logo

World Population Awareness

News Digest

May 20, 2018

The Last Taboo: Human Overpopulation

May 22, 2018, WOA website   By: Robert P. Johnson

Last month it was announced that not a single calf was born to the remaining 450 or so Northern Atlantic right whales putting them in jeopardy of almost certain extinction. Similarly, just the month before, the sole remaining male northern white rhino died, all but insuring the end of his species as well. Both will join the ranks of the "nevermore" along with scads of other species lost to extinction just within our generation. And this trend is quickening. In fact we are currently losing species at a pace somewhere around 1,000 times the natural "background" extinction rate, which is projected to bring about the fate of upwards of 50% of all life forms by 2100. And this is all happening because of climate change, oceanic acidification, our 1% annual usurpation of wild habitat, and plain old over-fishing/over-hunting. In other words: all because of us.

Make no mistake: this "Mass Extinction Event" is the greatest challenge we will ever confront, and yet the primary driver behind it, as well as most of our societal problems - homelessness, desperate migrations, malnutrition, famine, war and genocide, to name a few - is a phenomenon so divisive, so volatile, so taboo it is rarely if ever uttered: human overpopulation.

How do we know there are too many people? Consider the World Wildlife Fund's 2014 Report showing wildlife numbers have plummeted 56% just since 1970, all while our human population has more than doubled during that same period. Might there be a correlation? Of course there is.

Overpopulation deniers will argue that today's 2.5-ish birthrate is half what it was even as recently as 1950. True. Problem is we have three times as many people giving birth today, meaning we are adding to our numbers (by some 220,000 per day) faster than ever and are on pace to hit 9.6 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100. All this wouldn't be a problem if our current 7.6 billion didn't already consume about 50% more resources than the Earth can sustainably provide.

Exacerbating matters our per capita consumption is still on the rise, especially as the Developing World grows evermore industrialized and meat becomes an ever-larger portion of the global diet. As a result of this "double whammy" of rising population and consumption rates we can expect global food needs to increase 50% and energy needs to double by 2100, and all while arable land shrinks by 30%.

Given these bleak prospects, why is overpopulation such a forbidden topic? Why isn't it ever covered by the "mainstream media," those snarky cable networks, or even NPR and PBS? Why do campaign cycles come and go with neither party ever mentioning it? And, most shockingly, why do environmental and humanitarian organizations purposely eschew the subject entirely, even though their otherwise noble efforts are utterly futile in the presence of unfettered growth?

One reason of course is its spurious association with eugenics; perhaps relevant in bygone eras but now just an anachronistic holdover that nevertheless renders it the veritable "third rail" of public discourse. Another reason has to do with the premature prognostications by Malthus, Ehrlich, and others who, without the benefit of knowing the "Green Revolution” would temporarily enable the planet to feed an additional 3 billion, miscalculated that our epoch would be engulfed in global famine by now. Although that hasn't happen - yet - it didn't stop their baby being tossed out with the bathwater.

But there is still another reason the subject is strictly taboo; one h-u-u-u-g-e reason: "It's the economy, stupid.” To wit: It's somehow become a veritable act of sacrilege to discuss the prudence of reducing our numbers primarily because our antiquated economic system is perceived to be dependent upon unabated growth, even as common sense tells us that an indefinitely expanding economy on a finite planet is not only implausible but also suicidal in the broadest sense of the word.

Last year, in an effort to publicize the threats we face, an unprecedented number of scientists (15,364) from an unprecedented number of nations (184) lent both their signatures and reputations to a paper entitled, "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice” (BioScience, 1 December 2017). This was done as a desperate, clarion warning that we are quickly driving our lovely planet to Hell in a hand basket unless we act decisively to reduce our consumption, curb greenhouse gas emissions, and, most importantly, reverse our rampant growth.

So what is Earth's maximum sustainable carrying capacity? Albeit a much debated number subject to countless variables, it nonetheless pencils out to somewhere around 2 billion at today's consumption rates. But with us on pace to hurdle past 8 billion by 2025, how can we possibly hope to reverse this trend? Thankfully the math is actually quite simple: just as we quadrupled our population over the last century we can eventually whittle it back down to a sustainable number by lowering the global birthrate to somewhere below the 2.1 child "replacement” rate. And we can accomplish this by making safe and affordable contraception available to all, raising women's education levels, and by voluntarily delaying procreation and limiting ourselves to just 2 children. If our stated goals of protecting the environment and making a better world for our progeny are sincere we have to summon the courage to publicly call out the single greatest threat to both - human overpopulation.

Just 2 kids, just 2 billion; we can live with that.

Robert P. Johnson is author of Thirteen Moons: A Year in the Wilderness and The Culling, and a collaborator on "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice.” Raised in Oakland, he now lives in Santa Barbara with his "just 2” children. doclink

Karen Gaia says: Good article about impacts of overpopulation. However, the U.S. and developed countries already have fertility rates below 2.1, and the U.S. fertility rate is still falling due to improved contraception. So improving contraception, and access to it, is better than telling people to have just 2 kids. In fact 120 countries have fertility rates below replacement, many of them below 1.6. The fertility rates are highest in the poorest of countries, mostly in rural areas where there are no health clinics and there is a language barrier, and girls are married while they are still children. That is where girls education and health care make a big difference, not telling people how many kids to have.

Criticisms of Population Concern - and Why They're Wrong

January 16, 2018, Population Matters

In January, journalist Dominic Lawson in a Sunday Times column, damned concern for population as a witches' brew of eugenics, colonialism, coercion, hypocrisy scientific fallacy and blaming the poor.

Population Matters rebutted his claims as follows:

One such claim is that past predictions of crisis or disaster due to overpopulation never came to fruition. Thomas Malthus (late 18th century) and Paul Ehrlich (1968) both theorized that population would outstrip food supply leading to starvation. Improvements in food production technology and techniques staved off these predictions, at least for the time being. Even though the predictions were wrong it is wishful thinking at best to believe the food production can meet the demands of any population size. Norman Borlaug (1970) concluded that new technology would only give humanity a "breathing space", not a solution to hunger. Besides inadequate food production, the impending global environment crisis, due to overpopulation, is modern day concern that was ignored by Lawson.

Lawson also touched on coercive policies of population concern. Population Matters, and organizations like it, are opposed to punitive population control, forced sterilisation or abortion, or any other violation of human rights. In most cases these policies were enforced by regimes or governments with little regard for human rights. In fact, countries like Bangladesh and Thailand have brought down fertility rates without coercive practices. Female empowerment and education, reducing poverty, and access to family planning are proven methods of population control.

The last criticism addressed by Population Matters is that population concern is rooted in elitism and/or racism: rich (usually white) people telling poor (usually not white) people to have fewer children. Or, that high-consuming people from the developed world blame the poor with larger families instead of taking responsibility for the environmental problems tied to their lifestyles. Population Matters and the majority concerned with population regularly advocates for population control across the board, whether they be high-impact Western consumers or those in poorer countries. Fact is, smaller families help people escape poverty and, when developing countries do improve their overall economic situations, a sustainable population is key to proactively reduce the impending environmental impact.

Population Matters is deeply concerned tha Lawson's article "is a worrying sign of how poisonous and shallow the debate about population can be." Amidst its critics, population advocates continue to work toward "a global community in which everyone can life better lives, on a healthy planet that can sustain all the life upon it for generations to follow.” doclink

Karen Gaia says: 119 countries have brought their fertility rates to below replacement without coercion or moral imperatives. In fact, China's one child policy has been discredited as the driver of lower fertility rates because much of the decline started before the One Child policy, and would have continued declining, as in any other country achieving replacement or below fertility.

On the other hand, I object to the term 'population control', which implies to all except a few population advocates, a top-down approach instead of a bottom-up approach starting with a woman's desire to control her own reproductive destiny.

Biodiversity Crisis

March 26, 2018, You Tube   By: Don Driscoll

Three-quarters of species on earth were wiped out in the fifth mass extinction, including the dinosaurs. 66 M Yrs later, scientists are now warning that we are entering the sixth mass extinction, and it's caused by people. doclink

Are We Finally Ready for the Male Pill?

April 26, 2018, Time magazine   By: Alexandra Sifferlin

Currently women have almost a dozen birth control options and bear the greatest responsibility when it comes to contraception while men have only have two options, the condom and vasectomy.

New clinical trials may signal a change in birth control as we know it. Pills, gels, and injections are some of the methods being researched as viable male contraceptive options. The market for male contraception is projected to be $1 billion dollars by 2024, and, targeting men may be an effective new way to reduce the world's unplanned pregnancy problem - currently 45% of the pregnancies in the US alone are not planned.

In the 60's the birth control pill started a sexual revolution that empowered women and changed society. College enrollment rose by 20% for those who had access to the pill, and one-third of the wage gains women have made since are due to its creation. Some speculate that because women endure the physical and social risks when a birth control method fails, they may find it difficult to relinquish control of pregnancy prevention. Others believe that women will welcome the additional protection.

According to surveys, 50% of males would use their own form of contraception, with a daily pill being the most desirable method. Most of the research centers around hormonal options (gels, pills, and injections) which suppress sperm production. However, associated side effects may be a major deterrent. Will a healthy person be willing to take a medication, and suffer potential side effects, to prevent an outcome from happening to another person?

Reversible, non-hormonal options that block sperm have recently gained traction. In the US the Parsemus Foundation created Vasalgel, a polymer gel that is injected into the vas deferens and blocks sperm from escaping. Monkey trials have shown it to be effective, and clinical trials in humans may begin as soon as 2019. Contraline, a start-up in Virginia, is also currently working on a similar sperm blocking method.

Recently, a new pill for men is being tested: dimethandrolone undecanoate, or DMAU, which lowers certain hormones like testosterone that are required for sperm production. The small study found that the once-daily pill appeared safe, and among men who took the highest dose, it was able to suppress hormones needed for sperm development to extremely low levels with no serious side effects. The men didn't experience serious side effects, however, because DMAU mimics testosterone throughout the body. Eight of the men taking the drug reported decreased libido and five men taking the drug reported acne. The researchers plan to test the effects of the pill on another 100 men before moving on to a longer trial with couples.

Another option in the works is a gel contraceptive. Researchers say gels get absorbed into the skin and stay in the bloodstream longer than pill versions so far. The gel trial will require men to rub the gel onto their upper arms and shoulders once a day. The gel contains a synthetic progestin called nestorone-which blocks the testes from making enough testosterone to produce sperm-and a synthetic testosterone, which will counteract subsequent hormonal imbalances.

​Researches believe it is possible to bring a male birth control method to the market in as few as ten years. More support is needed though, as costly studies and unknown regulatory hurdles loom. doclink

Goat Cream: the Only Contraceptive We Know

This method leaves experts with more questions on its efficacy.
May 8, 2018, Daily Nation   By: Angela Oketch

Some women of Turkana County in Kenya are turning to goat oil as a means of contraception and swear by its effectiveness. The average woman there gives birth to seven children on average, and only 10% of women (15-49 years) use modern birth control. Reasons given for the low usage are: opposition to contraceptives by husbands or partners, perceived religious prohibition, and fear of side effects..

One woman, now 50 years old, never used contraceptives because, as a fifteen year old, her mother-in-law told her if she ever used government family planning methods, she would never have a baby when she was ready. The chemicals in birth control would destroy her womb, she was warned. Her husband, a pastoralist, would leave for long periods, tending to herds and seeking pastures, but when he returned their intimacy would result in a new pregnancy. She gave birth to five children, having one right after the other. When her husband left, it was her sole responsibility to care for her growing family. With each pregnancy, that burden grew. At the age of 38 she turned to goat cream.

​Scientists have not confirmed the goat cream claims of the Turkana woman. One doctor thought that, because the goal oil is not stored correctly, bacteria might grow in it and, when applied, it destroys the fallopian tubes.

To prepare the cream, goat milk is put in a gourd and stored untouched for four nights. On the fifth day the cream is boiled and cooled. The naked woman then puts four drops in her mouth. Swirling the container of cream around her body, she chants "Don't give me a child, shut my womb." Then she puts the cream on her hair and body. The cream is then mixed with donkey feces and stored in the goat's shed untouched for four days.

Many men of Turkana are adamantly against birth control and will not allow their wives or partners to use it. Children are seen as a source of wealth, and men want as many children as they can have. Some Turkana women are forced to go behind their husbands back to use birth control.

As a result, Turkana's birth rate is 47.9 births for every 1,000, the eighth highest.

In Kenya 18% of married women are considered to have an unmet need for contraceptives. Kenya wants to raise the number of women of reproductive age using contraceptives to 66% by 2030 and to 70% by 2050. Josephine Kibaru-Mbae, director general of the National Council for Population and Development, reports that Kenya is likely to meet its 2020 target of 58% by this year. Public awareness and education were the keys to its early achievement of its goal. doclink

Lessons From Japan for Imagining Sustainable De-growth

May 6, 2018, Los Angeles Daily News   By: Mark W. Anderson

By the end of the fossil fuel era, the earth might be able to sustain only 2 billion people, according to Cornell University ecologist David Pimentel and colleagues. With about 7.5 billion humans on the planet right now, it seems counterintuitive that there is nearly 4 times the sustainable population now living on the planet. Does that not mean that Pimentel and others who reach similar conclusions about the human prospect are wrong? Critics call him and others like him neo-Malthusians, those who cry wolf about the population problem ignoring the resilience of human society. How could we have more than the "sustainable" human population living on earth?

Suppose your car's fuel efficiency is 30 miles to the gallon, you have exactly one gallon of gas in the tank, and 50 miles to the next gas station. If you increase your speed, you run out of gasoline even sooner. Likewise, we can have a larger population than the planet can support by using resources faster in the short run than they can be replenished in the long run. Those resources will one day be depleted and fewer people will inhabit the earth. Scientific evidence suggests that is exactly what 21st Century humans are doing, living beyond the means of the planet.

Johan Rockstrom and a list of prominent scientists estimated the various biophysical (or planetary) "boundaries" beyond which humans could not push the planet. Several of these boundaries are close or have already been surpassed. The most obvious potential constraint on human survival is global climate change, but Rockstrom shows that there are even more pressing concerns for us, including biodiversity loss and disruption of the global nitrogen cycle.

Even if we are not sure the sustainable size of the human population is 2 billion or a little more or a little less, the scientific evidence that continuing growth beyond 7.5 billion, coupled with the legitimate aspirations of many of these people for a more prosperous life, is not sustainable. We need to end the growth in human numbers and in high-consumption life styles that began with the Industrial Revolution at the end of the 18th Century.

De-growth will happen. Will it happen catastrophically (by disease, famine, war, extreme climate events, etc.) or by reasoned human effort, sustainable de-growth?

With growth being the dominant paradigm over the last 70 years, it is hard to imagine de-growth. De-growth seems to be bad then. Think of the language we use: recession, downturn, slump, depression. Depressing, isn't it? What can we do to begin to reimage de-growth as something that would be challenging, but still good? Is de-growth something that we can think of as good, uplifting, something we could strive for?

Post-World War II economics is based on the premise that human wellbeing is a function of consumption. More consumption results in more wellbeing. Since economists are loath to urge redistribution of wealth and income, the only way to get more consumption is economic growth. The saying goes, "a rising tide lifts all boats." And that worked for some humans as long as we were not pushing up against the biophysical boundaries of the planet.

Fred Polak, in his classic book The Image of the Future, suggested that imagination is a first step to making difficult social change. A good way to imagine a de-growth future is to look for places on the planet where the prospect of de-growth is nearer. Japan is one such place that can provide both exemplars and cautionary tales about a future where both the number of humans and per capita consumption decline. The Japanese case shows both opportunities and risks.

Circumstances in Japan give us some hints about how we might go about de-growth without catastrophe. Japan's total fertility rate is 1.46, and Japan is now facing population decline.

Japan is experiencing a depopulation of rural communities as it undergoes demographic change. Not only are there fewer young people, but more of those young people are moving to cities. The result is that rural homes are being abandoned and rural communities are shrinking. Typically, governments dealing with rural decline in industrialized societies would develop programming for rural economic development. An alternative suggested by the Japanese case is to use these abandoned properties as a starting point for rewilding, the process of removing human domination of the landscape and allowing it to return to natural processes. De-growth is an opportunity to reduce the human foot print on the planet - such a reduction is inherent to the de-growth idea.

Japan also provides a good example of what not to do as part of sustainable de-growth. Japan's government debt is well over 200% of Gross Domestic Product and growing. The expectation is that the future will experience economic growth and future generations will be able to pay that debt from increasing future economic activity. De-growth assumes that economies will shrink from both lower populations and reduced consumption of goods and services (wellbeing will come more from intangibles than from ever more consumption). So sustainable de-growth will be preceded by the present paying for its own consumption instead of assuming that we can borrow today and the future will pay the costs. doclink

Karen Gaia says: Japan has growth in humans under control. Now they must face degrowth in consumption.

Kenya: Why 'Pregnant Men' Took Over City Centre Streets

April 17, 2018, AllAfrica.com   By: Aggrey Omboki

Kenyan men from the 'Form Ni Gani Kenya' group took to the streets to make reproductive health available to all Kenyans. The group stuffed their shirts to look pregnant and handed out digitally created photos of pregnant men.

M. Amal Mohamed, a spokeswoman, urged all men from 18 to 35 to advocate for their reproductive health rights. Mohamed warned against turning a blind eye to sexual activity by teens. She stressed that access to reproductive health services without encouraging sexual activity amongst teens was the goal of the campaign. She also said that those already pregnant need to be empowered with correct information and educational opportunities.

The group plans to continue to create awareness through online conversations, street processions, and petitions. doclink

Farming, Deforestation and Over Population is Trashing the Earth, Global Survey Warns

Unless something changes as many as 700 million people could lose their home, a group of global scientists have warned.
March 27, 2018, News.com.au

In March 2018, the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released the results of the first comprehensive assessment of land heath. It is predicted that if no corrective actions are taken, as few as 50 million people and as many as 700 million will lose their homes due to land degradation by 2050. And, currently land decay has accounted for adversely affecting some 3.2 billion people.

According to the IPBES, the condition of land on Earth is "critical." Unsustainable farming, mining, pollution, and city expansion are to blame for the dire state of land health today. Large amounts of forest, grassland, and wetlands (87%) have been lost, and a third of the Earth's surface is now covered by crops and grazing lands. This drastic change in the land surface will have serious consequences in the future.

The analysis predicts that by 2050 land degradation and climate change will reduce crop yields by 10% globally and up to half in some places. In 2010 land degradation accounted for a 10% loss in global economic output. The impact of such a loss can have serious implications, as every 5% loss of gross domestic product is associated with a 12% increase in the probability of violent conflict. Dry areas are already seeing violence rise an estimated 45%.

"Land degradation, loss of productivity of those soils and those vegetations will force people to move. It will be no longer viable to live on those lands," IPBES chairman Robert Watson said. The lowest number of 50 million migrants is a best-case scenario. It assumes "we've really tried hard to have sustainable agricultural practices, sustainable forestry, we've tried to minimise climate change,” he said.

Less than 25% of land has been spared from substantial impacts of human activity due to it's inhospitable nature. However global warming is making many of these areas liveable thereby exposed to the impact of humans.

Land degradation and climate change contribute to each other, according to the IPBES report. Deforestation contributes about 10% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, land decay (by releasing carbon in the soil) was responsible for global emission of up to 4.4 billion tons per year between 2000 and 2009, and, without further action, by 2050 the projected losses of carbon from soils is estimated to be 36 gigatons (equal to about 20 years of global transport emissions).

Monique Barbut, executive secretary of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification called the assessment "a wake-up call,” and it "shows the alarming scale of transformation that humankind has imposed on the land.” doclink

Criticisms of Population Concern - and Why They're Wrong

January 16, 2018, Population Matters

In January, The Sunday Times published a column by journalist Dominic Lawson, in which he damned concern for population as a witches' brew of eugenics, colonialism, coercion, hypocrisy, scientific fallacy and blaming the poor. Population Matters rebutted his claims with an unbiased examination of the common criticisms of population concern.

One such claim that population advocates often hear, and one that Lawson leveled, is that past predictions of crisis or disaster due to overpopulation never came to fruition. Thomas Malthus (late 18th century) and Paul Ehrlich (1968) both theorized that population would outstrip food supply leading to starvation. Improvements in food production technology and techniques staved off these predictions, at least for the time being. When Ehrlich made prediction, the population was less than half what it is today.. Even though the predictions were wrong it is wishful thinking at best to believe the food production can meet the demands of any population size. Norman Borlaug (1970) concluded that new technology has only given humanity a "breathing space", not a solution to hunger. In addition to inadequate food production, the impending global environment crisis, a byproduct of overpopulation, is modern day concern that was ignored by Lawson.

Today's 7.6bn and the 2bn more expected by 2050 must feed themselves from soils with, according to the UN, less than 60 more harvests to give, decimated fish stocks, a finite supply of fresh water facing even greater demands upon it and, most frighteningly, the risk of a collapse of insect pollinators and of millions of square miles of land made unproductive by climate change.

Coercive policies of population concern were also touched on in Lawson's article. Population Matters argues that dwelling on these policies, which have been condemned by population concern advocates is unfair. Population Matters, and organizations like it, are opposed to punitive population control, forced sterilization or abortion, or any other violation of human rights. In most cases these policies were enforced by regimes or governments with little regard for human rights. In fact, countries like Bangladesh and Thailand have brought down fertility rates without coercive practices. Female empowerment and education, reducing poverty, and access to family planning are proven methods of population control.

The last criticism addressed by Population Matters is that population concern is rooted in elitism and/or racism: rich (usually white) people telling poor (usually not white) people to have fewer children. Or, that high-consuming people from the developed world blame the poor with larger families instead of taking responsibility for the environmental problems tied to their lifestyles. Population Matters and the majority concerned with population regularly advocates for population control across the board, whether they be high-impact Western consumers or those in poorer countries. Fact is, smaller families help people escape poverty and, when developing countries do improve their overall economic situations, a sustainable population is key to proactively reduce the impending environmental impact.

Population Matters is deeply concerned that Lawson's article "is a worrying sign of how poisonous and shallow the debate about population can be." Amidst its critics, population advocates continue to work toward "a global community in which everyone can life better lives, on a healthy planet that can sustain all the life upon it for generations to follow.” doclink

Karen Gaia says: The Population Matters article is good, but I object to the use of 'population control'. The only 'control' should be the woman controlling her own reproductive destiny. As for eugenics and abuses I have this to offer:

What is Abortion? - Why Abortion is Not Murder

Even if we granted the most generous possible terms to the anti-abortion camp, even if we pretended the fetus was fully rational and contemplating Shakespeare in the womb, abortion would still not be murder.
April 13, 2018, Harper's BAZAAR   By: Jennifer Wright

An op-ed piece written by Jennifer Wright was recently (April 2018) published in Harper's Bazaar in response to some prominent conservatives' claims that abortion is murder. Idaho State Senator Bob Nonini has gone as far as suggesting the death penalty for women who have abortions.

Many in the conservative camp have ignored the facts when it comes to the abortion debate. The consensus among scientists is that before 21 weeks, fetuses cannot live unsupported and before 24 weeks the a fetus lacks the brain development to feel pain. Also been researchers think that the majority of fertilized eggs do not even make it to birth. Many against abortion claim that it causes women psychological damage, however 95% said it was the "right decision for them" according to a 2015 study. Those who choose abortion are also accused of being promiscuous or irresponsible by not using birth control. The fact is premarital sex is now widely accepted in America and more than half of those who elect to have an abortion used contraception.

The argument of many pro-lifers is that life is sacred and should not be taken. However, when one's life is a threat to another, there are many situations where it is considered universally acceptable to take that life. Pregnancies pose risks to women, and, in fact, America has the worst rate of maternal death in developed countries. And poor women face even greater risks - 73% of women seek abortions because they are "financially unready." On top of that pregnancies can be fraught with complications and many are left scarred physically by childbirth.

The Castle Doctrine allows homeowners to use force (sometimes deadly) against trespassers in their homes when they have reason to believe they pose a threat, but a woman's is not given the same leeway with her body. In addition it is common belief that bodies are assumed to belong to the soul inhabiting them in life and in death. In the U.S. organs cannot even be harvested from a dead body without consent, even though removal of the organ would not harm those already considered brain dead. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term would be akin to the government using her body without her consent. And, if anybody, rather than the government, were to force a woman to have a baby against her will, it would be clear how wrong that request was.

Finally, making abortions illegal will not lead to fewer abortions. It will only result in more women dying from unsafe abortion procedures. Pro-lifers want to shut clinics like Planned Parenthood, but that would also result in birth control being less accessible to those in need, which, in turn, would most likely lead to a higher rate of unsafe abortions. doclink

Karen Gaia says: The Bible does not say when "life" begins. The word life has many meanings, but science has defined life to include plant life and animal life as well as human life in the definition.