BABIES (and toddlers) ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS

Holdren: Infants Not Human Beings

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
August 7, 2009

The infamous Holdren quotes from the 1977 ‘Ecoscience’ textbook, proposing forced sterilizations and other draconian measures to bring about mass death, are no incidental exercises in academic frivolity. In the 1973 publication ‘Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions’, co-authored by his old buddies, the Ehrlichs, Holdren wrote quite candidly about his basic view on human life, providing us with a peek at the undergrowth out of which the Ecoscience document has emerged, proposing among other things a ‘planetary regime’ to assume command of matters of life and death.

In chapter 8 of the ‘Human Ecology’-document, page 235, Holdren gives us his definition of human life:

“The fetus”, Holdren writes, “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.”

http://www.infowars.com/holdren-infants-not-human-beings/

...more

THE MAN WHO WROTE THESE STATMENTS IS JOHN HOLDREN, THE CURRENT WHITE HOUSE SCIENCE CZAR:

JUST TAKE A REALLY GOOD LOOK AT WHO IS MAKING DECISIONS IN AMERICA TODAY:

“The fetus”, Holdren writes, “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.”

i do recommend doing some research into holdren's book ECOSCIENCE and other written manifestos and statements. he lays out the ideology and plan very very clearly.

THE OFFICIAL US GOVT "SCIENCE" EXPERT says infants and toddlers aren't human beings?

when did his children become human beings?

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


Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population

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.


LINK CONTAINS SCANS FROM ECOSCIENCE which contains the following exact quotes:

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.

Involuntary fertility control
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

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.

In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

cont....

Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

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. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

...MORE

THE MAN WHO WROTE THESE STATMENTS IS JOHN HOLDREN, THE WHITE HOUSE SCIENCE CZAR:

JUST TAKE A REALLY GOOD LOOK AT WHO IS MAKING DECISIONS IN AMERICA TODAY:

“The fetus”, Holdren writes, “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.”

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
http://www.infowars.com/holdren-infants-not-human-beings/

...

John Holdren's co-authors in ECOSCIENCE (they are the writers, Holdren is the stooge):

Paul and Anne Ehrlich
04 Aug 2008: Opinion

Too Many People,
Too Much Consumption

Four decades after his controversial book, The Population Bomb, scientist Paul Ehrlich still believes that overpopulation — now along with overconsumption — is the central environmental crisis facing the world. And, he insists, technological fixes will not save the day.
by paul r. ehrlich and anne h. ehrlich

Over some 60 million years, Homo sapiens has evolved into the dominant animal on the planet, acquiring binocular vision, upright posture, large brains, and — most importantly — language with syntax and that complex store of non-genetic information we call culture. However, in the last several centuries we’ve increasingly been using our relatively newly acquired power, especially our culturally evolved technologies, to deplete the natural capital of Earth — in particular its deep, rich agricultural soils, its groundwater stored during ice ages, and its biodiversity — as if there were no tomorrow.


http://e360.yale.edu/feature/too_many_people_too_much_consumption/2041/

BLAH BLAH BLAH
their ancestors were apparently monkeys.
all the way back to the primordial ooze.

ALSO: on the subject of ANTHRO-GLOBAL WARMING

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be 'an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach' to gut the credibility of skeptics," the Washington Times reports:

In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of "being treated like political pawns" and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.

Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703915204575103720332317434.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

...

The Population Bomb was a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968.^[1][2] It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its charismatic author brought the idea to an even wider audience.^[3][4]

The book has been criticized in recent decades for its alarmist tone and inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that "perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future" and believe that it achieved their goals because "it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future."^[2]


Contents [hide]
1 General description of the book
2 Context
3 Criticisms
3.1 Restatement of Malthusian theory
3.2 Predictions
3.3 Showmanship
3.4 Marxist
4 Ehrlich's response
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

wiki

zone wrote:... laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

As usual the Atheist is lying -- but....

Here is the core case law: