• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.

"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," and his wife, Anne, to pen "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."

Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.

"Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. ... The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103707
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
These are the types of people that Maobama hangs out with and appoints to work for him..... "An international police force"? Come people, figure this out before it gets too late.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Holdren's comments, made in 1977,

:roll: :roll: :roll:

If you go back to the 20's and 30's you can probably find some more negative things to say about some folks in government...

You just hate the US so bad you have to find any tidbit from any nutso blog to put it and our government down don't you? :shock:

You apparently never attended college or you would know many of these things are issues that are brought up and discussed in political and social science classes- just to get people to think..I can remember discussing these issues- and some countries mandatory population laws- in the 60's in college...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Holdren's comments, made in 1977,

:roll: :roll: :roll:

If you go back to the 20's and 30's you can probably find some more negative things to say about some folks in government...

You just hate the US so bad you have to find any tidbit from any nutso blog to put it and our government down don't you? :shock:

You apparently never attended college or you would know many of these things are issues that are brought up and discussed in political and social science classes- just to get people to think..I can remember discussing these issues- and some countries mandatory population laws- in the 60's in college...

I love this country and want nothing but the best for it - that's why I'm speaking up against those that seek to destroy it. How do you think our forefathers would of reacted had this clown's ideas been floated in their discussions? An international police force killing fetuses?

Your response is on the same level as "He mispoke".

Figure it out, OT. Birds of a feather flock together.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
These Margaret Sanger wannabes don't change thier stripes. Kinda fits with Ginsburg's recent comments.

Now look into the recent fraud that Planned parenthood is taking the taxpayers for.

Maybe also look into what "aid" to Africa is being spent on. Why should the taxpayer be on the hook for some eugenics program?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
By Robert Engelman Robert Engelman – Fri Jul 10, 5:00 am ET

New York – In an era of warming climates and cooling economies, By Robert Engelman Robert Engelman – Fri Jul 10, 5:00 am ET

New York – In an era of warming climates and cooling economies, Malthusian limits to growth look to be not just real but hard upon us. More people once meant more innovation. Now it just seems to mean less for each: Less water for cattle herders in the Horn of Africa. Less land for farmers from the Philippines to Guatemala. Less atmosphere to absorb the heat-trapping gases the global economy exhales. Less energy and food. And if the world's economy doesn't bounce back, fewer jobs.

This predicament brings back an old sore topic: human population and what, if anything, to do about it. Not that any immediate respite is possible. There are nearly 6.8 billion of us today and more on the way. To make a dent in these problems in the short term without throwing anyone overboard, we'll need to radically reduce individuals' footprint on the environment through improved technologies and, for the well-off, a downshift in lifestyle.

Raw population growth is worrisome enough. Rising consumption rates make it more so. As nations develop, their consumption – and its environmental harm – rises. The average American consumes many times the resources the average African does. Americans are just 4.5 percent of world population, but there are 1.2 billion people in industrialized countries. And another 2.4 billion people in China and India are clambering up the consumption ladder. Today's rapid growth in consumption on top of rapid population growth is a one-two punch that has the environment reeling.

One obvious need is to cut individual consumption rates – somehow. But until the world's population stops growing, there will be no end to the consumption squeeze. With the 9 billion people demographers project by 2050, even a global average lifestyle such as South Africa's could be unsustainable. Acting on both population and individual consumption consistently and simultaneously is the key to long-term environmental sustainability. For the sake of the poor, let alone the rest of the world, we'd be better off if population ended its growth soon and moved gradually to a level lower than today's.

For most of the public, slowing population means "population control," as in China. But the concept of "control" is, for good reason, anathema to most people. As it happens, it's actually more effective to address population based on our right to decide for ourselves if and when to have children. The basis for action is something that also makes sense for other reasons: Make unintended childbirth as rare as possible. The benefits ripple out from women's lives in particular to all of humanity and to nature.

The idea is hardly new. At a United Nations Conference in Cairo in 1994, almost all the world's nations agreed to reject population control and instead help every woman bear a child in good health when she wants one.

That approach, which powerfully supports reproductive liberty, might sound counterintuitive for shrinking population growth, like handing a teenager the keys to the family car without so much as a lecture. But the evidence suggests that what women want is not more children but more for the fewer children they can reliably raise to healthy adulthood. Left to their own devices, women collectively "control" population while acting on their own intentions. Governments can, and should, get out of the way, merely helping assure that family-planning services are safe, inexpensive, and available to those who seek them.

More than 200 million women in developing countries are sexually active without using effective contraception even though they do not want to be pregnant anytime soon, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research group. The result: Some 80 million pregnancies around the world are unintended, a number similar (though not strictly comparable) to the one by which world population grows every year.

In the US, which spends about 17 cents per dollar of economic activity on healthcare, nearly half of all pregnancies is unintended. Yet in all nations in which a choice of contraceptives is available, backed up by safe abortion services, women have one or two children. Combine such services with education for girls and decent opportunities for women, and average global fertility would fall below two.

True, old-style population control seems at first glance to have helped slow population growth in China. But most of the drop in Chinese fertility occurred before the one-child policy went into effect in 1979, and given fertility trends elsewhere in Asia, it's likely the drop would have continued without coercion. Many developing countries – from Thailand to Colombia to Iran – have experienced comparable declines in family size by focusing on making schooling and family-planning services as accessible as possible.

With President Obama in the White House and Democrats dominant in Congress, the US government is at last supporting the kind of development abroad and reproductive health at home most likely to encourage slower population growth. Like nearly all other politicians, however, Mr. Obama doesn't talk about population or its connection to problems from health and education all the way to food, energy security, and climate change. The topic is still too sensitive, despite the recent upsurge in attention.

Bringing population back into the public conversation is risky, but people increasingly understand that the subject is only one part of most of today's problems and that "population control" can't really control population. Handing control of their lives and their bodies to women – the right thing to do for countless other reasons – can. There is no reason to fear the discussion.

Robert Engelman is vice president for programs at the Worldwatch Institute and is author of "More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want." A longer version of this essay first appeared in the magazine Scientific American.

limits to growth look to be not just real but hard upon us. More people once meant more innovation. Now it just seems to mean less for each: Less water for cattle herders in the Horn of Africa. Less land for farmers from the Philippines to Guatemala. Less atmosphere to absorb the heat-trapping gases the global economy exhales. Less energy and food. And if the world's economy doesn't bounce back, fewer jobs.

This predicament brings back an old sore topic: human population and what, if anything, to do about it. Not that any immediate respite is possible. There are nearly 6.8 billion of us today and more on the way. To make a dent in these problems in the short term without throwing anyone overboard, we'll need to radically reduce individuals' footprint on the environment through improved technologies and, for the well-off, a downshift in lifestyle.

Raw population growth is worrisome enough. Rising consumption rates make it more so. As nations develop, their consumption – and its environmental harm – rises. The average American consumes many times the resources the average African does. Americans are just 4.5 percent of world population, but there are 1.2 billion people in industrialized countries. And another 2.4 billion people in China and India are clambering up the consumption ladder. Today's rapid growth in consumption on top of rapid population growth is a one-two punch that has the environment reeling.

One obvious need is to cut individual consumption rates – somehow. But until the world's population stops growing, there will be no end to the consumption squeeze. With the 9 billion people demographers project by 2050, even a global average lifestyle such as South Africa's could be unsustainable. Acting on both population and individual consumption consistently and simultaneously is the key to long-term environmental sustainability. For the sake of the poor, let alone the rest of the world, we'd be better off if population ended its growth soon and moved gradually to a level lower than today's.

For most of the public, slowing population means "population control," as in China. But the concept of "control" is, for good reason, anathema to most people. As it happens, it's actually more effective to address population based on our right to decide for ourselves if and when to have children. The basis for action is something that also makes sense for other reasons: Make unintended childbirth as rare as possible. The benefits ripple out from women's lives in particular to all of humanity and to nature.

The idea is hardly new. At a United Nations Conference in Cairo in 1994, almost all the world's nations agreed to reject population control and instead help every woman bear a child in good health when she wants one.

That approach, which powerfully supports reproductive liberty, might sound counterintuitive for shrinking population growth, like handing a teenager the keys to the family car without so much as a lecture. But the evidence suggests that what women want is not more children but more for the fewer children they can reliably raise to healthy adulthood. Left to their own devices, women collectively "control" population while acting on their own intentions. Governments can, and should, get out of the way, merely helping assure that family-planning services are safe, inexpensive, and available to those who seek them.

More than 200 million women in developing countries are sexually active without using effective contraception even though they do not want to be pregnant anytime soon, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research group. The result: Some 80 million pregnancies around the world are unintended, a number similar (though not strictly comparable) to the one by which world population grows every year.

In the US, which spends about 17 cents per dollar of economic activity on healthcare, nearly half of all pregnancies is unintended. Yet in all nations in which a choice of contraceptives is available, backed up by safe abortion services, women have one or two children. Combine such services with education for girls and decent opportunities for women, and average global fertility would fall below two.

True, old-style population control seems at first glance to have helped slow population growth in China. But most of the drop in Chinese fertility occurred before the one-child policy went into effect in 1979, and given fertility trends elsewhere in Asia, it's likely the drop would have continued without coercion. Many developing countries – from Thailand to Colombia to Iran – have experienced comparable declines in family size by focusing on making schooling and family-planning services as accessible as possible.

With President Obama in the White House and Democrats dominant in Congress, the US government is at last supporting the kind of development abroad and reproductive health at home most likely to encourage slower population growth. Like nearly all other politicians, however, Mr. Obama doesn't talk about population or its connection to problems from health and education all the way to food, energy security, and climate change. The topic is still too sensitive, despite the recent upsurge in attention.

Bringing population back into the public conversation is risky, but people increasingly understand that the subject is only one part of most of today's problems and that "population control" can't really control population. Handing control of their lives and their bodies to women – the right thing to do for countless other reasons – can. There is no reason to fear the discussion.

Robert Engelman is vice president for programs at the Worldwatch Institute and is author of "More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want." A longer version of this essay first appeared in the magazine Scientific American.

"Birth control may be one of the solutions to global warming. If we keep reproducing like rats then at some time the world cannot support the magnitude of people on it. At that time the world will adjust the population by starving and famines. The same thing happens when we overstock our pastures with any kind of grazing animal. At some point the pasture cannot support any more then you all know the answer." Hurleyjd
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Holdren's comments, made in 1977,

:roll: :roll: :roll:

If you go back to the 20's and 30's you can probably find some more negative things to say about some folks in government...

You just hate the US so bad you have to find any tidbit from any nutso blog to put it and our government down don't you? :shock:
You apparently never attended college or you would know many of these things are issues that are brought up and discussed in political and social science classes- just to get people to think..I can remember discussing these issues- and some countries mandatory population laws- in the 60's in college...

Look in the mirror OLD FAT MAN :wink: EH!!!!!!!! Talk about bringing up a black pot, from a kettle that is like the black hole!!!!! OH VEY
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
The reason a lot of us on here get disgusted with Obama is because we love AMERICA and can't believe the path this joker is leading the country down. We speak up for principle and values and in defense of the country. You libs just walk along blindfolded singing kum-buy-ya all giddy because you got your guy elected! You libs are the ones saying WE WON, DEAL WITH IT! That is really putting politics before the betterment of the nation! Obama is a socialist with terrorist friends! He is a pacifist won takes a poll before making a decision! If Obama was looking out for our country, even though I disagree with his politics, I'd support him! Since you agree with his politics some of ya don't care what he does! :roll:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Holdren's comments, made in 1977,

:roll: :roll: :roll:

If you go back to the 20's and 30's you can probably find some more negative things to say about some folks in government...

You just hate the US so bad you have to find any tidbit from any nutso blog to put it and our government down don't you? :shock:

You apparently never attended college or you would know many of these things are issues that are brought up and discussed in political and social science classes- just to get people to think..I can remember discussing these issues- and some countries mandatory population laws- in the 60's in college...

Must be a Montana thing OT...I was never taught "gov't sponsored sterilization or abortion". Birth control pills were even frowned on...The man said it....he must live with it. No doubt he wishes noone dug it up but fact is, it was his sentiments at the time or he wouldn't have said it.
 
Top