Who is in the White House? Who are President Obama’s choice advisers?
This from LifeSite with my emphases and comments.
Obama Science Advisor John Holdren Also Said Newborn Baby Not Fully Human
by Steven Ertelt
July 29, 2009
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — John Holdren, the Science Czar chosen by pro-abortion President Barack Obama, has already come under criticism for backing population control and forced abortions. [Get that? Forced abortions.] Now, new information is appearing showing Holdren didn’t believe that newborn infants are fully human.
Holdren co-wrote a 1973 book ,“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions," with infamous population control advocate Paul Ehrlich in which his view supporting forced abortion appears.
Holdren’s office later denied he held those views. [But… scriptum manet is, I think, the principle here. Mr. Holdren could publicly clarify his views, of course. I think a microphone could be found for him and people might pay attention.]
In another manuscript, Holdren also says a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if properly fed and socialized. [So, for Holdren, how a person thinks and acts determines the level of "human"?]
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food [ummm… does this mean that the under-nourished are not fully human? Are the over nourished, then, super-human? Or do they lose humaness due to lack of what some expert defines as "ideal weight"?] during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” Holdren wrote.
Obama chose Holdren to become the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
According to a report in CNS News, the controversial passage is found on page 235 in the 1973 book in chapter 8, titled “Population Limitation.” The news service indicates the book, written before the Roe v. Wade decision, argued in favor of legalized abortion.
"To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless," Holdren argues. [What a monstrous position.] "To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building."
Holdren continues, "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. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”
Holdren also notes that legal scholars don’t view unborn children as human under the U.S. Constitution until “it is born.”
“From this point of view, a fetus is only a potential human being" with potential italicized in Holdren’s book. “Historically, [So… he is a kind of originalist… what an ironic twist…] the law has dated most rights and privileges from the moment of birth, and legal scholars generally agree that a fetus is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the United States Constitution until it is born and living independent of its mother’s body.”
CNS news indicates Holdren argues for abortion, saying it spares “unwanted children” from “undesirable consequences.” [Such as being born.]
I wonder if he presently holds these views.
People can, after all, eventually grow up and develop into a human being.
Just remember… President Obama is committed to reducing the number of abortions. Keep saying that to yourself over and over again.