Friday, February 6, 2009

The pill: boon or bane?

Was the invention of the birth control pill a good thing or a bad thing? Most people, I suspect, have never considered the options.

In a world of limited resources that continues to be threatened by overpopulation, there are good arguments for seeing the invention of the pill as a boon to humankind: the earth's population stood at about three billion in 1960, but had doubled to six billion by 2000. By 2010, estimates suggest the population will reach about 9.2 billion. Many parts of the world already face severe food and resource shortages, fueling massive immigrations that leave other nations feeling threatened.

In an opinion piece in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard, Carl Djerassi, a chemist who contributed to the formulation of synthetic hormones used in the birth control pill, complained that a declining population has led to a demographic catastrophe in Austria, an "impossible situation" in which there aren't enough working people to support the retired people. Baptist Press picked up the story Feb. 5, asserting that Djerassi had connected the advent of the pill to Austria's population decline and was "lamenting the way the pill has been used."

Djarassi didn't draw a straight line between the pill and the problem, however, and later wrote a second column in which he spoke of other issues contributing to Austrian couples' trend to having fewer children. As explained in this corrective column in The Guardian posted Jan. 26, Djerassi's opinion piece made no explicit mention of contraception in general or the pill in particular: Catholic Cardinal Christoph Schönborn cited Djerassi's article as ammunition in lambasting the use of contraception, and confusion ensued (German readers can find the original article and the later effort to correct misperceptions by searching for "Carl Djerassi" on the Der Standard website).

But back to the point initially raised: what about Djerassi's expressed concern about the declining population in his home country? Europe as a whole has been in a population decline for some time, with the birthrate dropping as low as 1.3 in some countries (2.1 is considered ideal for sustaining the same population).

In a much more comprehensive analysis of the issue written for the New York Times Magazine, Russell Shorto points to a number of factors for the decline: the pill isn't one of them, though its availability certainly contributes to families having more options in family planning.

While the Catholic church continues to oppose artificial birth control and some conservative Protestants such as Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary have openly decried deliberate childlessness as a sin, some of the most socially conservative countries -- such as Italy -- have the lowest birthrates.

Shorto points to a variety of other factors impacting the decision to have more or fewer babies. He points, for example, to one statistic that seems counter-intuitive: in Europe, women who are part of the work force tend to have more babies than those who stay at home. A part of the equation, it seems, has to do with social customs and a husband's willingness to contribute: women who have to do all the childcare and housework are less likely to want multiple children. Another factor is the timing of births. The longer young adults remain in their parents' home (a powerful contraceptive) and the older they are when the first child is born, the less likely they are to have additional children.

Shorto points out that European countries with the healthiest birthrates are Scandinavian countries in which the government provides financial and social support for families. Across the Atlantic, America maintains a healthy 2.1 birthrate while providing few economic incentives beyond an annual per-child tax credit, but generally offering greater flexibility for women to re-enter the job market. Arnstein Aassve, a Norwegian researcher working in Italy, told Shorto “You might say that in order to promote fertility, your society needs to be generous or flexible. The U.S. isn’t very generous, but it is flexible. Italy is not generous in terms of social services and it’s not flexible. There is also a social stigma in countries like Italy, where it is seen as less socially accepted for women with children to work. In the U.S., that is very accepted.”

Such arguments mean little to social conservatives who dislike the empowerment of women that comes with the availability of contraception, or those who argue (as Mohler does) that some versions of the pill actually constitute early abortion rather than contraception because they prevent fertilized eggs from becoming attached to the lining of the uterus.

Some who complain about lower birth rates, I'm convinced, are not as concerned about fewer babies being born, as they are about fewer white babies being born. And, the problem of there being too few people of working age to support the elderly is not a factor of population decline alone -- health advances that add decades to our lifespans and trends toward early retirements (especially in Europe) compound that problem considerably.

The birth control pill, in itself, has no moral component. Like an automobile, a kitchen knife, or most any scientific or technological development, it can be used in positive or negative ways. The world is in no danger of running out of people, and global overpopulation that overwhelms the world's resources remains a present threat. Societies that, for whatever reason, shrink beyond sustainability may simply have to develop measured immigration policies that provide employment opportunities for people from underdeveloped nations, who in turn can pay the taxes necessary to support the aging but indigenous population.

I'm neither a social scientist nor an economist, and I recognize that there are unlikely to be any simplistic or universal answers to issues of population diversity.

What I do believe is that there's more to having babies than maintaining population levels for either ethnic groups or countries. Whatever their social, cultural, or political situation, babies should be wanted -- and their parents should be able to care for them.

[Graph from the U.S. Census Bureau]

12 comments:

BaptistPlanet said...

Using pseudoscience in an attempt to justify the ways of religion to man, as the Catholic commentators did to Djerassi, tends to drive the rational from the sanctuary.
As I argued on Jan. 12.
You are certainly not alone, either in your view some who have complained about birth rate "are not as concerned about fewer babies being born, as they are about fewer white babies being born."
It seems to me this morning that you make an all-round clear answer to opportunistic ideologues of almost every stripe and spot.
Do Christian bloggers at their best not answer Bonhoeffer's call to pray and seek social justice?

Joshua Brown said...

The issue of birth control is clearly a complex one that deserves due attention. However, I find it interesting that there are seemingly more sociological implications that govern modern child-bearing habits and models than scientific interruption. Surely the pill makes today's family models and planning possible, but is only the latest (and perhaps safest) tool humans have used in birth control.

I believe that we've reached a point in human history where children are benefitted the most by contraception. Now parents who might earlier have been forced to have children resulting in resentment of the child, the spouse/partner, and possibly a broken family structure can choose not to have a child. Those who truly desire and will give a child the love and attention they deserve have that option open to them, even through IVF and adoption if they have need. This is not to say that those who use birth control would make poor parents, however it is clear they feel their situation is not optimal for children. Like you said Dr. Cartledge, "babies should be wanted and their parents should be able to care for them." Birth control helps us reach that ideal.

Gene Prescott said...

In trying to grasp the relative significance of world population change over time, I have found the information at Gapminder.com very usefel, both as to software and as to information available. Here is an example:

http://tinyurl.com/cudbyh

I'm not certain tinyurl correctly captured the extremely long URL, but will test it when comment is approved.

gwfrink3 said...

Gene ... ahem ...
You appear to have fed the URL for this comment space to tinyurl.
Well, at least this comment space is the real URL to which that tinyurl resolves for me.
Given your track record of interesting ideas, I'd like to see what you really meant to post (just guessing that's not it).
Pls.
Tnks.

Gene Prescott said...

I attempted with tinyurl because a knew the actual URL would be long. I'm not certain it is going to show the visual I want either. After it posts, if it is relevant, I will comment on it:


http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=f;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=2;ti=2006$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=0;dataMax=1458024460$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=12;dataMax=83$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=i163_f,,gpaC;i143_f,,gsap;i18_f,,f1bm;i170_f,,gla7;i184_f,,goaT;i239_f,,f6ae;i102_f,,ggaV;i29_f,,gvaJ;i110_n,,gian;i101_f,,hsbI;i44_f,,hlat

Gene Prescott said...

The lengthy URL did copy and get to a relevant page at Gapminder.com. The display is not exactly as I preferred but is close enough. Put your cursor and click on 1900 in the bottom bar under Population Total. Then click on Play and watch the progression over time. The labeled countries are those with over 100 million people in 2007. If you run your cursor over the colored geographic locations in upper right, all countries with a particular color will flash.

This chart is showing Life Expectancy at Birth and Total Population over time.

Relevant to this thread is that China has birth control but India does not. These two countries have about half of the world population. The eleven countries labeled have over 3.7 billion people. So in a global context the US, alone, is relatively insignificant. To make an impact on the world as a whole, both China and India have to be involved along with most of the other eleven countries labeled.

On the current trajectory, India will surpass China in population in a relatively short time.

There is a myriad of data available at the Gapminder site that can be used instead of the data in this chart (for instance Co2 emissions, etc.). You reach this data by clicking on the the little arrows on the two descriptor bars.

Gapminder is a way cool site.

gwfrink3 said...

Fascinating stuff, Gene.
The URL worked very well for me.
Thanks!

Gene Prescott said...

I don't know exactly what happened with the tinyurl attempt.

The graph on Tony's original post shows the world population project out to 2050. The Gapminder chart puts some context to the 9.5 billion projected people. China and India will be centric, but China's growth is essentially capped. So countries like India and Pakistan are going to drive the growth whereas Africa will not unless a radical changes occur (HIV; political instability; other diseases, etc.). The US will be relatively insignificant, whereas we Westerners generally think we lead all parades.

DC said...

With respect to the idea that children should be wanted, the issue for first world countries (and their Christians) seems to be why we don't want as many children as did our forebears. Is it selfishness a la the shnitzel argument? If so, that's probably not a good answer to the Creator.

Earlier eras required numerous children to help make sure enough survived into adulthood to care for their parents. (This argument would be an ancient equivalent to the effect of the declining US birthrate on the Social Security problem today.) Now, however, modern first world conveniences and advances in medical care have helped mitigate many of the economic concerns for Western citizens. Economics notwithstanding, what's not discussed often enough is the biblical rationale for having--and wanting--children.

The effects of this issue is increasingly prominent in Europe. In England and France, for instance, immigration of Muslims (who tend to have high birth rates for religious reasons) are beginning to complicate democratic governance. (So, while it's convenient to discuss birthrates in terms of "white" versus "non-white," it's a bit of a red herring and is often more accurate to discuss birthrate differences in terms of the value various cultures place on children.)

Rightly or wrongly, Al Mohler has at least approached this issue from "a" (if not "the") biblical perspective. I realize you're not a social scientist or an economist, Tony, but I'd love to hear your perspective on the value of having children (in the modern era) from a perspective informed by your study of the Old Testament. For instance, what, if anything, does the OT curse of barrenness (in a culture where children were required for economic reasons) say about deliberate barrenness in the modern era (where we can survive without them)?

Tony W. Cartledge said...

DC,
While barrenness could be considered a curse to OT folks whose patriarchal culture, agrarian lifestyles, and lack of medical care demanded a high birthrate, most of the concern about barrenness grows from the way it threatened the promise that Abraham would become the ancestor of many descendants. This is not an issue today.
The OT does include multiple commands for humans to "fill the earth," but that clearly does not imply growing the population above a sustainable level.
While one might argue that Christians have an obligation to bear children so they can raise up more Christians, I don't recall the NT saying anything about that. Paul had no children, so far as we know. While other disciples/early missionaries may have had children, no issue is made about it.
The decision to have children is very complicated, but I think having the ability to choose whether to have children or not is a good thing.
Mohler and some others seem to lament the ability -- via artificial contraceptives -- for humans to separate sex from reproduction.
I know too many people who will have sex regardless, but have no business reproducing.
If there's a problem, it's not with the pill, but with how it's used -- or not.

DC said...

Thanks, Tony. It is a very complicated issue, to be sure. Your perspective has given me more on which to chew!

Chris Schelin said...

Interesting post. However, I take exception to the notion that opposition to the pill is based on a reactionary fear of women's empowerment. My wife and I are both Baptists (CBF, not "fundamentalists") and we made the decision together to practice Natural Family Planning. I did not impose this decision on her! We rejected the pill because of known and potentially unknown side-effects, its potential to act as abortifacient under the right circumstances, and a theological perspective that thinks Christians should be critical of "progress" when its subtext is a denial of the natural order's goodness. If anything, my wife is MORE empowered because of her enhanced awareness of her body and the fertility cycle.

And NFP is effective, as well. A German study a couple of years ago found that, done right, NFP is at least as effective as the pill. So, nine months into our marriage, we have not experienced an unwanted pregnancy. On the other hand, another young Baptist couple we know did get an unexpected pregnancy when the pill was neutralized by antibiotic medication. Not that their child will be unwelcome in their family! But I for one am glad we don't have to wonder what may happen if my wife needs medicine for anything!