One of the dozens of countries around the world where hunger is back in the news is the Philippines, where soaring rice prices and long-standing reliance on imported food are raising an old question many people thought was buried for good: Does population growth eventually run into the limits of food production?
In More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want, I suggest this question will never be put to rest-not, at least, until populations stop growing. And, in fact, the recent surge in food prices is beginning to spur stories in the news media suggesting that population growth is indeed an important factor-perhaps especially in the Philippines. See, for example, this recent story by David Montero in The Christian Science Monitor. But let’s leave that debate aside for a later blog, and focus for a moment on another aspect of human numbers in the Philippines.
The country’s high population growth rate of 2 percent annually stems in large part from governmental hostility to modern contraception. That point is documented in another recent newspaper story, this one by Blaine Harden of The Washington Post. It’s hard to believe that in 2008 a national government would try to quell the use of oral contraceptive pills, IUDS, and condoms. Most women and their partners around the world use these devices, and most sexually active people in wealthy countries take their availability for granted.
But the Philippines’ national government follows closely and respectfully the dictates of the local Catholic hierarchy, which has condemned modern contraceptives as “chemical agents and mechanical gadgets that . . . have caused serious damage in family relationships.” One of Harden’s main sources for his story is a health organization whose staff asked not to be named because “they fear retaliation and harassment from officials in the national and city government, as well as from the Catholic Church.”
The main protagonist of the story is Maria Susana Espinoza, “who lives with her husband and children in a squatter’s hut in a vast, stinking garbage dump by Manila Bay.” Ms. Espinoza always hoped to have just two children but only learned details about contraception after her fourth child. “I don’t want any more children,” she told Harden. “Life is hard. Rice is expensive.”
It saddens me to read stories like this in today’s newspapers after chronicling similar tales spanning centuries in More. Ancient fears of sexuality and of women’s control over their own childbearing-see a chapter titled “Punishing Eve” for this history-still operate in some places in full force. As food and energy prices rise, the world’s fertility rate ought to be falling significantly, since many women quite naturally make reproductive calculations similar to those of Ms. Espinoza. Since women can’t postpone conceptions just by wishing, however, pregnancies happen despite their best intentions to wait for the right time. It’s an old story, but no less painful for that when it plays out today amidst growing hunger worldwide.



2 responses so far ↓
1 Rachel N H // Jun 3, 2008 at 12:05 am
In my struggle to understand the positions of those who oppose contraception and making contraception available to women and men, I came across a curious attitude.
It seems that some “pro-life” advocates believe that because there was no data on abortion rates before the Roe v Wade decision, there was no abortion. They often cite the number of abortions post Roe v Wade as a total number of “preventable deaths.”
This attitude really throws me, because it seems that the existence of abortion throughout human history should be a given — a fact with which you cannot argue. Regardless of what you believe about abortion’s morality, the fact that it happens, has happened, and will continue to happen in prohibitive or permissive conditions, should be incontrovertible.
From my perspective, this fact should argue for a social policy that takes abortion into account. Trying to prevent abortion through legislation is illogical — it is much more logical to try to decrease the incidence of abortion through access to contraception and education, if decreasing abortion is the goal.
Have you encountered this attitude? If so, how do you respond?
2 Robert Engelman // Jun 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm
To Rachel N H: I agree with you, and if I understand the attitude you’re describing correctly, I have indeed encountered it. My response is generally along the lines of your own. Plenty of data (the Guttmacher Institute at http://www.guttmacher.org is a good source for data on abortion) show that criminalizing abortion never comes close to eliminating it but does maim and kill women by the thousands. In More I tried to provide some of the history of abortion and to show how common it has always been–and how dangerous, and how much it reflects the lack of safe contraceptive options. For alphabetical reasons, the first two entries in the book’s index relate to abortion–I hope you can find material there to use in your conversations on the topic.
Leave a Comment