John Holdrens' views on a woman's right to choose. " Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. and "In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a “compelling, subordinating interest” in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society’s survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted" Or how about adding a sterilizing agent to our drinking water? Holdren suggested it was ok as long as it did not harm livestock From the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The Link Was he asked by Congress if he still subscribes to those freaky totalitarian views> How did this person get by Congressional scrutiny? Oh wait edit I added Holdren's call for sterilants to H2O to title of thread.
Scary This guy, along with the Erlichs were responsible for the "population bomb" theory that predicted we'd all be starving to death by the '80's Zealots of the first order, not to mention, ****** scientists not to consider that advances in technology would help sustain a growing human population. They can be credited w/ giving future chicken littles the courage to not let common sense get in the way of a good environmental doomsday scenario.
Hook I missed that quote. Scary is putting it mildly Yet No one in MSM has even addressed it. This guy has freaky dangerous beliefs and Barry appoints him? Did Barry ask him any questions? What if someone decided Barry's daughters should be sterilized? Oh way, he'd like that so they wouldn't be punished with a baby. How can people like this be in charge of any aspect of our govenment? This jerk can't do anything right now . But is there anyone who reads his beliefs who doesn't think perhaps he should be questioned?
after looking at ginsburgs comment the other day, you can see the underlyinh issue of a womans right to choose are really population control advocates. My fav ginsburg comment was "we dont needto many of those types of people." i wonder what types of people she was referring to.
Sorry, I have been on the lake all day, was that Justice Ginsburg that said that about this guy? I really need to consider that Rocky Point Mexico house and becoming a Mexican citizen......There is a thread around here where someone needs some advice on becoming a Mexican citizen and the benefits.....
We don't need more government control; we need less. Raising kids is expensive, and the cost needs to be more apparent to the people who have no business having children. As a society, we opt to give money to families to raise children that they cannot afford because otherwise the children suffer through no fault of their own. That's very hard to argue against because kids are as innocent and deserving of help as human beings can get. Unfortunately, a lot of the things that we try to do to help only enable people who have no business having kids to have kids or have more of them. Ginsburg wasn't wrong: the low end of the socioeconomic totem pole should not have kids because they can't afford them. A kid costs $100k minimum, and $200k to do it right. A human being should not be sentenced to a life of poverty because his parents were dumbasses. Further, people who would've been able to raise kids are prevented from doing so because their rise to a higher earning potential is waylaid by the unexpected responsibilities of child-rearing. I would point out that the two big things that we could change are contraception and support for people who have kids. Note that infringement upon people's freedom isn't a part of this, but a declining birth rate is. OCPs, IUDs, condoms, diaphragms, contraceptive rings, vasectomies and tubal ligations should all be sponsored by the government so that they are free. This should be backed up with advertising. Second, the benefit of having a kid that you can't pay for should be a charge of child neglect and never seeing the kid again until the kid is a.) 18 and b.) decides that he/she wants to see you. This should also be advertised. The simple message is: take part in one of the free measures provided to keep yourself from having a kid, be able to afford the kid you have, or get thrown into jail and probably never see your child again. Note that we cannot afford to incarcerate people for drug crimes and for child neglect under the new definition. However, of the two crimes, one is far, far worse.
MAybe conan, leno, letterman and jon stewart and other supposed fair minded political satirists need a memo about the messiah's choice for czar that he claimed would bring credible science back to government. After all, wouldnt jokes about a world class fuckup by the guy that is leading the free world be more poignant than jokes about the VP candidate on last years losing ticket. Of course not. What a f'ing toolshed.
Everything I've ever read about the U.S. population is that we'll peak somewhere around 2050 at beteen 400-500 million and then begin a decline. Supporting the retiring baby boomer population seems a much worse problem at this point than does a growing population.
major No actually Ginsberg comments referenced RoevWade. Ruth had thought RVW would be a form of birth control especially if Medicaid paid for them here is the quote "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of." and But in her answer to a question about Harris v. McRae, the 1980 Supreme Court decision that "forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions," Ginsburg basically admits that she once thought Roe v. Wade would be used as a form of population control. Therefore she was "surprised" by the court's decision, since obviously most women using Medicaid are poor and, well, that's obviously a population "that we don't want to have too many of." And to be fair, Ginsburg concludes her answer by saying "I realized that my perception of (Roe v. Wade) had been altogether wrong." The Link Oh yeah Libs are for the poor. This whacko Holdren had far scarier ideas. and we don't know if he still does. Obama appointed him with no oversight. Maybe neither Obama nor his staff took the time to research this freak's background. Why doesn't Holdren denounce these totalitarian ideas now that he is in barry's admin?
I like the idea of requiring permanent sterilization in order for someone to receive welfare, foodstamps, etc. If someone already has a kid and needs help, then I think we have a duty to help them, but we also can not let a person (and their family) be a constant leach on society.
austin How funny you act all outraged at Gh's post. It didn't say to kick a child to the streets or put the Mother in jail. He said take care of them. In fact Gh said the same thing as Ginsburg and barry's Science Czar except GH wasn't advocating doing it involuntarily like Holdren does. Do you know what is in your water?
Horn, it's only outrageous if a conservative suggests it. If it's a liberal academic, it's just them being them and nobody pays any attention to it. Or they admit "hey, it's just theoretical."
austin? Did you read Holdren's words> Holdren is a member of Team Obama. aren't you concerned at all about Holdrens beliefs? He is in a postion to enact those beliefs. GH is posting his opinions and they have you in a wad but you have no concern for what the Science Czar espouses? Holdren wants to put sterilants in water and force women to have abortions. isn't that more concerning than a poster's opinion on WM?
So he's brimming with liberal crackpot ideas - should be a perfect fit with the rest of the Obama administration. HHD
austin you asked, "Why not address the question I posed? The one dealing with permanent sterilization in order to receive government benefits. " I will answer that if you can explain how a posters opinion on here is more important to you than the radical frightening totalitarian ideas of a member of Obama's administration who is in position to implement his ideas? How is a poster's opinion more important to you than Holdren's positions? ( which btw is the OT)
austin The OP is mine. I started this to see reactions to Holdren's stated ideas . I " inserted" myself in to ask you why you are all in a wad over a poster's opinion but seem to have no concern over an Obama Administration Czar's stated aims, which is the topic of the thread. Do you agree with Holdren's postions? forced abortion, sterilants in your water or food? See Holdren espouses the gov't to do these things and Holdren is in a position to carry it out. Gh OTOH is offering an opinion and has no authority to carry it out. Do you have an opinion on Obama's Science Czar's stated policies?
Holdren is a Paul Erlich disciple - straight out nuts. He is a prime example of a very intelligent mind that has no business influencing ethics or policy. The emphasis of his research seems to follow the left-wing “crisis” of the decade: overpopulation in the 70’s, nuclear disarmament in the 80’s, global warming in the 1990’s and climate change in the 2000’s with a green emphasis used throughout his career in the quest of his ultimate end game - greater government control over our lives.
austin Interesting that you think it is playing games to ask someone who has posted within this thread their opinions on the topic of the thread. But I will play your game. You can google John Holdren and in less than .25 seconds have many sites from which to choose. most will outline Holdrens published concepts which include the gov't's right to force abortions and the gov'ts right to force involuntary sterilizations. Less than 2 mins of reading should give you enough background for you to know if you support this Obama Czar's policies. As to sterilizing a single mother with one child so the mother and child can receive taxpayer funded welfare: If I understand Gh's post the Mother would be informed and of course would be given ( as are ALL Mothers now receiving WIC) birth control information. Gh did not make it clear if the sterilization would be temporary or permanent so I would need more information but in general I think we need to find a way to make mothers accountable. There is no reason a woman should be able to have 5 children all on the taxpayer's money. Maybe a better option is to inform the Mother there can be no more than 2 births on taxpayer money. Provide all birth control and birth control information. THEN it is voluntary for the Mother to choose. Unlike Holdren who would FORCE abortions and sterilizations on people.
Texon - Honest question....could he possibly view his crazy ideas as the best way to a government system rather than a sinister plot to control lives? Why does every attack on a democrat's ideas (whether they are good or bad...but let's be honest, you think 99% are bad) come down to "they want to control your lives!!!". It's the ultimate scare-tactic, which is no surprise coming from your side. Do you really believe that Democrats want to "control lives"? Think about this before you knee-jerk respond YES. Do you really think Democrats have a sinister plot to control every aspect of your life? What do you think they would gain by that? I don't believe they are out to control lives, anymore so than I think the Republicans want to "control lives" when they come up with stupid **** ideas. I just think that they believe that is the best way forward. I often disagree, but I don't think it's something sinister with a long-term goal of government control. Why is it that the Republicans use the "control" scare-tactic so much? Is it healthy for the debate?
johnnyM Fair questions. I for one think it is government control when a gov't forces abortions on women. I also think is is control for a gov't to force sterilants on people. If it isn't control what is it?
