Obama Science Advisor: Newborn Baby Not Yet a Human Being
Crowded Delhi Market (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
A couple of weeks ago I warned that President Barack Obama’s science czar John Holdren was an anti-American death-culture extremist.
Now CNS News reports that not only is Holdren a population control and abortion activist, he seems to support infanticide as well.
It is clear that he doesn’t believe there is anything wrong with killing a human being before it leaves the mother’s body (just a little technicality, but an important one in his mind). According to comments made by Holdren in a book he co-authored, he doesn’t see a young child as a human being, either.
President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”
At least he’s consistent in a sadly mistaken, anti-human sort of way. After all, there is essentially no difference at all genetically between a fetus in the womb, and an infant, and an adolescent: all are genetically complete and all are not yet fully developed as is the adult human. The same justification for killing an unborn child in the womb should consistently hold true for an infant, a toddler or even an older child.
Holdren and his co-authors say a newborn child, even one in their “early years after birth” is not yet a human being. If this post-natal fetus is not a human being in its “early years after birth” and only “ultimately” will “develop into a human being,” then it stands to reason we can kill a child..excuse me, “post-natal fetus”…for several years after birth.
That should certainly take care of any buyer’s remorse at having children, eh? I have two children, and I can tell you that the way the cry and scream and do nothing but crap and break things all the time, getting rid of them may seem pretty attractive sometimes.
With Holdren as the president’s science advisor, who knows? Maybe it won’t be long before we see a law allowing the abortion of post-natal fetuses 6 months, a year, maybe even two or three years after leaving the womb.
That would indeed be a great step forward in convenience and choice, wouldn’t it? And since the post-natal fetus is not, as science advisor Holdren says, “a human being,” why not?
Not only would it be a great boon to overburdened and harried parents, it might help save the planet, too.
From Holdren’s book Human Ecology:
“Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”
Rubbish.
This planet is more than capable of supporting the current population comfortably–even billions more. All it takes is a simple look around the world to see that in the countries where there is the most economic freedom, people tend to live lives of relative comfort with little want (if they’re willing to work, that is). Meanwhile, in countries where there is little economic freedom (i.e. “capitalism”), people tend to poverty and starvation.
Where there is freedom and an expectation of personal responsibility, human beings usually do well. Where there is Marxism, despotism, big government and an expectation that government should do most things for people, there is usually a lot of poverty, misery, want and hunger.
Instead of advocating more freedom, the only answer these Malthusians can see is abortion and other forms of population control:
“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying” the authors state at the end of the subsection.
Terrible consequences and alternatives are what global warming enthusiasts throw at us to justify draconian assaults on the American way of life; why not here?
Elections are extremely important, aren’t they?
Obama voters: Do you see what monstrous ideas you’ve brought into the White House by voting for a man we knew back in October was a radical and an ultra-liberal?
GOP establishment: Do you see what dangerous philosophies you’ve placed at the highest levels of the American government by failing utterly to back a decent Republican candidate that real Republicans could get behind?
If this ghoulish group manages to get what they want, there will be plenty of blood to go around to go on the hands of many who were asleep at the wheel in 2008.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
