Worldwide Birth Rates are So Critically Low, Abortion Bans Make Sense

In 2021, the last year for which data is reasonably complete, about 68 million people in the world died from disease, accidents, violence, and old age. The same year, according to the World Health Organization, about 73 million lives were lost from another cause: Medically induced abortions.

Assuming an aborted fetus is a person — a hot debate between pro-choice and pro-life advocates — this means that abortion is not only the leading cause of death worldwide, but greater than all other causes combined. More than half of all deaths per year come from abortions, according to the WHO.

A declining birth rate in the world makes every child born more important. Some two-thirds of the world’s population live in countries where the birth rate is below 2.1 babies per woman, the number needed to keep the population constant.

In the U.S., the birth rate stands at 1.62, and in other regions it’s worse: 1.5 in Europe, 1.2 in East Asia. Even countries with huge populations face losses. China’s birth rate is now about 1.2 children per woman, and the population declined by more than 2 million in 2023.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

Having children is not easy. About one in four pregnancies allowed to continue ends in a miscarriage, stillbirth, or therapeutic termination to prevent harm to the mother. As women wait longer to have children the risks of pregnancies go up, as does the failure rate for conception. Artificial means of conception like in vitro fertilization have an even higher failure rate, they are costly, and not usually covered by insurance.

All of which raises some interesting questions: If we want to maintain the world’s population, can we afford to lose 70 million children a year through abortion? Sooner or later, will babies become too precious to abort? Will we have to exchange public policies that allow or even encourage abortions for ones that ban or restrict them to very narrow circumstances?

One answer is to do nothing, Let the population decline, because the earth’s resources are already stressed and fewer people will lead to better lives for those already here. No society in history, however, has ever survived without a steady influx of new, young members to replace and support the older and less productive ones.

Another answer is to make having children more attractive. Countries like Japan have tried to raise the birthrate by offering tax breaks, increased maternal and paternal leave, and subsidized IVF treatment to couples who start families. Russia has launched an advertising campaign to stress the rewards of having children versus a life without them.

A third choice might be to compel some women to have children, as in Margaret Atwood’s popular book and TV series, “The Handmaid’s Tale.” In a fashion, some countries are already doing this by bringing women from other countries to marry men needing wives.

Ultimately, though, these efforts may not be enough. Actively discouraging abortion may be the only solution to population growth. It’s hard to imagine this after years of encouraging it, but we might be facing the ultimate ethical dilemma: When do the needs of society outweigh those of the individual?

A stock argument for abortion has long been that no woman should have to bear a child she doesn’t want, especially when there are already so many unwanted children in the world. But what if every child IS wanted for social and economic stability? Would we allow unlimited abortions then?

A question often used on tests of creativity is: What would happen if no babies were born in the world for a year? It’s hypothetical, but in the future maybe not so far-fetched.

LifeNews Note: Corwin King is an emeritus professor of communication at Central Washington University now teaching as an adjunct professor in the Master of Arts in Medical Science Program at The Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences in Yakima. This column originally appeared at the Daily Record.