http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111475
Holdren: Seize babies born to unwed women
Proposed government force adoption if mother refused to get abortion
Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook that “illegitimate children” born to unwed mothers could be taken by the government and put up for adoption if the mother refused to have an abortion.
Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, argued that “illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged” as a socioeconomic measure imposed to control population growth.
RedeemedHippie:[IF government had not made it so easy to begin with to have baby after baby by encouraging it with their welfare programs and IF the church had preached on premarriage sex as a sin -- instead of winking at it -- this problem would not be so rampant. The idea of using this as a a solution to population control, should tell everybody where they are going with this and their true aims. SAVE THE PLANET -- which means getting rid of the dependents, getting rid of the "useless," getting rid of those who oppose them, getting rid of the infirmed, weak or handicapped. You think I am kidding? Just give it a few more months.]
As previously reported, WND has obtained a copy of the 1970s college textbook “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” that Ehrlich co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich’s wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by “climate change.”
RedeemedHippie:[They have been using forced sterilization in other countries for decades! Going into parts of Africa and inflicting VACCINES on poor black women, who once taken it can no longer bear children. America has been part of this solution. America will be judged for the abomnible atrocities she has committed!]
On page 786, the authors wrote that one way to discourage illegitimate childbearing “might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption – especially those born to minors who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone.”
RedeemedHippie:[How about discouraging it by the church speaking what God said about it to begin with? Premarriage sex IS SIN. How about government discouraging it by not rewarding those who break God's laws, but instead reward those who are doing it right? But that will never happen, much as I believe the majority of the church will never go back to preaching against sin.]
Alternatively, the authors suggested unwed mothers might place their babies up for adoption, writing: “If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it.”
RedeemedHippie:[They should have been doing this to begin with. There are many families that would NEVER give up their baby either through adoption or abortion. Instead, leave it to the families to take care of the problem. BUT that is hard to do when government takes your money and uses it on abortions and other godless causes, when you could be using that money to support your little baby or grand baby.]
While observing that government-imposed coercive measures should be considered “only if milder measures fail completely,” the authors acknowledged extreme ecological situations could justify governmental intervention with coercive population control measures,
RedeemedHippie:[Earth worshippers! That is all this is about, people.]
“It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society,” they write.
The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics reports that in 2005, 68.8 percent of all African-American babies were born to unmarried women, while 30.5 percent of all white babies and 48 percent of all Hispanic babies were born out of wedlock.
RedeemedHippie:[Government wants to kill the babies of the very constiguents that helped vote their wicked souls in! Wake up black people! These people do not care about you. They have used you decade after decade. Now they are done using you and they desire to murder your baby just because you are a single mother. Oh how can you keep trusting these people? Will you be angry at me for telling you the truth or will you be able to look beyond and see these people for what they are?]
Regarding teenage mothers, the federal agency reports the figures in 2005 were 16.8 percent of all births for African-Americans, 13.9 percent for Hispanics and 9.2 percent for whites.
RedeemedHippie:[Not that white women are more better or something, they are not. More white women aborth their babies than any other race.]
‘General social deterioration’
The authors’ wish to control births to unwed and teenage mothers appears to derive from their concern that overpopulation leads to “general social deterioration.”
For instance, on page 838, they wrote the following: “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility – just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns – providing they are not denied equal protection.” (Italics in original text.)
RedeemedHippie:[Just like they do in China? One child. And if it happens to be a girl, most parents abort. God says in his Word, "children are a heritage from the Lord." Yet, wicked man wants to turn that into a lie.]
Nor do the authors see any constitutional protection for the right to bear children.
Redeemedhippie:[WHAT WILL IT TAKE for some people to wake up?! Government wants to decide if you have the right to have a child. Listen you young people who helped vote this vile anti-christ in with his wicked Czars: they want to tell you if you can have children or not. What makes them such gods in your life?!]
“Some people – respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included – have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right,” the authors continued on page 838. “Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce.”
Redeemedhippie:[EVIL! WICKED! VILE! ABOMNIBLE! Washington is a rotten, stinking cesspool of devils of every kind!]
In a similar fashion, the authors argued that a right to privacy did not extend to an unlimited right to have children, elaborating on page 838 that, “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 be 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.”
RedeemedHippie:["...women could be required to bear children." Are they kidding?! What? They going to come to a young woman and force one of their chosen thugs to rape her if she does not want children?! If anyone can look at this article and come away and not see how this government wants to set themselves up as gods in your midst, then you are not only blind -- but you desire to be blind.]
Coercive population control
Holdren and the Ehrlichs concede compulsory population control measures if implemented to prevent disasters resulting from uncontrolled population growth will be distasteful to those with moral objections.
RedeemedHippie:[Distatesful? How about abomnibe, vile, wicked and evil? How do those words fit with you Holdren and Ehrlichs? You vile sons of the devil!]
Arguing that voluntary measures of family planning and birth control might not be enough, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote on page 783 that compulsory birth control methods would need to be implemented when “massive famines, political unrest, or ecological disasters make their initiation imperative.”
RedeemedHippie:[Anyone see a crisis on the rise? Do not be deceived into thinking any future crisis was not planned by wicked people.]
In further defining this “disaster exception” in which compulsory methods including forced abortions and sterilization might become acceptable, if not necessary, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote on the same page: “In such emergencies, whatever measures are economically and technologically expedient will be likeliest to be imposed, regardless of their political or social acceptability.”
RedeemedHippie:[Such as killing half the population with a vaccine?]
And again, continuing on the same page, the authors wrote of compulsory population control measures: “Policies that may seem totally unacceptable today to the majority of people at large or to their national leaders may be seen as very much the lesser of evils only a few years from now.”
Redeemedhippie:[Not to all of us. And if for some, it is only because they have been dumbed down on purpose the past couple decades!]
On page 784, the authors conclude the section by commenting: “Given the family size aspirations of people every, additional measures beyond family planning will unquestionably be required in order to halt the population explosion – quite possible in many DCs [developed countries] as well as LDCs [less developed countries].”
In a section of the textbook on pages 786-789 devoted to considering “involuntary fertility control,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs discuss a variety of methodologies, including: an effort in the 1960s to vasectomize all fathers of three or more children in India; an effort in China to sterilize mothers after their third child; the development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired; the government issuance of a license entitling a woman to a given number of children; and adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.
RedeemedHippie:[Still want to take that vaccination in a few weeks? God only knows what government has done over the past few decades.]
While in the next sentence the authors are careful to say a “far better choice” would be to control population by the “milder methods of influencing family size,” they also insist in the same sentence that efforts should be redoubled “to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time.”
RedeemedHippie:[When is this shortest possible time? During a swine flu outbreak when millions will be forced to take a vaccination that is meant to kill them?]
In the last sentence of the section on “involuntary fertility control,” the authors make clear even the most radical methods discussed in the section are morally acceptable to them under the write conditions of population emergency.
“If effective action is taken against population growth,” the authors note, “perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries.”
“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,” the authors concluded. “As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control.”
Among the crises resulting from overpopulation that Holdren and the Ehrlichs saw as justifying government-imposed involuntary fertility control measures were “ecological collapses of various kinds, large-scale crop failures due to ecological stress or changes in climate and leading to mass famine; severe resource shortages, which could lead either to crop failures or to problems or both; epidemic diseases; wars over diminishing resources; perhaps even thermo-nuclear war.
RedeemedHippie:[All these things, government already controls. So if a food shortage comes about, it is their fault. If there is rampant disease, it is their fault. So many thing they do to create chaos so they can have more power.]
“The list of possibilities is long, and over-population enhances the probability that any one of them will occur,” Holdren and the Erhlichs wrote on page 796. “Population control may be no panacea, but with it there is no way to win.”
RedeemedHippie:[Here's a thought: how about you rich and powerful people with all your fancy homes on lots of different continents just stay out of the way of the common every day people? Sell a few of your homes, give the land over so homes can be built on it, give people jobs instead of trying to control their every penny and move. Instead of giving your money to organizations that murder thousands and thousands of people every year in the name of compassion. (Yeah, you know what I'm talking about.) STOP TRYING TO BE GOD IN OUR LIVES!]
‘Sustainable well-being’
The St. Petersburg Times’ fact-check website, Politifact.com, argued that in his Senate confirmation hearings, Holdren disavowed “optimal population” targets, a central thesis of the 1970s textbook, as a proper role of government.
While Holdren may have abandoned “optimal population” targets as a principle of public policy, an address he gave as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, subsequently published in Science Magazine in January 2008, shows he has adopted instead the standard of “sustainable well-being” as a guiding principle that could be utilized to set targets for acceptable population growth.
In that article, Holdren listed “continuing population growth” as a hindrance to realizing “sustainable well-being,” a point he supported by footnoting Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book “The Population Bomb,” thereby linking his current thinking with his 1970s-era thinking.
In that footnote, Holdren wrote that the “elementary but discomforting truth” of Ehrlich’s 1968 book “may account for the vast amount of ink, paper, and angry energy that has been expended in vain to refute it.”
Holdren’s “sustainable well-being” appears a nearly identical concept to what is known as the United Nation’s “Agenda 21″, articulating the concept of “sustainable development” that is currently institutionalized in the Division for Sustainable Development of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
RedeemedHippie:[God in heaven, only You know who will and will not repent of their evil atrocitites. Hear my secret cry now for the wicked men and women in government that will never turn to you in this lifetime!]
Recent Comments