So I am told, but did you know that 18,000 people die in the USA every year as a result of not being able to afford health care? ...that will soon be replaced with the elderly and terminally ill who are too expensive to keep on the government plan... |
|
|
|
I'm baffled by this post. The quotes from Holdren show him to be a reasonable person, taking an open minded look at a complicated and serious problem. But they are preceded by this bizarre claim: "by recommending mass compulsory sterilization and even forced abortion (and/or forced marriages) under certain circumstances." Who exactly is recommending compulsory sterilization or force abortion, and where do they make this recommendation? Is this a desperate effort to mis-represent Holdren? Here's the quote: "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... One way to carry out this disapproval 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. 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. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. 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... Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.. From the 1977 book Ecoscience by Obama's Science Czar John Holdren. http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ |
|
|
|
Topic:
916 and 530 Nor Cal
|
|
916 Gold River
|
|
|