report cautions: "The US can help to minimize charges of an imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with: (a) the right of the individual to determine freely and responsibly their number and spacing of children ... and (b) the fundamental social and economic development of poor countries...." (page 115)

The UN and the World Bank
In order to conceal the extent of U.S. involvement, the report argued that the U.S. should "[a]rrange for familiarization programs at U.N. Headquarters in New York for ministers of governments, senior policy level officials and comparably influential leaders from private life" (introduction, pages 20-21). In countries where the U.S. had limited influence it was recommended that population assistance should be channelled through "other donors and/or from private and international organizations (many of which receive contributions from AID)" (pages 127-128).
Ordinary health care neglected
Like Paul Ehrlich, there are many 'doomsayers' who believe that population growth threatens the survival of humanity. "Injustice is preferable to ruin," is one of their most oft-repeated quotes.

Other fear loss of privilege. This latter group believes that higher birth rates will actually improve the political and economic power of developing countries -- but at the expense of U.S. and European dominance.

Population controllers of all stripes tend to gravitate toward humanitarian rhetoric. Professor Garrett Hardin, one of the most preeminent proponents of population control, argues that "freedom to breed is intolerable." He believes the reproductive rights of women and men should be subservient to public policy. He has defended and even applauded China's one-child coercive abortion policy.

Many population programmes are run by people who have similar beliefs. They are fluent in humanitarian rhetoric but are actually opposed to individual freedom. While publicly promoting the need for women's reproductive health measures (a euphemism for abortion) they provide developing countries with the means of birth control, sterilisation and abortion while denying funds needed for basic health care to treat ordinary illnesses.

Many advocates for population control are involved in environmental protection organisations. They would like to see the world's population drastically reduced, although there is no agreement as to an ideal number, some saying 2 billion people is the ideal number with others advocating half a billion. Read quotes from some of the world's most influential and powerful population control advocates here.

Abortion, breast cancer, and population control
Many physicians and researchers have expressed their concern about the dramatic increase in breast cancer seen in women in recent years.

Despite many scientific studies published in both domestic and foreign medical journals clearly demonstrating the direct causal relationship between first-trimester abortion and breast cancer, practically all efforts to make that information known have been consistently blocked by those who favour abortion and population control.

In 1996 a scientific paper dealing with a meta-analysis of 23 different scientific studies on the relationship between first-trimester abortions and breast cancer was published in the British Medical Association's Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. That study clearly demonstrated a higher incidence of breast cancer in women who had had first-trimester abortions.

In response to that publication, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and pro-abortion population-control advocates joined together to attack the conclusions of the authors, and to block all efforts to disseminate that information to American physicians. Linking abortion with breast cancer became a forbidden subject in medical journals and came to be regarded as the "kiss of death" for a career. Read about the abortion/breast cancer link here.