We have discussed here before the population implosion taking place in most parts of Europe. Approximately 2.1 Children per woman are needed to maintain the population of a given country or ethnic group. In most of Europe, the birthrate hovers well below 2, often as low as 1.3 in some Eastern European countries.  In effect these cultures are aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence.

As populations shrink, so do economies and so does the ability to provide basic services, and staff the engine of production. Some countries rely on large numbers of immigrants to fill the gaps. But these immigrants do not often share the faith and culture of the people they are gradually replacing. The result is a dying European culture. We have certainly discussed these matters extensively here before. (e.g. HERE)

Now comes the news from AP- that proposed legislation in Russia would seek to severely curtail abortion to stem the tide of eroding populations. Here is the brief article.

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia‘s Orthodox Church teamed with Conservative parliamentarians Monday to push legislation that would radically restrict abortions in a nation struggling to cope with one of the world’s lowest birthrates.

The legislation would ban free abortions at government-run clinics and prohibit the sale of the morning-after pill without a prescription, said Yelena Mizulina, who heads a parliamentary committee on families, women and children.

She added that abortion for a married woman would also require the permission of her spouse, while teenage girls would need their parents’ consent. If the legislation is passed, a week’s waiting period would also be introduced so women could consider their decision to terminate their pregnancy, Mizulina said.

Mirabile visu, mirabale auditu! (Wondrous to see! Wondrous to hear!)

Clearly, more will be necessary to stem the tide than this, but it is a recognition of the fact that abortion (and I would add, contraception) have devastated Western Cultures (including Eastern Europe). Any culture that either celebrates them or is too permissive of them will ultimately suffer from a kind of implosion.

For, it would seem that many today consider children too much trouble, too expensive, or too impacting our their lifestyle. Many prefer expensive and large homes, along with many expensive creature comforts. They prefer these to children.  When this becomes a cultural trend, that culture is doomed.

Some will argue that the cost of living is too high today to have more than one or two children. While economic questions have a considerable complexity, it must also be admitted that we have chosen rather elaborate and expensive lifestyles. There are many things that we could and would do without, if we valued children more.

Now, faced with serious threats to their on-going viability as a country and a culture, the Russians are considering how to limit abortion, which has been legal there since the 1920s!

Let’s pray that other countries will wake up, including our own to the fact that we cannot go on killing our children, or  preventing their existence and expect to thrive. France has begun to turn things around, it’s birth rate is edging back up toward 2.0. Perhaps other countries will also turn back the tide on abortion and contraception, and come to see that if we do not love life, we tend to die.

Chart above from Economist.com

Here is a video report of the same story.

16 Responses

  1. Dismas says:

    Historic news of biblical proportion, what an exciting shock! I wonder, if the legislation passes, if Russia will be able to keep its seat in at UN and how the international community will respond? It’s interesting this news came on the eve of the Feast of the Visitation, I wonder if the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrated the feast on the same day this year?

  2. Nick says:

    Upside is this can help the anti-population control cause by ending abortion, enthuensia, and assisted sucide.

    Downside is this can cause certain sins (like fornication and adultery) to be legalized for repopulation.

    But my trust is in God.

  3. Marc Aupiais says:

    Good to see! Wish saw it more! KPMG even predicts South Africa will collapse! Also immigrants don’t stem economic tide as less educated? 1e have 5 mil. Illegal immigrants in RSA!

  4. Linus says:

    For the wrong reasons but still an ” awakening.”

  5. Dennis says:

    I agree with Linus. It is a good thing to have abortions reduced, but the reasoning is still a utilitarian reasoning. It’s not being done because life is valued. What happens if they are able to ‘repopulate’? Do they then lessen the restrictions on abortion again because the restrictions had fulfilled their purpose? Good news, but let’s keep praying for the actual conversion of everyone’s hearts so that they value life for life’s sake, not because of what they want from it :-)

  6. Paul S says:

    One study said if a nations birthrate falls below 1.6 then their culture/nation is toast as they can never recover.

    Go to
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

    to see which nations will be survivors and those that will be “toast’

  7. Jan says:

    Monsignor – the one factor you left out is the inherent selfishness of most of the women who abort. They don’t care about birthrates or implosions or the demise of the country. In all likelihood those trends won’t impact them a whole lot, and as long as they can still have ‘theirs’ it’s all good.

    The whole mindset of the United States needs to change, and I hate to lay this on the men, but it’s gonna be up to them to civilize us women.

  8. Brad says:

    Thus the post-Christian nations don’t end abortion (pretend to, that is) because it offends our Creator, but because of utterly temporal mudanities such as economic impact (not enough workers to support an economy: they’re all murdered) and annoying demographic realities (the hostile races and creeds that the decadent host countries have let in are now gaining overwhelming power). The devil stalks with ravening jaws nakedly through our world…his princedom.

  9. Deacon Richard says:

    “… it would seem that many today consider children too much trouble, too expensive, or too impacting our their lifestyle. Many prefer expensive and large homes, along with many expensive creature comforts.”

    An awful lot can be said on this issue, but there are a LOT of factors affecting people’s attitudes, chief among which are the current expectations for what a middle-class family *must* provide for a child (i.e. in order to be considered middle class and not “poor”). For example, back in the 50’s and 60’s it was still commonplace for children to share a bedroom, even with 3 or more in one room. Kids had some organized activities, but most of the time they could just “go out to play,” and return home safe and sound. In today’s world, it is assumed that if you are a middle-class parent, having that child was a free and conscious choice, which means you have already planned for a huge number of expenses to make sure your child has everything he / she needs to meet the current middle-class standards.

    In other words, it’s not so much that they “consider” children to be too much trouble, too expensive, or too impacting our their lifestyle, as that society’s standards make them that way.

    • Will says:

      Society’s standards don’t make them that way, their own willful choice of conformity make them that way.

  10. Mike says:

    I wonder if someone could explain why a fertility rate of 2.1 is deemed to be necessary for population replacement? In the table the UK fertility rate is given as 1.74 (2004). Now the UK fertility rate increased slightly after 2004 so by 2009 it had reached 1.96 in England and Wales but still below the 2.1. However, in 2008-09, the number of births in the UK (787,000) exceeded the number of deaths (570,000) by 217,000.
    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=950
    So how is it possible for there to be a natural increase in the population of 217,000 when the fertility rate was below 2.1?

    • Stewart Griffin says:

      “I wonder if someone could explain why a fertility rate of 2.1 is deemed to be necessary for population replacement?”

      If a couple has less than two children before they die then they will not have replaced themselves, so 2 is the minimum. Infertility, early death, etcetera means that the average reproducing couple needs 2.1 children to make up for those people who cannot reproduce.

      “So how is it possible for there to be a natural increase in the population of 217,000 when the fertility rate was below 2.1?”

      Cohorts (groups of people at particular ages) are not all the same size. If old people were part of a small cohort, but the current fertile cohort is a large one you can get less deaths than births and still not hit replacement rate fertility.

      Put another way: if there is a baby boom, with large families, then to replace that entire boomer generation you need to more than replace their parent’s generation, which was smaller. If you do not do this you get a reverse of the baby boom and a smaller total population as the boomers die and their small families become all that is left.

      • I am not entirely sure I follow your questions. I think you have answered your first question on your own. I am not sure about the rest, except to say that European populations are declining, some of them rapidly. I suppose you are arguing that a certain smaller number of them is ideal but the experiencing of shrinking population is that it is basic human capacities and economies also shrink.

        • Mike says:

          Sorry, Msgr, but are you replying to me or to Stewart? The ‘questions’ bit seems to refer to me but then you suppose that ‘you are arguing’. I’m not arguing anything. I’m just puzzled. I’m just trying to sort out the Maths. Stewart sort of answers my question but I think that the inference of his answer is that to say that we need a fertility rate of 2.1 is too simplistic: we need to take account of other factors. (Sorry, Stewart, if that is not what you are saying; it’s just that that’s what it appears to me you are saying.) The fact is that the UK has had a natural increase in population in recent years even though the fertility rate is less than 2.1. Stewart says, “If a couple has less than two children before they die then they will not have replaced themselves, so 2 is the minimum. Infertility, early death, etcetera means that the average reproducing couple needs 2.1 children to make up for those people who cannot reproduce.” That seems to explain the fertility rate of 2.1 satisfactorily. But then you have the UK situation that seems to contradict the explanation. Stewart then attempts to explain the contradiction. Maybe his explanation is correct. In which case the 2.1 is too simplistic because, if Stewart’s explanation is correct then 2.1 isn’t always necessary.

          As I said, I’m not arguing anything – I’m just looking for an explanation. But just to be absolutely clear I do not see anything desirable in a declining population. The people who argue that the population needs to fall tend to be in the “We are all doomed unless we stop the world population rising” camp. A good (Bad?) example is Sir David Attenborough who belongs to the Optimum Population Trust (or whatever they are called now), a body which thinks that the current UK population is twice what it should be. (Another example is the National Geographic Magazine.)This group are strong on promoting birth control and abortion. There is also a strong link between the Overpopulationists and Climate Alarmism, something which America’s Anthony Watts (WUWT.com) is very good at deflating.

  11. Peter Wolczuk says:

    It may be that practical (or mundane) considerations are behind these reactions to a decline in the population however, the decline and the practical are also result of the consequences of a cultural groups actions. While this may cause the group to shift to a survival based solution it doesn’t rule out a degree of shift to seeing that the original self serving motives were flawed and that a more positive, altruistic (well being of others) and spiritually positive set of values could become attractive.
    I’m not saying that it will lead to a responsible regard for sharing God’s love with future generations; just that there is a nudge in that direction which can be nurtured and encouraged in other ways.

Leave a Reply