UN Data Backs Pope on Abortion and Contraception

pope-UNThe UN population division agrees with Pope Francis. More contraception will not stop climate change.

Abortion and contraception must be widely available to prevent a climate change Armageddon according to some scientists. But these views are not gaining traction at UN headquarters, and were rejected in Laudato Si, Pope Francis’ much-publicized encyclical on “care for our common home,” in which he endorsed the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Population control is not on the agenda for a global UN climate conference in Paris this December and the UN population division’s recent work undermines any arguments to change this.

While some scientists are grateful for Pope Francis’ overall endorsement of climate change theory, others don’t want him to have the “final word” on how it should be addressed.

That’s how an editorial in the latest issue of the scientific journal Nature Climate Change puts it, before introducing a series of critical articles on the encyclical, including one by celebrity environmental alarmist Paul Ehrlich, chiding Pope Francis for upholding the Church’s teaching against abortion and contraception in Laudato Si.

Ehrlich told the Guardian that Pope Francis’s exclusion of population control from his approach to the environment was “raving nonsense,” and that he was “dead wrong.”

“I am sure he knows better, he is not a dope,” he said.

In the encyclical Pope Francis denounces international organizations that condition aid on implementing “reproductive health policies.” “[B]laming demographic growth” instead of consumption and production patterns is a way of “not confronting the real problems” facing the poor, he wrote.

Ehrlich retorts that solutions to poverty cannot be found without also looking at “re-production.”

“Pope Francis needs to heed his own comments on the church’s ‘obsession’ with contraception and abortion, and assume a leadership position in support of women’s rights and family planning,” he writes, warning, in his well-known style, of impending famines and apocalyptic catastrophes due to population growth.

Ehrlich admitted in an interview with the New York Times earlier this year that similar dire predictions he made in the 1960s failed to materialize. He used hyperbole to provoke “people to get something done.”

“The idea that every woman should have as many babies as she wants is to me exactly the same kind of idea as everybody ought to be permitted to throw as much of their garbage into their neighbor’s backyard as they want,” Ehrlich said.

Ehrlich’s views on climate change are flatly contradicted by the UN population division’s latest work on population and the environment.

Their analysis shows that abortion and contraception will have little impact on carbon emissions compared to changes in production and consumption, and sound environmental policy.

At a briefing earlier this year explaining these findings, John Wilmoth, who heads the UN population division, chided the climate change movement for being too alarmist.

Wilmoth explained that there is “relatively little uncertainty” in population projections over the coming century, but there is “complete uncertainty” about carbon emissions as they relate to population.

The uncertainty about future carbon emissions is due to consumption patterns and human behavior that vary much more than fertility patterns, Wilmoth told delegates. Recent reports from the UN population division illustrate this same unpredictability can be seen between countries in recent decades.

The Catholic Church has been a global leader in denouncing inhuman and degrading ideologies behind population control. Some may say the UN is finally catching up.

This article is courtesy the "Friday Fax" of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM).
Filed under: »
  • samton909

    Well Paul Ehrlich should know. He is the worlds biggest dope.

  • Veritas

    China has some experience in population control, and they seem to be moving against Erlich’s bad ideas…after finding out the hard way

  • NDaniels

    Catastrophic weather, which has always existed, does not single out the poor; corrupt governments and the break down of the family, directly influence the plight of poverty.

  • Wally Noon

    Overpopulation in Africa and South Asia are catastrophic.

    • Christian

      increased population is the natural, predicted result of improved healthcare. it is called a catastrophe because other spheres have not yet adjusted to that improvement, but they will. the earth is able to support many more billions. Example: one solar panel the size of south carolina could supply more than the currently needed electricity for the entire earth–no other source is needed. factor in things like wind farms, water power, nuclear energy, electric cars/tractors/trucks/trains/planes etc…

      contraception has led to a different kind of catastrophe in europe and the US and latin america, where we have been witnessing the break down of the family. over half of all marriages end in divorce. couples had conflicts before contraception, but now there is less motivation to deal with them, having zero or 1 or 2 children involved. a family of 8 would be much harder for a couple to break up, because it would leave the mother without the father’s help and (on the weekends) the father without the mother’s help in raising the children. it has also led to more women having their own careers and money, which takes away the wife’s sense of dependency on the husband. children suffer deeply from divorce and its permanent situational aftermath–the fact that they will never live in the same house with their own mother and father again. they also suffer from being raised by a single parent. and the more common it becomes, the more children will suffer. if the trends continue eventually most people won’t even get married or have kids which will create a crisis of under-population, and in many cases mental illness over age 45-50 as a result of loneliness and the sense of under-fulfillment