The following is a guest post by The Fringe Economist of FringeEcon.com

Ever since Pope Paul VI’s encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, the pro-choice and pro-contraception crowd has been trying to give arguments against the Church’s position on abortion and contraception.  A variety of reasons are given, from a couple is simply not ready for children to PMS relief.  Two of the most convincing arguments that are nearly always brought up are the personal costs of raising children and the social costs of overpopulation.  But, if we look at these arguments in detail, they fall apart like the other lies these groups put forth.

In a recent book titled “Selfish Reasons to have More Kids” by economist Bryan Caplan, there is much proof that the extreme price of children is  manufactured by industry, psychologists, and people’s own egos rather than reality.

It’s been estimated that raising a child to the age of 18 will run around $143,790 to $289,380. This estimate was made by a United States Department of Agriculture study from 2009 and adjusted for 2011 inflation rates. These numbers include expenses on food, housing, education, fuel, and energy. This seems to be a pretty daunting number, however Caplan argues that the real cost of raising children is actually much lower and that much of the conventional wisdom on spending falls flat on its face when critically viewed.  Caplan takes data from twins who have been separated at birth and adopted. The data shows, he says, that the environment had far less to do with their adult life than most people think: the twins who had more spent on them did not turn out to be vastly different from their siblings.  In addition, research has been done into programs such as Baby Einstein and pre-schooling that strongly suggests that the benefits gained from these expensive endeavors are very marginal and do not last past a year or two. So unless you have a child who really enjoys soccer practice or playing the piano, it’s okay to let them play or read at home which avoids the costs of some of these activities. In the long run, the impact they may have will likely be much less than you had hoped.

As of late, another huge expense has come into question: the college degree. A generation or two ago, a degree meant more than it does today. Today, the job market is so flooded with degrees, that a traditional expensive 4 year elite university degree has much less of an impact on one’s income. As this trend continues, the cost of a degree will have less and less worth. Of course there are some degrees that will still be required for certain careers- such as engineering or teaching- but these will merit a high enough pay for your child to pay back loans.  But a degree in pre-medieval poetic literature is really unnecessary and gives little economic benefit.  This, coupled with the fact that there are state schools that charge anywhere from 5 to 10 times less than private universities, poke quite a few holes in this argument.

Clearly Caplan does not, nor do I, advocate ignoring your children. The best way to raise them would be by instruction in all things pertaining to God and holiness. Just because we cannot affect their economic outcomes later on in life as much as we would like, doesn’t mean we can’t teach them the ways of the Lord from a young age so they have a guide and a chance to become great saints. In fact, the factor that Caplan was able to find that parents have the largest influence over is the child’s view on the parents themselves.  We know that a child’s view of his or her parents can greatly influences his or her view of God Himself. So spend quality time with your children and do activities that you both enjoy, don’t force them to play 3 sports, 2 instruments, and have a full time tutor. These are just burdens that usually play to parents’ egos but don’t necessarily produce the desired outcomes.

Another argument that comes from the extreme left is the one of overpopulation. I would find it hard to imagine that the all powerful, eternal, and omniscient Lord of the entire universe would be so short sighted as to create a world insufficient for its inhabitants He created; nevertheless this myth has existed for at least the last 150 years. There are a few key components to the overpopulation myth:

What is the truth about "overpopulation?"

•  We are running out of space

The entire world population can fit on the state of Texas and each family would have enough space for a suburban home and a yard.
According to Overpopulationisamyth.com:
The U.N. Population Database says that the world’s population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).
So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That’s approximately a 33′ x 33′ plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house- or enough space for a family of 4 to have a house with a yard.

• Overpopulation causes world hunger

In the early 1800s, Lord Thomas Robert Malthus wrote an essay entitled “Essay on the Principle of Population” that predicted the world would be out of food in 1890. Since then scientists have made similar predictions time and time again, yet every year we have more and more food. The reason is because innovation has allowed farmers to grow bigger crops on smaller pieces of land. In fact as population has grown, the number of calories and nutrition of all individuals have increased. Humans are not just net consumers, we also produce things and innovate so that there’s always more to eat with a bigger population.

• A higher population causes poverty

This notion comes from the idea that the world has limited resources and there just isn’t enough to go around – so each person born would necessarily take something from someone already living, making both of them poor. The main example that proponents point to is India where there is around 3 times the population of the United States but only one third of the land. Most people don’t realize that the actual population density of India is the same as New Jersey. Once again, we can see that throughout history this argument has been untrue. As populations have grown, all metrics of wealth have also grown. India’s poverty rate isn’t due to it’s population, in fact it is countries with large populations today that are able to lift themselves out of poverty such as India and China because they have large work forces that are able to produce many goods for the rest of the world.

"We make life better!"

Whether viewed from a personal stand point or a social one, having more children adds a much lower cost than some would have you think. As with all economists Caplan looks at the cost versus benefits of having an additional child. A survey in his book found that most parents over childbearing age (ie late 30′s and 40′s) regret not having more children. In addition, most people that age who are not parents regret never having children and almost none have regretted having any of the children they already have. From a social standpoint, the lower the world population, the more hunger and poverty would actually exist. Additionally there will be more and more retired individuals who live off the produce of a smaller work force. Currently the United States is experiencing this exact phenomena, illustrated by the insolvency of Social Security.

The many joys from children of course cannot be enumerated and the more children and grandchildren one has will bring great joy in old age. As it has been written: Grandchildren are the crown of the aged, and the glory of sons is their fathers (Prov 17:6) and Lo, sons are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward (Ps 127:3.)

Catholic, pro-life, prolife Guest Posts, Marriage, News