Forced abortions and mass sterilizations...

[dburkhead]

...needed to save the planet. That is the policy that has been advocated by Obama's "Science Czar."

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

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.

But the Obama administration is supposed to protect the rest of the Bill of Rights, right?

I have expressed some pretty dark thoughts about the future of this country, but the more I see coming out of the Obama administration, the more I think that even my darkest fears are quite fatuous.

 

[redneckmedic]

This is good news though for the homosexual population right?!?

 

[Cwood]

Change we can believe in!

 

[techres]

Chilling:

Indeed, 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.

 

[Turtle]

OK Any way to get mental exams for our politicians? I got the best Population control fix in just 3 words "CLOSE THE BORDER" hey look I fixed it!

 

[rambone]

Puerto Rico is a case study of Population Control

I had overheard a rumor about population control done in Puerto Rico, but never investigated it until reading this thread. To begin with - Puerto Rico is a commonwealth territory of the United States. All Puerto Ricans are U.S. CITIZENS.

From the website:
Puerto Rico

Puerto Rican women have also been the object of population control policies. Beginning in the 1950s, large numbers of Puerto Rican women working in factories were sterilized. Women factory workers were given time off to attend appointments in clinics that were located within the factory itself. Social workers would visit their homes to follow up on women who had missed an appointment at one of these clinics. By 1974, 35 percent of Puerto Rican women of child-bearing age - some 200,000 women - were permanently sterilized. By 1980, Puerto Rico had the highest per-capita rate of sterilization among women in the world. From the 1950s through 1980, Puerto Rico was also used as a testing ground for birth control pills while they were under development. Pills twenty times stronger than the ones used today were tested on Puerto Rican women living in housing projects.

Sounds pretty fishy to be forcing that on U.S. CITIZENS.... doesn't it?




Another website:
Puerto Rico, Where Sterilization of Women Became "La Operacion" | Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment

Puerto Rico, under the United States since 1898 when it was ceded by Spain, has long been a laboratory for U.S. initiated social, economic and cultural policies. Beginning in the late thirties, privately funded foundations based in the United States, and later, the Puerto Rican government, with U.S. government funds, have promoted sterilization of women as a way of limiting population growth. In the forties, just when women were joining the work force in large numbers as industrialization opened up job opportunities, sterilizations were provided at minimal or no cost. While women suffered from lack of safe, legal abortion services, other methods of contraception, day care services, and health care services, they were offered sterilizations.

The results of deliberate policies, more concerned with curbing population than with meeting women's and children's needs, were high regret rates among the unprecedented nearly forty percent of women who by 1968 were sterilized. More than one third of women surveyed did not know sterilizations were permanent! Many approached sterilization decisions from mistaken notions that sterilization would improve their health, sexual life or marriage relationship. Many found depression, complications of surgery and abandonment by husbands as unexpected results.

There is more reading to be found on the internet. Just a tidbit of horrible government intrusion being enforced on AMERICAN SOIL for years, on women who are themselves AMERICAN CITIZENS.

 

[CarmelHP]

...needed to save the planet. That is the policy that has been advocated by Obama's "Science Czar."

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet


But the Obama administration is supposed to protect the rest of the Bill of Rights, right?

I have expressed some pretty dark thoughts about the future of this country, but the more I see coming out of the Obama administration, the more I think that even my darkest fears are quite fatuous.

Now, now dburkhead, just because these sound like the ideas of a Nazi mad scientist does not make him a bad man. You simply need to be "cleansed" of your reactionary opinions. Step into the showers, bitte...er..I mean..."please."

 

[ron]

All I have to say is, population growth should be slowed in many countries. The key word being growth, as the population will still be growing, just slightly less so. Unless incredible new technologies are invented in the near future, population will further eclipse food productions and water supplies. I'm not saying that you should kill a bunch of people, but eventually things like famine, drought, and disease from overcrowding will eventually take their toll. Nature has a way of balancing things out, regardless of how we feel.

 

[Dryden]

When I see these governments putting their money into food and infrastucture instead of Nukes, missles, and AK47s.... I'll become a little more compassionate. But if their own government doesn't care, I find little reason for me to get involved.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

While I, personally, hold a certain lack of respect for those who feel it necessary to birth more than two children (especially if they can't afford the time/money to raise them properly), the creation of a law against basic human rights like this would be pure fascism & shouldn't even be considered.

Abortion is debatable (dueling personal rights).
Euthanasia is debatable (personal rights).
Forced sterilization/abortion is a crime against humanity.

 

[ATF Consumer]

While I, personally, hold a certain lack of respect for those who feel it necessary to birth more than two children (especially if they can't afford the time/money to raise them properly), the creation of a law against basic human rights like this would be pure fascism & shouldn't even be considered.

Abortion is debatable (dueling personal rights).
Euthanasia is debatable (personal rights).
Forced sterilization/abortion is a crime against humanity.

Are you serious...I respect the Duggers highly! I don't see what the problem is...really IMHO there needs to be more like this.

 

[Joe Williams]

So... Dear Leader is appointing people to his administration that want to criminalize political dissent and free speech, that want to force the murder of children and sterilize those they don't think should have children. He's seized control of banking and manufacturing.

The world has seen this before. I reckon building gas chambers could help revitalize the economy. Here's hoping 2010 goes well. If he holds his power, we will not have election in 2012. Obama is more and more showing himself to be nothing less than evil.

 

[xamsx]

So... Dear Leader is appointing people to his administration that want to criminalize political dissent and free speech, that want to force the murder of children and sterilize those they don't think should have children. He's seized control of banking and manufacturing.

The world has seen this before. I reckon building gas chambers could help revitalize the economy. Here's hoping 2010 goes well. If he holds his power, we will not have election in 2012. Obama is more and more showing himself to be nothing less than evil.

^^^

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Are you serious...I respect the Duggers highly! I don't see what the problem is...really IMHO there needs to be more like this.

If each Dugger has 17 children, there will be 1,419,857 Duggers in 5 generations. Nearly 7 billion Duggers in 8 generations.

Nope, I don't see a problem with this...

 

[dburkhead]

All I have to say is, population growth should be slowed in many countries. The key word being growth, as the population will still be growing, just slightly less so. Unless incredible new technologies are invented in the near future, population will further eclipse food productions and water supplies. I'm not saying that you should kill a bunch of people, but eventually things like famine, drought, and disease from overcrowding will eventually take their toll. Nature has a way of balancing things out, regardless of how we feel.

Short of forced mass birth control (whether abortions, sterilizations, or force-feeding contraceptives) the only effective method of reducing population growth is through economic growth.

There's a reason that the fastest population growth is in the poorest countries. In poor economies (generally muscle-based agriculture and handicrafts type economies) children are a net benefit to a household from a remarkably early age. They can be put to work in the field, threshing and grinding grain, working in the kitchen, feeding and tending the animals, and so on.

Households that have many children do better than their neighbors who have less. That the society as a whole does worse due to everybody having more children is a classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons. Contrast these kinds of societies with hunter-gatherer groups like, say, the !Kung. In HG groups, there isn't much, if any, advantage to having more children. And so groups like the !Kung limit birthrate (generally through extended lactation and alternatives to vaginal intercourse) and keep stable populations.

When societies start developing, becoming more industrial and technological, birthrates start to fall. Yes, there is usually a lag for cultural norms to catch up with the new economic realities, but historically, they have shifted, usually within a generation or two.

Things like war, famine, and disease have generally not been very effective at restricting population growth. Populations often rise in wartime. Disease can knock back population substantially in the short term (cf the Black Death) but populations generally rebound swiftly from that kind of die-off (instead we get a social situation in Europe where the tenant farmers keep so little of their own production that the economic benefits of large families went away and, wonder of wonders, they stopped having large families with the resulting decline in population growth).

So there are basically two approaches if one really wants to limit population growth: impose draconian, totalitarian regimes that impose by force that people cannot have children if they wish; or work to create situations where people choose to limit the number of children they have.

In the latter, there are really only two approaches that have worked historically--reduce folk to a hunter-gatherer existence or raise everyone to a modern "first world" standard of living.

The first is, IMO, unacceptable. The second is exceedingly difficult, but not impossible given actual effort in that direction (the details of how that might be accomplished is a subject for another time).

Unfortunately, for all too many people (either in power or who imagine that they should be) the "draconian, totalitarian" approach is an actual positive goal. "Population control" is simply one of many excuses toward that end. And for those whose real concern is population control, too many live in a fantasy world which romanticizes that hunter-gatherer lifestyle out of all resemblance to reality.

 

[dburkhead]

If each Dugger has 17 children, there will be 1,419,857 Duggers in 5 generations. Nearly 7 billion Duggers in 8 generations.

Nope, I don't see a problem with this...

And if invisible pink unicorns were involved in the process, would that change it?

It's not going to happen so why worry about it.

You see, the nice thing about things like population statistics is for that every "Dugger" out there, there are also "DINKS." Some people have more children. Some have fewer. Strangely enough, the overall tendency for the population as a whole follows pretty closely to the economic value/cost (in the short-medium term) of having more or fewer children. In the US you don't have to limit families like the Duggers because people, as a whole, choose to have fewer children. In someplace like Rwanda, suggesting to that poor farming family that they have fewer children and you will be shunned for the harm you are suggesting to them.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

And if invisible pink unicorns were involved in the process, would that change it?

It's not going to happen so why worry about it.

You see, the nice thing about things like population statistics is for that every "Dugger" out there, there are also "DINKS." Some people have more children. Some have fewer. Strangely enough, the overall tendency for the population as a whole follows pretty closely to the economic value/cost (in the short-medium term) of having more or fewer children. In the US you don't have to limit families like the Duggers because people, as a whole, choose to have fewer children. In someplace like Rwanda, suggesting to that poor farming family that they have fewer children and you will be shunned for the harm you are suggesting to them.

I agree. Until the green-movement folks decide that children destroy ozone & make the seas rise...

I personally believe that it's arrogant to think we can have more effect on the planet than the Sun's current low-level of sun spot activity.

 

[simpleman44]

If all these people that think like this would be the first ones thru the gas chamber problem solved!! O wait a minute they are the eletists (spelling?) i forgot.

 

[Scout]

I can almost get behind this. Welfare, yes. Homeless, yes. Obama voters...

 

[Scout]

Are you serious...I respect the Duggers highly! I don't see what the problem is...really IMHO there needs to be more like this.

A pastor's wife was expecting a baby, so he stood before the congregation and asked for a raise. After much discussion, they passed a rule that whenever the preacher's family expanded, so would his paycheck.
After 6 children, this started to get expensive and the congregation decided to hold another meeting to discuss the preacher's expanding salary. A great deal of yelling and inner bickering ensued, as to how much the clergyman's additional children were costing the church, and how much more it could potentially cost.
After listening to them for about an hour, the pastor rose from his chair and spoke, 'Children are a gift from God, and we will take as many gifts as He gives us'.
Silence fell on the congregation.
In the back pew, a little old lady struggled to stand, and finally said in her frail voice, 'Rain is also a gift from God, but when we get too much of it, we wear rubbers.'
The entire congregation said, 'Amen.'


Not making fun of them, but know when to say when.