The birth rates in United States and Canada are insufficient to support current population and political leaders in both countries encourage immigration to ensure enough working age population to sustain economic growth. Retirement pensions and health care cost stability depends on a balance between working age population and elderly citizens. Demographic imbalances have widespread consequences.
The United States populaton was 211 million in 1973 and is 332 million today, an increase of 121 million. That growth comprises 31 million immigrants and 90 million born in United States. Immigrants into United States are welcomed, housed, given medical care and assisted to find employment - even those who enter illegally. The Biden administration promotes “sanctuary cities” and encourages immigration.
United States birth rates are determined by sociological factors. Fewer people want larger families. A high number choose abortion. Steady or growing population, often seen as essential to social stability and economic growth, must factor in both.
Abortion has been legal across the world for centuries. Ancient Greeks saw abortion as acceptable. Aristotle (among others) raised the question of “when life begins”. His reasoning was that a fetus was not a person until capable of sensation.
The emergence of organized religion has colored the abortion debate as religious leaders inluding the Pope celebrated “life” and condemned abortion (likely motivated by a desire to see their adherents increase in number despite packaging their policies in religious rhetoric.
In United States, since 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided up until 2021, there were 63 million pregnancies aborted. The debate over “abortion rights” is current and will be central to the 2024 election. Democrats correctly argue that abortion is inter alia an economic issue, pointing to statistics that show many abortion are people of colour in low income groups who want to limit family size for economic reasons. They argue that anti-abortion “pro-life” policies discriminate against this population. It seems putative fathers have no rights if the decision to abort or carry a pregnancy to term is entirely a mother’s right and inherent only obligations if the mother chooses to have the child. The pro-choice side of the debate couches abortion ideology on the “right of a woman to control her own body”. Presumably the pregnancy resulted from a lapse in that control.
In any event, from the perspective of a growing population, there is interaction between immigration and abortion. American encourages and supports immigration financially, as does Canada. What I find odd and inexplicable is how America or Canada can find the resources to support millions of immigrants who also came from typically low income groups in other countries seeking a better life but can’t find equivalent resources to support low-income families to raise families rather than feel compelled to terminate pregnancies. Surely the costs are more or less equivalent?
There will always be cases where abortion is medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or in cases of rape or incest, but those must comprise a minority of the 63 million. Many of the larger portion are for convenience (the mother and father did not make any effort to take advantage of birth control choices widely available) and imposed on society the cost of their choices when an unwanted pregnancy resulted. It is hard to have sympathy for this group. The Roe v Wade decision recognized the need for women to have access to abortion care, but also noted that abortions should be both safe and rare. Sixty three million abortions since 1973 is not rare.
Canada has sensible abortion laws. Even so, about 20% of pregnancies end in abortion. There is less political rhetoric in Canada about the abortion question but it still seems obvious that abortions are not confined to medical needs and no doubt many arise from economic circumstances of the mother. Like United States, Canada encourages and supports immigrants (as we should) but offers less support to low-income mothers who choose abortion for economic reasons.
Both Canada and United States would do well to tone down the rhetoric and develop policies that support a desirable level of population growth both through live births in country and immigration. The desirable level of these combined must conform to the country’s ability to absorb the growth with sufficient housing stock, health care and education infrastructure. Instead of politicizing issues like abortion and immigration, our political class would do well to come up with sensible policies devoid of ideology and consistent with our actual needs and wants. They don’t, largely because of the clowns we keep electing on both sides of the aisle.
In my opinion, common sense policies respect a woman’s right to choose, respect a father’s ability to have a voice in the decision to choose abortion, and confront the economic results directly with programs that support indigent mothers if they choose to raise children, require fathers to contribute to the support of children they have fathered, and limit immigration to numbers that fall within the ability of the country’s infrastructure to absorb without punishing current residents. That means balancing homebuilding, hospital building, school construction, waste treatment facilities and other infrastructure with expected growth and adjusting the number of immigrants permitted to enter the country to the number that will not exacerbate infrastructure issues.
Is it too late for common sense to prevail? It may be if we keep electing “progressive” governments.