Population, Environment, Abortion, Religion and Fatherhood June 23, 1999

With history and opinions of experts, I aim to show how the above five elements are inter-related and important to humanity, rich or poor, regardless of race or religion. Religions are playing a leading role in the contest to control nations' population policies, and hence the environment and, with it, the future of life on Earth. I will refer to the religious right: those who use the force of government to advance their religious opinions; the religious left: the atheists and others who use government to suppress religion; the religious neutral: those who believe government should neither advance nor suppress religion. Our founding fathers, in their wisdom, were in that group, having initiated the doctrine of "the separation of Church and State"

An excerpt from Appendix 3 of "The Life and Death of NSSM (National Security Study Memorandum) 200 " follows: "Editor's Note: One of the bleakest facts of this century has been the unchecked growth in world population, with its resulting strain on the planet's life-support systems and misery for countless millions of human beings. This represents an ethical failure of catastrophic proportions on the part of the peoples of the democratic West who, while providing the medical and agricultural advances which make feasible for all people to live longer, healthier lives, have at the same time allowed their governments to be manipulated by the Vatican and other religious interests to block effective dissemination and use of population-growth-control measures. ------- The source of this calamity is to be found in the early days of the U. N. Organization, when the Western democracies ------ caved in to political pressure from the Vatican out of fear of its influence on their Catholic voters. However ------ [the] decrease in Vatican political power is offset in the United States by the increased power of fundamentalist Protestanism and on the international scene by rising fundamentalist Islam."

My Plan: I intend to present overwhelming evidence from knowledgeable sources that there are serious and imminent threats to the environment, menacing life on Earth now, and increasingly in the future; and that advancing and expanding civilization is the cause of these threats. Civilization will expand as populations grow, and mankind should begin stopping that growth soon. Populations are stable in developed countries because birth control knowledge is widespread there and the status of women is becoming equalized with men and basic social needs are being met. The developing countries, where population growth is fastest, urgently need assistance for family planning and birth control and in improving the status of women and the security of society. It is in the interest of the developed countries to provide that help. But, the Catholic and Islamic religions are opposing that assistance. Therefore, the separation of Church and State must now assume a primary significance to world society. Also, I am proposing that sires of "illegitimate" children be held responsible as their fathers. That is a step intended to relieve pressure on unmarried females to seek abortion, and will improve morals, will provide for better child's care and upbringing, and other benefits. Also, I provide a sensible defense to the pro-choice beliefs, which is shared by many people, religious or not. Finally, I show that the over-consumption of resources, and the waste, of the advanced civilizations must be curbed.

Recommendations: To put these thoughts into effect, our government should reactivate National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 under a special commission to update it, followed by laws to implement it, and to discourage, under penalty of taxation, activity by either the "religious right" or "religious left" which may be organized to interfere in our federal, state or local politics or government. It should establish laws, and the necessary elements to implement them, to cause fathers of children conceived out of wedlock to become responsible for those children. It should control U. S. population growth by limiting immigration, (instead of increasing immigration from countries which encourage population growth) and by taxation to encourage couples to have no more than two children (instead of encouraging large families), and it should support organizations such as "Save the Children" Also, it should encourage and assist the world-wide efforts to equalize women's status with men and to promote other human rights and living conditions in the developing countries. These actions by the United States will deter population growth and will lead humanity into a better way of life. The U. S. should support a strong world government which will be needed to save the planet from continuing abuse by mankind and other threats, including introduction of foreign species into native habitats, and to investigate the mysteries of biodiversity and discourage wasteful consumption, as well as keeping world peace.

POPULATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Background:

We used to think and talk of millions of people - no longer - now it's billions! And almost six billions have been predicted to increase by about four billion by 2050, a real avalanche of humanity, its threat not fully recognized! Besides strained supplies of resources, what about jobs for these multitudes? The United States will face that problem, with industry seeking cheap labor. The Pope has demanded more immigration into the United States, which would remove the onus from Catholic countries to restrain population growth and would result in fewer jobs for our own citizens.

There are those who camouflage - dodge - postpone the problem of overpopulation. Julian Simon was one. He ridiculed Thomas Malthus of the late 18th century, and the Ehrlichs of the late 19th century, who, much ahead of their times, predicted the world would run out of food productivity to keep up with population growth. Their theories were that food productivity increases by additions, arithmetically; populations by multiplications, geometrically. But times are catching up with Malthus and the Ehrlichs. A modern international agriculture guru, Dr. Lester R. Brown, head of The Worldwatch Institute, asks "Who Will Feed China" in the book of that name. A discussion of the population problem on the two hundredth anniversary of Malthus's original population essay is presented in "Reinventing Malthus for the 21st Century" (RM21C), published by Negative Population Growth and it shows that Malthus was not wrong!

World Watch: A Worldwatch Institute publication discussing the medium-level UN population projection, "Beyond Malthus, Sixteen Dimensions of the Population Problem", predicts that world population will bump up against carrying capacity, with unpleasant results, unless growth, mostly in backward countries, is stopped. For example, two quotes follow: "During the next half-century, the entire burden of the expected increase of 3.3 billion will be in the developing countries, many of which are hard-pressed to satisfy even existing demand on resources."; and "The World Health Organization reports that 19,000 people, mostly infants and children, die each day from hunger and malnutrition." That's about seven million a year! Now, pause a minute, is it really moral for the GOP to continue to deny the third world assistance in birth control and family planning on the pretext that that assistance will increase abortions, only to have so many millions starve to death? Moreover, that denial also results in many thousands of abortions which could have been avoided, and in addition to that, the many, many childbirth deaths and disabilities of the mothers involved. Please tell me, how do we invoke a measure of common-sense, instead of self-righteousness, in the religious right? Although world population control may seem to be merely a humanitarian effort, it is really very much in our self interest to help with it.

The Worldwatch Institute discusses overpopulation with its consequent environmental degradation and, as well, ways to ameliorate these threats. A sampling of its pages: (1) water supplies, indispensible for irrigation of crops and for reservoirs, are in danger: rivers running dry before they reach the sea and aquifers depleting water content; (2) world fisheries are being overfished and some species are nearing extinction, because long-line fishing and fish factories are reducing fish populations; (3) cropland needed for expanding numbers is being converted to golf courses, highways, suburbs, factories, shopping centers, parking lots, airfields etc.; (4) fires resulting from extreme droughts and the burning of jungles and forests, by people seeking a livelihood, are adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere and reducing the planet's oxygen factories. These woodlands also convert the pollution of excess carbon-dioxide into wood and preserve potentially valuable plant and animal species which may also be needed as a balance in nature; (5) research has shown that increased use of fertilizer to increase crops has limits beyond which it is ineffective; (6) China, with mountains and deserts in much of its area, is running out of crop land to feed its 1,200 million people. These problems are the direct results of population excesses, and are sufficiently compelling as to demand, by themselves, immediate attention. But there's more!

China's Problem: China's government, for the last 15 years, has banned new golf courses and theme parks, and home construction on arable land. An article published locally on 12 February 1999, by Rena Singer, Knight Ridder Newspapers, states that China has decreed that farmland "saboteurs", developers who build on valuable farmland, without proper authorization (approval by local, county, provincial. and national governing bodies, equivalent practically to an act of Congress) can be subject to the death penalty. China is taking its population problem very seriously, aware that even with draconian controls on development, the need for improved infrastructure, highways, airfields, railways, etc., will still eat up arable land. Even with strict population controls they expect cities to double in size due to movement of people from rural to industrial occupations, consuming more arable land. So it goes, as the population increases, the problems. locally and worldwide, can only get worse.

People in third world countries, emerging out of poverty, like to upgrade their diets with foods which need more resources to produce, such as eggs, cheese, and meat - putting more strain on agriculture! Lester Brown says "The official goal of China is to raise egg consumption from 100 eggs per person in 1990 to 200 eggs per person in the year 2000. By that time there will be 1.3 billion Chinese. That's 260 billion eggs. How many chickens does it take to lay 260 billion eggs? The numbers are so huge they are humorous. But they are real, and the real question is how much grain will it take to produce 260 billion eggs. John [Rohe] points out in his book [A Bicentenial Malthusian Essay: Conservation, Population and the Indifference to Limits] that it will take as much grain as Canada exports to get from 100 eggs to 200 eggs in China. There is no precedent for the growth in demand for grain that is occurring today in Asia." (RM21C). Again, excess population is the problem.

The Water Problem: Mr. Brown also says it takes one thousand tons of water to produce one ton of grain. The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health recently said "To avoid catastrophe, it is important to act now" to reduce demand for fresh water by slowing population growth, conserving water, polluting less and managing supply and demand of water better. Another voice in the wilderness, crying out to those so engrossed with immediate problems that they don't have time to do anything about these monstrous problems which overhang mankind's future! Our GOP policy-makers are seeking the support of the political religious right, which actively opposes procreation measures needed to stem population growth.

A report published locally on February 6, 1999 stated "Almost a billion people could be living in countries with moderate to severe water shortages caused by climate change, contamination and population growth by the year 2025, according to the World Meterological Organization. That could double again by 2050." This warning was buried on page 13A of the local paper! On June 21st, the same paper reported that a woman in Lahore, Pakistan, like many residents, says: "the search for safe water is a daily struggle because the water supply is sporatic and contaminated with sewage". This is a condition of many places in the modern world, which companies like Nestle is preparing to take advantage of with "cheap" bottled water!

The Advanced Civilization Problem: India, trailing China, with "only" 1,000 million souls now, has been predicted to overtake China by 2050, at 1,400 million each. While some of these "innumerable multitudes" may continue to be satisfied with walking or bicycling to get around, most will want cars which will consume energy regardless of what their motive power! That, generally, results in environmental pollution. Realize that these monster developing populations will also want to enjoy the other nice things of advanced civilization, resulting in more consumption, more pollution and more environmental destruction! On their want list undoubtedly will be (1) electric power, with dams for cheap hydro-electric power (but expensive environmentally), nuclear and oil/coal plants, transmission lines with their extensive rights-of-way, etc.; (2) processed foods, requiring preparation, packaging, preserving, canning, refrigerating, transporting to many markets, etc.; (3) bigger and more luxurious homes with water piped in and sewage flushed out, air conditioning, and other luxuries needing power lines, water and sewer pipelines, and manufacturing, construction, and maintenance industries, etc.; (4) national telephone and television systems, with radio and cable systems, etc.; (5) transportation systems with highways, fuel stations, railways, terminals, bridges, tunnels, etc.; as well as, of course (6) more education, entertainment, and sports facilities. The improving life styles of the prospering people in backward parts of the world will drastically increase consumption with its usual environmental damage!

The Global Warming Problem: Another threat to mankind's shaky tenure on this abused planet, global warming, is described by a State Conservation official as follows: "Over the past century, gases that insulate the earth have reached unprecedented levels. The most abundant and significant of these 'greenhouse gases' is carbon dioxide (CO2). Rapid population growth, increased use of fossil fuels and the widespread burning of tropical forests all contribute to the 6 million tons of carbon that humans add to the atmosphere annually. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were static for centuries until the mid-1900's, at 280 parts per million. Over the past 50 years the concentration has increased to 380 parts per million. By the middle of the next century it will reach 500 parts per million.

"Although these gases are essential to maintaining stable temperatures and life, it appears we have now begun to 'overinsulate' the planet. The effects include rising temperatures, more extreme temperature swings and more severe storms and blizzards. The rapid buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making the earth hotter on average, but it is also making cold spells colder, wet weather wetter, droughts drier and weather stormier - in short, climate conditions that are less predictable and more extreme." The headline from the local paper on May 5, 1999: "76 twisters, 5 states"; this was certainly was very, very extreme and was predictable at most 3 hours in advance!

"The 10 warmest years in recorded history have all occurred since 1980, with 1995 standing out as the hottest on record. One aspect of this is that the freezing level in the atmosphere, the altitude at which temperature reaches 32 degrees, has climbed about 15 feet a year over the past 30 years." This threatens glacier fed water supplies in parts of the world, and eventually even flooding of seashores! Moreover, the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville stated recently that the summer of 1998 was the hottest on record, using satellites with world-wide coverage. Most scientists agree that global warming is a reality.

Hot Enough?: A headline from the June 4th local paper: "Hot enough? Outlook for 2000's simpling stifling" One official says: "As heat goes up, more humidity is held in the atmosphere, and that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. So the more moisture created, the more heating, warming and humidity." In other words, a vicious cycle! Another official pointed to "problems with global population growth, industrialization and greater use of fossil fuels. 'If it hasn't happened already, one day it is going to push us too far'."

Peril to Sea Life: An article from the June 8, 1999 local paper, speaking about perils to sea life, Elliott Norse, Head of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, says: "The news is not good. The thing that screams out here is that from the inter-tidal zone to the open ocean, from the Antartic to the Artic, we are seeing worrisome things everywhere that seem to be most closely related with climate change. ....... In virtually every example, species such as fish or whales appear to be suffering from a lack of food that is connected to a warming of the ocean. Polar bears, for example, seem to be suffering from a decline in sea ice, which is a source of algae which form the lowest rung on the bears' food chain. ....... The report says that the Alaska salmon population that survive are unusually small, suggesting they were starved.", and so on! There are a few naysayers; I wonder what their relations are to business interests?

However, some scientists believe they can trace warmer earthly temperatures to increased sunspot activity, or that fluctuations in planetary temperatures are normal. Other scientists say El Nino and his sister La Nina are the causes of the unusual weather we have been experiencing. (See National Geographic, March 1999, "El Nino La Nina, Nature's Vicious Cycle".) Nonetheless, these explanations do not take into account the effects of the population-civilization blanket on the environment. It can be expected that business interests will belittle this threat to world prosperity; but will it help for mankind, like an ostrich, to bury its head in the sand?

Plentiful Consumption: The "want list" of developing civilizations previously cited will cause more resources to be consumed, adding to environmental degradation. This effect will multiply the other effects attributable to mere population growth! Too bad the United States can't get a patent on its plentiful consumption (many times that of many countries), so it could prevent the others from living high on the hog. But, wasteful consumption itself contributes to environment destruction. Paul Harrison says in "The Third Revolution": "If our consumption and waste output levels do not change, the 57.5 million extra Northerners [of the world] expected during the 1990's will pollute the globe more than the extra 911 million Southerners." Perhaps the "Northerners" can be persuaded, or required, to drastically reduce their consumption and waste habits, but the "Southerners" are just as likely, with increased affluence, to emulate the consumption habits of their northern neighbors! A trade-off? It's evident that mankind really does face problems in its future on the planet; because there is more "civilization" than the planet can stand. As the population grows, civilization grows and environmental problems will worsen! Do you want to bet the future of your great-grandchildren on this being "bull"? I'd rather have them remember us as their forefathers with foresight!

Waste & Garbage Problems: Obviously, the "plentiful consumption" of the U. S. and other "advanced" cultures need to be curbed. Some examples are well known: gas guzzling cars, excess commercial packaging, lawn watering, industry polluting water and air, and use of throw-away containers instead of reuseable ones. We are already trying to cope with these, but need to expand our efforts. Recycling should be intensified. Other ways to reduce waste need to be developed. An article in "Parade" of June 13th tells that, on average, each American generates 4.4 pounds of waste and garbage a day, for 217 million tons in 1997, most of which end up in the more than 2300 U. S. landfills. Some landfills have to be replaced yearly and they are unwelcome neighbors. It has been found that even the best engineered landfills eventually may leak toxic contaminants into groundwater; and that paper, food remnants and other trash do not necessarily rot to become fertile soil. Some things just become "mummified". We used to bury the kitchen garbage on the farm and after a year or so, it became very fertile. The waste cardboard, magazines, newspapers, other bulky papers, glass, plastics, metals, and other such trash needs to be recycled, separately from the real garbage.

Growth, Growth, Growth!: The Director of a State Land Trust, concerned with environmental preservation, says people love "growth" but fail to associate it with the particular elements of "growth" which they dislike, such as highway congestion, new highways putting asphalt (the last crop) through their favorite nature areas, exhaust emissions from traffic and other air pollution, not only bad for health, but also, as gray air masking nice views. When they look, with distaste, at cookie-cutter subdivisions and huge industrial and commercial buildings degrading the view along miles of state parkways, it doesn't occur to them that the growth of population is to blame (RM21C). And the list goes on, all caused by growth, which everybody loves, never thinking that growth and the increasingly complex civilization are the basic causes of economic and industrial growth. Those, of course, are the reasons for the degradation of the lovely environment, to which they object, ie: "not in my backyard nor in my eyesight". A quote from a local paper: "The defeat of [all] four local city council incumbents is a clear expression of the public's dissatisfaction over rapid development" This is a problem in many communities, caused by there being more people. Growth, growth growth! The world is wild over growth! But people have to go somewhere, and it will worsen as there are more and more people.

The Medical Science Problem: Consider, also, the rapid advances of medical knowledge in many ways, from general health care, dietary science, organ replacement, care of the elderly, to improved treatments of disease and bodily malfunctions, and control of epidemics, and the list goes on! For example, this 82 year old has just received a new lease on life, with a second heart by-pass after the first one about 11 years ago. Life expectancy is increasing, not only in the advanced civilizations, but also in the developing countries, where the changes will be more dynamic. The advancement of medical science will add significantly to the Earth's population problems! These are changes which can only be welcomed, but which will have to be countered by conservative population policies. Such policies should be developed through a process of reasoning, not emotion, nor religious tradition, since the future of mankind hangs in the balance. Maybe a strong world government is really needed, because changes are essential, and there are many who will object for one reason or another, or because they don't understand the problem, or just don't care!

Coastal Waters: Further evidence of environment degradation has been provided by a broad Harvard Medical School study of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico which shows that North American coastal waters "are getting sicker, and so are some of the people who live near them." See the report by Seth Borenstein, Knight Ridder Newspapers, published locally on Dec. 8, 1998.

The Oxygen Problem: There is plenty of evidence that the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing; but this implies that the supply of oxygen is decreasing. Recently, it was discovered that air bubbles trapped in fossilized amber contain oxygen levels of 38%, although today oxygen levels are about half that. The claim is that human life is not possible in air of below 7% oxygen! This ought to grab your attention! The loss of oxygen in the atmosphere can be blamed on the combustion of fossil fuels in transport and industrial applications as well as the burning of jungles and forests and the loss of their oxygen production. As such, the reduction of oxygen must have made rapid progress in the last century! Solving this problem is obviously URGENT! But, again, control of the growth of populations must be a part of the solution.

The Biodiversity of Life Problem: An insidious threat to all life on the planet, the destruction of biodiversity, is discussed in "Losing Strands in the Web of Life" by John Tuxill, published by the Worldwatch Institute. "Starting in the 1980s, biologists began to notice that frog populations around the world were declining drastically, even in regions that were well protected and pristine.The evidence collected indicates the causes, around the world, vary from exposure to fungicides and pesticides, to competition with introduced species, to excessive ultraviolet light from the thinning ozone layer, and to virulent fungal infections. Frogs are not the only ones! One in four of the 50,000 species of invertibrate animals [birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish] is in serious trouble due to civilization's disruption of the environment. These problems cannot be separated from mankind's welfare; threatened is the balance in nature, with its potential of unknown effects on all life on Earth!"

Tuxill continues: "[The] diversity of life evident in all corners of the Earth is the result of over three billion years of evolution. From the beginning, population declines and species extinctions have been a natural part of this process, but there is something different about current and recent extinction patterns. Examinations of the fossil record of marine invertibrates suggest that the natural or 'background' rate of extinction --- the rate that has prevailed over millions of years of evolutionary time --- claims something of the order of one to ten species per year. Scientists who study the fossil and archeological record of the recent geologic past --- called the Quaternary Period --- have accumulated substantial evidence to suggest that the extinction rates have increased over the past several millennia. Most estimates of the current situation are that at least 1,000 species are lost per year, an extinction rate 100 to 1,000 times above the background rate even when calculated with conservative assumptions. Like the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, human society now finds itself in the midst of a mass extinction, a global evolutionary convulsion with few parallels in the entire history of life. Unlike the dinosaurs, however, we are not simply the contemporaries of a mass extinction - we are the reason for it.

"The loss of species and populations and the resultant simplification of the natural world touches everyone, for no matter where or how we live, biodiversity underpins our existance. The Earth's endowment of natural communities is the biological infrastructure that provides humanity with food, fibers, and many other products and 'natural services' for which there are no substitutes. Biodiversity supports our health care systems; some 25 percent of drugs prescribed in the United States include chemical compounds derived from wild species, and worldwide over-the-counter value of such drugs is at least $40 billion annually. Billions of people also rely on plant- and animal-based traditional medicine for their primary health care. Genetic diversity maintains the vigor of our crops and livestock --- the rice harvested by millions of people around the world owes its disease resistance to genes transferred by plant breeders from a single wild rice species, oryza nivara. Insects, birds, bats and even lizards provide pollination services, without which we could not feed ourselves. Frogs, fish, and birds furnish natural pest control; mussels and other aquatic organisms cleanse our water supplies; plants and micro-organisms renew and enrich our soils. Healthy ecological landscapes filter and regulate our freshwater supplies, prevent soil erosion and flooding, and break down our sewage and industrial waste. Together, the global economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity are conservatively estimated to be at least $3 trillion per year, or equivalent to at least 11 percent of the annual world economic output. [But, with biodiversity lost, can Doomsday be far behind?]

"As we begin to appreciate the vast array of goods and services that natural systems provide, we are also beginning to realize that most of what we are losing is still a mystery. We have barely begun to decipher the intricate ecological relationships that keep natural communities running smoothly. We still do not know --- even to a rough order of magnitude --- how many species there are on Earth. To date, scientists have cataloged about 1.8 million species of animals, plants, fungi, bacteria and other organisms; most estimates of the number yet to be formally described range from 4 to 40 million.

"The massive gap of our understanding of biodiversity makes it difficult to grasp the true dimensions of the current mass extinction --- and mobilize effective responses to it. Our knowledge of patterns and levels of biodiversity losses remains relatively general --- we can estimate the scale of species' disappearance, but more precise numbers of biodiversity losses are harder to come by. Likewise, without a solid grasp of most species ecological relationships, we can only begin to assess what their disappearance might mean for our planet's life support systems --- and for our own well-being."

The Introduced Species Problem: But, frogs are not the only ones suffering from competition from introduced species. Examples are native species in Australia which have been driven to the edge of extinction by cats. Native plants in America are being smothered by a foreign vine. A headline in a local paper says "Fire ants wreak havoc over United States". An official of a State Resources Research Institute says "At any moment, as many as 3,000 species are moving around the world in ballast tanks [from which over a billion gallons are discharged in or near a local port annually] including a wide variety of viruses, bacteria, molds, plants, animals, their pathogens and parasites. While ships carry the most invaders", he pointed to "other sources such as shellfish and finfish farming, the aquarium trade, live bait released by recreational fishermen, creatures catching a ride on boats and trailers, research introductions, seafood processing plants, even restaurants that purchase live seafood." These usually come in without their natural enemies. Science is starting to deliberately import the enemies, but this also can backfire! The problems with introduced species is getting more complex.

I say: "The world is fat, dumb and happy, and asleep as well, and it's wake-up time." It is an understatement to say that there is a serious and urgent need for a full scientific investigation of the biodiversity mysteries. It also should be obvious, after digesting these remarks on the future of life on the world, that mankind, the destroyer of the environment, must stop human population growth as soon as possible, and start reversing it! Without that population correction, it can only be concluded that we are living in civilization's golden age, and from here on, humanity is on the downward path!

Summary:

In the foregoing I have presented indisputable evidence, taken in whole, that the disruption of mother nature by expanding civilization is an imminent threat to all life on Earth. Increasing populations can only result in the expansion of civilization. Therefore, it must be recognized that there are limits to population growth, factual limits, not hypothetical! There are limits to the food productivity of world agriculture; there are limits to the rate at which humanity can use and misuse water, limits to which biodiversity can be reduced and the environment can be ruined; limits to the use of fossil fuels, limits to which we can overfish world fisheries; limits to which the world oxygen supply can be abused; limits to which humanity can increase global warming, and so on. We seem to be very rapidly approaching these limits, which can be regarded as imposed by God and within which he intended us to live! Those limits can only be made more menacing by population growth, which will also increase the probability of conflict. There was no overpopulation problem in the time of Jesus Christ! But the religious right sees no limits to world population, which is now in a geometric progression nearly doubling in fifty years.. What is its limit? We are there, if we haven't already passed it

RELIGION AND POPULATION

Background:

The Pope deplored human over-population and its destruction of the environment in his 1988 encyclical titled "Solicitudo Rei Socialis", which warns of "the reality of an innumerable multitude of people" resulting in "the increasing devastation of the world of nature." Indeed, the Pope spoke of a debacle of "crisis proportions", and concluded that the very idea of progress "now seems to be seriously called into doubt." This was criticized by Julian Simon in his "Too Few People, Too Many Trees" in "Crisis" of February, 1991. Simon, while living, was the leader of the population-growth-be-damned bunch. His attitude was: "What? Me worry!", like Alfred E. Neuman of "Mad" magazine. Maybe the Vatican used his article to help persuade the Pope to ignore world over-population, because he has since opposed every effort to control population growth. (Is this an example of papal infallibility?) Moreover, the Catholic Church killed a program, to control that growth, which was initiated by President Nixon and supported by President Ford, see "The Life and Death of NSSM 200", by Stephen D. Mumford. This book describes how the Pope and the Vatican organized Catholic bishops, churches, hospitals, press, universities, societies and associations (i.e.: all of Catholicism) in a detailed plan ("Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities") to outlaw abortion with a pro-life amendment. This was essentially the Pope's veto of the religious part of the First Amendment, a blatant disregard of the U. S. principle of the separation of Church and State, and it continues with the religious right..

Population Miracles: The religious right (Catholicism plus the Christian Coalition and others) is confident God will provide for the world's growing population problems, even perhaps in the form of a miracle! However, governments are responsible for recognizing problems and acting to contain them; should our Congress rely on miracles to solve our problems? What a quaint idea! That is another reason for the separation of Church and State! The most likely "miracle" to reduce populations will be uncontrollable disease, famine and starvation, religious wars, or population-related wars involving "innumerable multitudes of people" of China, of India, and other nations of the world, who will face shortages of food, water, and other resources. Our country has already been accused, by some, of a war for oil, and religious frictions are rampant in the world today. Please note that a part of the problem in Kosovo is that the Kosovars (Islamic) reproduce much faster than the Serbs (Orthodox), and were rapidly outnumbering them in a country which the Serbs consider their homeland, and which was overrun centuries ago by the Islamic Ottomans. Thus - a war caused by overpopulation of Albanians, ethnic hates, and religious differences; but made a horror by ethnic cleansing in the evil traditions of Hitler and Stalin!.

Large Families: We read the command "Be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis. The world population, in AD 1, according to the World Almanac, was 300 million humans, today it is 20 times as many, 6 billion. That command was sensible when it was written in the Bible, but now, is it still sensible? You decide! Catholicism obviously thinks it is. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, under "Birth and population control" says: "Churches apart from the Roman Catholic Church have come to emphasize the whole marriage act, including the sustenance of the family, as a matter of love-endowed responsibility. The RC Church was moving in the same direction until 1968, when Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the condemnation of artificial measures to prevent conception (against the majority advice of the commission set up in 1963 to assess the issue)." This entry also states that "Progressive Judaism extends the notion of welfare to include the existing family, allowing family planning.", and "In Islam.........there is no ban on modern methods". Birth control using artificial means is generally accepted by most populations, so the ancient command "Be fruitful and multiply" (meaning have large families) is generally recognized as no longer a good idea. Was Pope Paul VI's decision made for the benefit of Catholics, including females, or was it merely calculated to increase Catholic congregations? I have a Catholic friend who had seventeen children! The Pope should establish some degree of sainthood for that mother!

Family Planning, Female Equality & Security of Society: Two quotes from Dr. Nafis Sadik, Executive Director of UNFPA (United Nations Family Planning Agency) follow: 1990: "The surest way to achieve a sustained decline in fertility is to give a new priority to 'social' or 'women's resources' investment, to improving mother and child health, women's status and education and to making family planning as widely available as possible to both women and men," and 1991: "Family planning has won acceptance in a wide variety of economic and social environments. Acceptability is enhanced by promoting other human rights - economic security; adequate housing and community services; education and health - by support for women's social, educational and employment rights; and by a human centered approach to development. Put simply, family planning is encouraged by a society in which basic needs are met and in which women participate on an equal basis with men."

Cairo Conference on Population: The local paper on April 11th says: "A consensus reached at a 180-nation conference in Cairo, Egypt, [which was opposed by the Pope] five years ago on a strategy for limiting world population growth by improving the status of women [as recommended by Dr. Sadik] is now facing serious religious, ideological and financial difficulties. [That Cairo conference's] new strategy would try to allow the world's population to rise from its present level of about 5.9 billion people to close to 9.8 billion by the year 2050, and then hold it at around that level. ['Put it off until tomorrow!'] A loose coalition of conservative Roman Catholic and Muslim countries, led by the Vatican ..... sought to water down commitments made at Cairo." Those two religions oppose women's equality. Why? Do they want women tied to the task of building church congregations? In any case, do you really think the world can stand 3.9 billion more people? And can we afford to keep putting off what we should start today?

RELIGION AND POLITICS

History:

Regarding the efforts of the Christian Coalition to seek political power, there are sorry tales in the past about government controlled by religion. The Romans, whose gods were Zeus and others, turned hungry lions loose on Christians --- but the tales started much earlier, with human sacrifices! The crusades against the "infidels", as well as the Spanish Inquisition which featured burnings at the stake for thousands of "heretics" and Jews, were instigated by the Pope with the support of royalty. Zoe Oldenbourg tells of Pope Innocent III's crusade in southern France against "heretic" Cathars, who were very pious Christians, in "Massacre at Montsegur". It alleges atrocities, such as blinding 100 "heretic" soldiers, and cutting off their lips in the bargain, as a special example to other Cathars; but burning at the stake was the normal punishment for "heretics"! Innocent III was helped by the king of France and some nobles. Many emigrants escaped cruel religious persecution in Europe by colonizing America, while the Puritans conducted witch hunts and burnings at the stake in Massachusetts! In Nazi Germany, the terrible holocaust was never opposed by the Pope, after centuries of Catholic persecution of Jews! Hitler was a Catholic, though an evil one, and he used his Church's animosity towards the Jews as his justification for the holocaust. Do you think Jesus Christ would have approved of that animosity?

The Cruelty of Religious Fanatics: An example of rabid religion run amok in the modern world is described in this quote from the local paper of May 21, 1999: "Dhaka, Bangladesh --- A woman died after an Islamic cleric ordered her buried to the waist in mud and flogged 101 times with a bamboo cane for having premarital sex and inducing an abortion, police said Thursday. Police said they only learned about the case Thursday, nearly a week after the death, because the cleric had threatened the woman's family with reprisals if they went to the authorities. Bedi Begum, 18, the daughter of a poor farmer, had induced an abortion with herbal medicines she received from her lover in Batsail, a remote village in northeast Sylhet district. The fate of the 25-year old man was not known. ['Blame the woman, forget the man --- he can't be held responsible for his urges!' --- even though he supplied the abortant, and urged her to use it!] Bedi, still weak and bleeding from the abortion, was buried up to her waist in the mud floor of her thatched hut and caned by three villagers who took turns, the area's police chief, Abdullah Baki, said by telephone." There was no mention as to the punishment given the "cleric" or of the three who wielded the canes so mercilessly. The cruelty of religious fanatics is beyond understanding! Question --- which way would you prefer to die, buried in mud to your waist and unmercifully flogged to death or burned at the stake? Or maybe you'd rather be left alive, your eyes poked out and your lips cut off?

Religious Conflict Today: Yugoslavia has become a violent boiling cauldron of religious-political-ethnic hatreds. Ireland is another example of deplorable political-religious conflict, as is international terrorism and the Israel-Arab hostility, all the result of religious extremism with government support! Check out Afghanistan and Pakistan for the results of religion having a free rein in government! In the Muslim world, there has been conflict between Sunni and Shi-ite Muslims, conflict which has been exacerabated by governments. Our forefathers knew the dangers of religious involvement in government matters, hence the First Amendment. Does the world really need more rabid, religious fanatics who say theirs is the only true, pious and holy way of life? This world needs more religious tolerance, by all peoples, but especially by governments!

Versions of Christianity: How many versions of Christianity are there? And should all versions except those of the religious right be suppressed by government? You know the answer is "no!" But that seems to be the aim of some members of the religious right. And how about other religions: Pat Robertson, the leader of the Christian Coalition is on record as considering them pagan superstitions or cults! Remember that the Christian Coalition has not publicly condemned murders of abortionists; instead Robertson has called them murderers, in effect egging on his more rabid followers. All good citizens should discourage religious violence. Churches should advocate evangelic or missionary activity to change religious beliefs. Religions should preach love, not hate! Most reasonable and religious people will agree with those sentiments.

Religion: I want to emphasize my opinion that Christianity, and most other religions, occupy a unique place in human life and are invaluable to mankind and society. I intend only to comment on policies regarding birth control, family planning and sex education in the context of world over-population. The attitudes of religion on these subjects do differ, as also do their attitudes on abortion. The past is history; and I merely recount that history as it relates to the "Separation of Church and State", which is also important to mankind and society. But: On the other hand, when television evangelists enter the political arena --- by publishing voters' guides ---- by organizing political activity --- by threatening political leaders if they do not follow the evangelists' political agenda --- by distorting the nature of abortion to fit their own concepts; all this for the avowed and special purpose of gaining political influence, then, their actions tend to close the gap which must be kept open between Church and State. Consequently, it is time to discourage that activity by taxing politico-religious organizations as political! Otherwise, the "separation" will become the "joining", of Church and State!

ABORTION AND FATHERHOOD

How will population growth, and the resultant expansion of advanced civilization and its destruction of the environment, be curbed? That will be a problem which must be faced by our grandchildren as an emergency, unless we start to help them now! Besides adopting known environment protection measures, we should start a program of erecting sun and wind power plants on non-arable land, and we certainly need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels with safe atomic power and electric powered cars. Probably other new ways will turn up, but we also have to stop population growth!

A Pro-Choice Defense: As a start, we need an acceptable substitute for abortion. But, should not a female have the right, within bounds, to control her own body in accordance with her own conscience and the dictates of her own religion, not the dictates of someone else's religion? Her feelings and well-being, as a person fully partaking in and aware of life, should be given at least equal consideration with the existence of a partially developed fetus which hasn't a clue as to what it is or where it is, and has only partially developed senses! I am joined in that opinion with about forty-two religious organizations which are members of The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and others. The crux of the issue is the unwanted pregnancy, unwanted by both mother and father, and with the baby to be brought into the world fatherless! The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement states: "The sheer increase in the number of children being born out of marriage during the last thirty years has commanded our attention because, in many cases, it directly and adversely affects the economic well-being of our nation's children."

Abortion in Marriages: As to abortion in marriages, couples can best be guided by their own religions, their consciences and their ability to feed, care for and educate the children they bring into this world. It costs money, in our advanced civilization, to raise children properly. When I was young, a man was not supposed to get married until he had a good job. When I got into the Marine Corps, a private was discouraged from having a wife until he made sergeant, and still is! Certainly, couples should use birth control, but "accidents" happen. Do you think governments should choose the religion for their citizens? For example, should Presbyterians be required by government to conform to Catholicism's dictates on birth control and abortion?

Abortion & Population: Abortion is not a good solution to population growth nor am I advocating it as such; nor do I believe pro-choicers advocate or support its use for that purpose. It is a fact, though, that millions of pregnancies are being aborted annually, holding population growth down some, but certainly not enough to stop its growth. Both pro-life and pro-choice people should seek ways to stop that growth by means other than abortion. Birth control and family planning education and assistance and improved female status, education and living conditions are necessary parts of the solution, especially in the backward parts of the world, where birth rates are high. The Vatican is in opposition for its own reasons, and it encourages large families, even among the poor; and the Christian Coalition has opposed that solution. But the very future of the planet dictates that population growth must become zero or less, as soon as possible!

Abortion Alternative: A proposal, as an alternate to abortion, for curbing population growth: A pregnant female, who had trusted her departed male "friend", will think of abortion when she realizes she is alone with her problem. But what if she could easily have the male held responsible as the father of her child? Regardless of his religious beliefs or non-beliefs, holding the male equally responsible for pregnancy is both right and moral. Every child deserves a father as well as a mother! To make males responsible for their sex acts, they should be required not only to help support the mother and baby, but also to contribute adequate quality time to care for and help bring-up the child until grown. The stud, thus, will be caused to be the baby's father, like it or not, and regardless of whether he is single, or married to a different woman. It should be made easy for the pregnant one to report the facts to a social agency, which should give the male a DNA test, a new and positive, prima facie evidence of fatherhood. If tested positive, he should be entered into a fatherhood program supervised by a social service officer, and under the cognizance of a family court. But, when he faces his baby in person, his paternal instinct may be aroused and he may willingly assume his fatherly duties. If either of the illegitimate parents is a child, the respective grandparents, being responsible for their children's acts, should be required to monitor, assist or assume the parentage onus until the underage parent comes of age. If the baby is adopted or if the father marries the mother, he would leave this program, and care of the child will come under other legal jurisdiction.

Required Fatherhood: However, if the father refuses or neglects his fatherly duties, he should be put into labor programs, supervised by federal organizations to perform necessary public works, with part of his pay going to support the mother and child, until he is ready to mend his ways or until the child is grown up. Similar treatment should greet the female who shirks her mother's responsibilities. Government licensed and supervised adoption agencies and orphan homes will be needed for those falling through the cracks. Some may not like this plan; so what's the alternative? Just keep on laying the guilt only on the female? That hasn't worked too well for millennia - how about trying a change? Put his share of guilt on the other parent, the aggressive partner in sexual encounters!

Abandonment of Newborn: An article in the local paper on April 19th reported an increase of 20% in the yearly number of children in the state who were abandonned. The President of the state council on adolescent pregnancy said "No one really knows how anyone could discard a newborn. All we can do is speculate. At 14 [years old], I'm not sure they know why they did it. One problem with the system is that mothers are held accountable and fathers are not."

Fatherhood Responsibility: Once these fatherhood laws are passed, publicized and put in effect, most boys and men, properly put on notice, will suddenly develop a strong desire to avoid unwanted pregnancies of their girl-friends; at least, until they have decided they want a permanent relationship with that female. In other words, males will come to realize their proper responsibilities in sexual relations. On the other hand, some fathers are denied opportunity to act as fathers because the unmarried mothers don't want them to have custody or visitation rights. State laws are not uniform regarding rights and responsibilities of either mothers or fathers in these cases. A federal study should be made of what to do about children born out of wedlock in order to develop a body of federal laws which will be uniform and equitable but will be aimed particularly at the welfare of children.

Benefits of Required Fatherhood: This program is obviously for the benefit of women as well as children, and will result in other much needed benefits. Faced with the prospect that he may be exposed (at the option of the female) and made to take over as a father, (1) the male libido will be cooled and the couple will act more sexually responsible; (2) marriages will be encouraged and protected; (3) the abortion rate will be reduced; (4) parental control of their children will, perforce, be increased; (5) population growth will be decreased; (6) some young women will be saved from a life of regret; (7) the United States will set an example for the world; (8) churches will applaud; (9) some pro-choicers will support abortion limitations if both sexes become responsible for their children, and (10) it will increase support for birth control and family planning. Some females may take advantage of this proposed set of laws to "trap" males; all the more reason why males should avoid sex outside of marriage! This program, while lowering abortion rates, may increase crimes against women and children, but those can be prosecuted under existing law; and that consideration should not excuse fathers who evade their rightful duties.

Stand on Abortion, Episcopalians and Others: The First Amendment says, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof" My Episcopal Church published its stand on abortion in its 1976 resolution of the General Convention, and it remains unchanged. It, while strongly discouraging abortion, just as strongly (in para. 6) "expresses its unequivocal opposition to any legislation on the part of national or state governments which would abridge or deny the right of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter [abortion] and act on them". It also specifically permits abortions in those cases where (in para. 3) "the physical or mental health of the mother is threatened seriously, or there is substantial reason to believe that the child would be born badly deformed in mind or body, or where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest". Note that those first two clauses of para. 3 apply to the "partial birth abortion" (PBA), which is needed to handle such problems in the third trimester when the situation may first be realized. Thus, PBA should be restricted to those purposes, rather than being prohibited. Suffice it to say that the religious right is advocating the prohibition of "the free exercise of the Episcopal religion"! There are other religious organizations, members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RC for RC), which have similar policies on abortion.

Religious Beliefs Should be Forced by Law?: Each different branch of religion thinks it is the only one knowing the truth, hence the importance of the separation of Church and State. For example, I think my Episcopal Church's principles of family planning and size should be adopted by the Catholic Church, for the good of the world: "1. The beginning of new human life, because it is a gift of the power of God's love for his people, and thereby sacred, should not and must not be undertaken unadvisedly or lightly but in full accordance of the understanding for which this power to conceive and give birth is bestowed by God. 2. Such understanding includes the responsibility for Christians to limit the size of their families and to practice responsible birth control [emphasis added]. Such means for moral limitations do not include abortion for convenience." Our forefathers were convinced of the need for the Separation of Church and State. Should the Episcopal guidance on family size be forced by law on Catholics in their marital relations? No, it's the Pope's job! But, that is the way of the religious right with those who disagree with them on abortion.

Jesus Christ and Abortion: For background on abortion in Jesus Christ's time, see "Abortion: A Christian Ethical Perspective" by Dr. John M. Swomley, Emeritus Professor of Christian Social Ethics, St. Paul School of Theology, Kansas City, MO, published by the RC for RC. It states that Israel, valuing the woman more than the fetus, did not forbid abortion, although its neighbor kingdoms did; and that Jesus Christ did not condemn abortion, which was a possible part of a woman's experience in those times.

Importance of Fatherhood: An article in the February 1997 issue of the Reader's Digest, titled "Life without Father" discusses in detail the importance of fathers in the lives of children. I have sent requests to Focus on the Family and the CC, asking for their support in holding fathers responsible for all their children. Both have indicated that they are too busy with other matters - but, what can be so much more important - not being distracted from politics? Perhaps they are reluctant to confront the male voting public with a constriction on their sexual activity? Focus on the Family said: "We have recently stepped up our active involvement in issues of public policy that concern the family......[we] will probably not be able to help you.....because we cannot take on any more at this time." I quote the guts of another response: "Christian Coalition is not saying that the father is not responsible for his part in conception. Yes, the father should take just as much responsibility as the mother; we are a pro-family organization. However, our main concern is to establish the humanity of the unborn child and to see a day when every child is safe in their mother's womb." To mimic President Reagan, I say "there they go again, calling the fetus a 'child'!" Common sense tells us "There is a big difference!"

Amoeba, Embryo & Fetus: To put the controversy into perspective, in the first trimester, when most abortions occur, the embryo is comparable in size to a large peanut. The sizes of the embryo or fetus at several ages are: at 5 weeks: 1/10" long; at 6 weeks: 2/10" long ; at 8 weeks: 6/10" long; at 13 weeks: 3" long, weight: 1 oz.; at 16 weeks: 6" long, weight: 4 oz. (My source of this data: "A New Life" by John T. Queenan MD and Carrie Neher Queenan.) These embryos and fetuses are most certainly little beginnings of human life, with emphasis on "little" and "beginnings", but they are certainly not persons, and can not properly be called babies, or children! Those who do so are mis-stating, with the intent to mislead, trying for political influence by playing, like a violinist, on the emotions of a sympathic and unquestioning segment of the public! Most pro-lifers also claim the amoeba to be a person at conception, consequently, it would be murder to abort even then! This time we are talking about a being a little larger than the dot at the end of this sentence. Don't you think that it is unreasonable to condemn a young girl or lady by trashing her plans for life because she trusted and thought she was in love with a young man, whose philosophy of life is "love 'em and leave 'em". Such young people have a lot of distracting thoughts on their minds and perhaps don't see clearly what they should do when faced with the sexual temptations of life. They don't deserve to have their lives trashed before they realize it!

Roe vs Wade: In "Roe vs Wade", the Supreme Court considered very carefully the whole abortion question, including its history, the opinions of ancient scholars, of modern medical associations, churches, religious organizations and so on! I wonder how many who argue so stentoriously on the abortion controversy have read the record of "Roe vs Wade"? The Court thoroughly examined and dismissed the thought that the fetus, until the third trimester when it may be capable of life outside the womb, can be considered a person, which pro-lifers insist is its status, and which would interdict abortion. As a pro-choicer, I have no objection to the Supreme Court's third trimester ruling, except when it is discovered in that late term that the "physical or mental health of the mother is threatened seriously, or there is substantial reason to believe that the child would be born badly deformed in mind or body" (see para. 3 of the Episcopal Church's stand on abortion, quoted previously).

Justice Frankfurter: Since the fetus becomes a baby, after birth, who would be surprised that it has rudimentary organs, or the beginnings of a baby's features, body and limbs, which pro-lifers shove into my view? Most certainly, the abortion decision is a hard one! However, consider also "the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by a birth and raising of a child" (Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter's words).

Senator Mathias: I quote from a letter I received from Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., in 1985, because it is both wise and pertinent: "My votes in the Senate reflect my firm convicton that the decision to have an abortion is deeply personal and private and must remain so. It has long been my position that Government will never be so finely tuned that it can answer personal, medical or ethical questions regarding abortion or family planning".

Pro-Family?: The Christian Coalition (CC), in its letter to me said, in part: "We are a pro-family organization". Well, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice can also lay a well-founded claim to be a "pro-family organization"! The Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Frankfurter, and Senator Mathias can likewise make the "pro-family" claim, as well as other claims to personal honesty, honor and integrity, and can be joined by billions of other men and women of like mind. I don't believe that the CC, by making that statement, has established some greater authority to issue a judgment on the ethicacy of abortion, greater than that of the Supreme Court!

Humanity of the Fetus: The CC also said "our main concern is to establish the humanity of the unborn child".....Well, it confuses itself as well as its loyal followers by continually referring to the embryo or fetus in a female's body as a baby or a child sometimes adding the adjective "unborn". But, there can be little doubt that the amoeba, embryo and fetus, all being a part of a pregnant woman's body, are undeniably human tissue. The CC and Mr. William Buckley, Jr. put the "humanity" of the fetus up as a straw man! But no, Mr. Buckley, the fetus is not a "tomato"! --- But force it to be carried to birth, with no father?

A Baby Factory?: Incidentally, Mr. Buckley, a woman should not be considered essentially a baby factory, as the Roman Catholic Religion seems to regard her! But I admit I do not understand Catholicism's attitude toward women, who are certainly as intelligent as men in many ways, and even more so in some ways, and more caring. Hence they are well qualified by nature to receive training as priests, and to deserve more influence in the life of the Catholic Church than they have now.

How Would You Feel?: If a woman or girl in my family were in the situation of having been impregnated by a reckless fellow, whose way of life is "love 'em and leave 'em", I would want the abortion decision to be hers to make, not the State's at the behest of religious extremists. To deprive her of that freedom of choice is to tell her she is just the vessel for male lust, and once used, her life, hopes, desires and ambitions mean nothing to society --- those yearnings are to be trashed!

Good Conscience?: If the woman is to be forced to become a mother, then how, in good conscience, can the man be allowed to escape fatherhood? What can be more important to religious people than getting this problem corrected? I hope all religions will give moral support to the fatherhood program I am proposing.

Pro-Choice Immoral?: The religious right, having not found any time now to support enforced fatherhood for males, is also dismissing the probability of reducing abortion rates, improving moral conduct and decreasing population growth. Instead they seek political power with anti-abortionism as their main weapon, and with no diversions. Thus, they continue their opposition to birth control, family planning and sex education assistance by the United States for backward countries. This assistance, to educate and help men and women in those countries, is designed to reduce the occasions for even thinking of abortion of an unwanted "baby". The religious right implies that pro-choice people are immoral! Are not those who oppose this assistance the ones who are really and truly immoral? I have attached a copy of a letter I received from "Save the Children". which is self explanatory and is representative of the attitudes of many organizations which are trying to help families around the world. They deserve U. S. government support.

CONCLUSIONS

Overwhelming Evidence: I have presented overwhelming evidence from knowledgeable sources that there are serious and imminent threats to the environment, menacing life on Earth, now and increasingly in the future; and that advancing and expanding civilization is the cause of these threats. Civilizations will grow as populations grow, and mankind should begin stopping that growth soon. Populations are stable in developed countries because birth control knowledge is widespread there and the status of women as equal with men is becoming established and basic social needs are generally being met in those advanced cultures. The developing countries, where population growth is fastest, urgently need help in family planning and birth control and in improving the status of women and the security of society. It is in the interest of the developed countries to provide that help; but, Catholic and Islamic religions are opposing any such assistance. Therefore, the separation of Church and State must now assume renewed significance to Society, worldwide. Also, I am proposing that sires be held responsible, fully, as fathers of their "illegitimate" children. That is a step intended to relieve pressure on unmarried females to seek abortion, and will improve morals, will provide for better child's care and upbringing, and other benefits. Also, I have given a sensible defense to the pro-choice beliefs, which is shared by many people, religious or not. Finally, I have shown that the over-consumption, and the waste, of the advanced civilizations must be curbed.

I repeat: "The world is fat, dumb and happy, and asleep as well, and it's wake-up time!" Business interests should face reality. Governing bodies, in particular, and all people, world-wide, should pay serious attention to these problems!

Recommendations:

To put these thoughts into effect, our government should reactivate NSSM 200 under a special commission to update it, followed by laws to implement it, and to discourage, under penalty of taxation, activity of either the "religious right" or "religious left" which may be organized to interfere in our federal, state or local politics or government. It should also establish laws, and the necessary organizations to implement them, to cause fathers (as well as mothers) of children conceived out of wedlock to become responsible for those children. It, also, should control U. S. population growth by limiting immigration, (instead of increasing immigration from countries which encourage population growth) and by taxation to encourage couples to have no more than two children (instead of encouraging large families). As well, it should support organizations such as "Save the Children", and should encourage and assist the world-wide efforts to equalize women's status with men and to promote other human rights and living conditions in the developing countries. These actions by the United States will deter population growth and lead world humanity into a better way of life. The U. S. should support a strong world government which will be needed to save the planet from continuing abuse by mankind and other threats, including introduction of foreign species into native habitats, and to investigate the mysteries of biodiversity and discourage wasteful consunption, as well as keeping world peace..

pearf@hotmail.com

 

Save the Children 54 Wilton Road, Westport, CT 06881, P.O. Box 950,Tel.: (203) 221-4000, January 26, 1999

Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your interest in Save the Children's efforts to expand reproductive health and family planning services to families around the world. While all people concerned about the well-being of women and children can disagree on what is the best way to address this program area, Save the Children feels confident that there are culturally appropriate activities which can help women and men responsibly and freely determine the timing and spacing of their children, which will safeguard the health and security of these children and the next generation of children in places where we work.

Of utmost concern to Save the Children is the health and well-being of the children we serve. It has been well-documented in programs throughout the world, that where parents are able to space their children for at least 24 months, children have a greater opportunity to thrive. While this is true the world over, it is critically important in the countries where Save the Children works because so many children start life off with a low birth weight and then is nursed by a mother who herself is often undernourished and anemic. Save the Children works to encourage breastfeeding to provide the best available nutrition for a baby, and to encourage that the mother eat a proper diet, take iron supplements and appropriately care for her newborn. The breastfeeding itself has a positive effect against closely spaced pregnancies, a natural form of family planning.

In addition, in countries from Haiti to Bangladesh, women and men are taught about ways to space their children and limit their family size including natural family planning methods and contraceptives, which are locally available. In a country like Bangladesh, which is about the size of Wisconsin with a population of 120 million, many men and women are concerned about having too many children to take care of, particularly since rural farming families must divide their property into smaller and smaller parcels as part of their sons inheritance. Eking out a living under these conditions is difficult and thus, providing families with access to information and services so that they can plan their families is critical to the survival and to the well-being of the next generation.

In Honduras, mothers learn about health and family planning during mother-baby care sessions which include routine growth monitoring, nutrition education, early childhood development, and immunization services. The whole picture of family health is discussed by local trained health workers who stay in their own communities to provide health advice and counseling to their neighbors. This type of friendly dialogue regarding how mothers can best care for themselves and their children resembles a mothers' gathering for a play group in this country. Mothers share what they know and do to help their children thrive.

In some countries, like Malawi, where the AIDS virus is rapidly spreading, families are in crisis. Children, orphaned by AIDS, are being raised by grandparents or teenage brothers or sisters. Older children are often required to care for their dying parents. In Malawi, where upwards of 20% of the population carries the virus, men and women need to know how to protect themselves from the further spread of this disease. Save the Children works with local health workers to encourage abstinence, monogamy, and knowledge of how to use barrier methods to prevent the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS.

Finally, Save the Children's work in reproductive health includes efforts to improve prenatal care for pregnant women and their access to a trained birth attendant when they go into labor. Maternal deaths around the world number more than half a million each year. Some of these deaths are attributal to unclean delivery tools and surfaces (as infants are typically born at home), and lack of a plan and resources to move a woman who has complications in labor to a hospital many miles from her home. In Nepal, Save the Children has helped in the development and marketing of a birthing kit which will promote a cleaner delivery at home, including soap, a new razor blade to cut the umbilical cord, and a plastic sheet to put under the woman in labor to protect the newborn from bacteria present on the mud floor of the home. This simple kit, costing only 25 cents, can help prevent infections in the newborn and the mother, and is widely purchased by pregnant women themselves in rural Nepal. In Mali, Save the Children works to establish communication and transport systems to get women who have completed delivery to the District hospital which the government communities have equipped for emergency obstretical care.

In all our work in family health, Save the Children assists local communities and mothers themselves to solve common health concerns and problems. Since many mothers do ask for advice to space their children, and limit their family size. Save the Children helps provide information and improve access to local services for family planning. Our programs are in no way coercive, nor do they promote or support abortion services. They are developed with community members and local health officials to be appropriate to the needs and demands of mothers and fathers in each community. They support and reinforce our mission which is to improve the lives and the conditions faced by disadvantaged children around the world.

Sincerely,

Linda Bagnell

Donor Services Representative

Working to make lasting, positive change in the lives of disadvantaged children in the United States, Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and the Newly Independent States.