John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization nee

ZappasGuitar said:
But whatever you do, don't bother to look and see if this man's opinions have changed in the 30+ years since he held that opinion.

No, you are better off sticking with source material from the CARTER years.
Click to expand...

I'm opposed even to someone who "used to" believe in mass murder. *shrug*
 
AssHatZombie said:
I'm opposed even to someone who "used to" believe in mass murder. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Are you just as opposed to someone who used to believe in "seperate but equal"?

How many of the founding fathers do you reject for having the belief that certain races were equal to 3/5ths of a human being?

People can reevaluate their prior beliefs and change their minds.
 
meme said:
Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population




Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.

links and the rest at..
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Click to expand...

Have you read the passages leading into the quotes? He uses the word "could" in each instance meaning he apparently is attaching the statements to a condition which your post fails to include. Do you guarantee that the full context won't affect the gist of the post? To prevent misunderstanding, all you need do is provide the rest of Holdren's words leading into the quoted passage. Either that, or in the interest of honesty, include the quote of the update in your link.
 
Last edited:
belme1201 said:
Have you read the passages leading into the quotes? He uses the word "could" in each instance meaning he apparently is attaching the statements to a condition which your post fails to include. Do you guarantee that the full context won't affect the gist of the post? To prevent misunderstanding, all you need do is provide the rest of Holdren's words leading into the quoted passage. Either that, or in the interest of honesty, include the quote of the update in your link.
Click to expand...

For normal people, there is no condition to justify these actions.
 
belme1201 said:
Have you read the passages leading into the quotes? He uses the word "could" in each instance meaning he apparently is attaching the statements to a condition which your post fails to include. Do you guarantee that the full context won't affect the gist of the post? To prevent misunderstanding, all you need do is provide the rest of Holdren's words leading into the quoted passage. Either that, or in the interest of honesty, include the quote of the update in your link.
Click to expand...

responded to wrong post :(
 
Last edited:
ZappasGuitar said:
Are you just as opposed to someone who used to believe in "seperate but equal"?

How many of the founding fathers do you reject for having the belief that certain races were equal to 3/5ths of a human being?

People can reevaluate their prior beliefs and change their minds.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers came up with that absurdity to prevent war...that's what happens when compromise as opposed to principle is the driving force. Look what happened just decades later...we went to war anyways!
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Are you just as opposed to someone who used to believe in "seperate but equal"?

How many of the founding fathers do you reject for having the belief that certain races were equal to 3/5ths of a human being?

People can reevaluate their prior beliefs and change their minds.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of something. When I was in the hospital giving birth to my 2nd child the doctor asked if I was planning to have any more, and I jokingly replied "no, I'm for zero population growth" and the doc immediately pounced on that and told me he'd "fix" me then and there if I was serious.

What I'm getting at is that Holdren isn't the only person who was floating ideas about limiting growth, and criticizing him is just another RW secondhand slap at Obama. These nuts act like we're in the first stages of "A Modest Proposal".
 
christiefan915 said:
Reminds me of something. When I was in the hospital giving birth to my 2nd child the doctor asked if I was planning to have any more, and I jokingly replied "no, I'm for zero population growth" and the doc immediately pounced on that and told me he'd "fix" me then and there if I was serious.

What I'm getting at is that Holdren isn't the only person who was floating ideas about limiting growth, and criticizing him is just another RW secondhand slap at Obama. These nuts act like we're in the first stages of "A Modest Proposal".
Click to expand...

It's not about obama. We really object to these anti-human ideas.
 
NONE of these ideas are the same as an obstetrician ASKING a woman if she'd like to have her tubes tied. To insinuate that they are is as insipid and disingenuous as one can get.


• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Then you should object to tsars who hold these beliefs.
Click to expand...

I don't know that he holds these beliefs today, or ever did. Describing isn't the same as supporting.

"In 1977, more than thirty years ago, Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of a textbook entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. It was a gigantic tome, fully 1,051 pages in length. In one vast 66 page chapter devoted to “Population Policies,” the authors surveyed a gamut of measures that had been undertaken or considered to control human population growth—including the most extreme. Those included coercive or “involuntary fertility control” measures, such as forced abortions and sterilizations.

However, to describe these measures is different from advocating them. And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that noncoercive measures were what they suppported: “A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences”—such as birth control and access to abortions. In fairness, their text does read as dated today, ripe for quote mining. They were writing in very different times thirty years ago; but even if they were defending these positions then (and they weren’t), that hardly means that they do today."

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/
 
christiefan915 said:
I don't know that he holds these beliefs today, or ever did. Describing isn't the same as supporting.

"In 1977, more than thirty years ago, Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of a textbook entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. It was a gigantic tome, fully 1,051 pages in length. In one vast 66 page chapter devoted to “Population Policies,” the authors surveyed a gamut of measures that had been undertaken or considered to control human population growth—including the most extreme. Those included coercive or “involuntary fertility control” measures, such as forced abortions and sterilizations.

However, to describe these measures is different from advocating them. And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that noncoercive measures were what they suppported: “A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences”—such as birth control and access to abortions. In fairness, their text does read as dated today, ripe for quote mining. They were writing in very different times thirty years ago; but even if they were defending these positions then (and they weren’t), that hardly means that they do today."

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/
Click to expand...

Right. These measure are only for use if people reject voluntary self murder.

You're a joke.
 
christiefan915 said:
Obviously you'd rather support the quote-mining fearmongers of the right, rather than read dissenting opinions in context, before going off the deep end. Be my guest.
Click to expand...

The context is that they do support these measures if people do not voluntarily give their reproductive rights to the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top