Skip to comments.Holdren: Seize babies born to unwed women
Posted on 09/30/2009 1:37:13 PM PDT by Mind Freed
Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook that "illegitimate children" born to unwed mothers could be taken by the government and put up for adoption if the mother refused to have an abortion.
Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, argued that "illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged" as a socioeconomic measure imposed to control population growth.
As previously reported, WND has obtained a copy of the 1970s college textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" that Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
That’s nothing, Obama let babies born alive die of neglect in hospital closets gasping for air for hours.
He is correct that we need to discourage unwed motherhood, but his approach leaves a lot to be desired, especially the abortion angle.
He should read a book called “Nudge” by Cass Sunstein.
Not susrprising and in fact, I truly believe a fair number of Americans would agree with this.
I don’t think people realize how far this country has gone to destroy the family unit.
Climate change has nothing to do with the weather. It is smoke and mirrors to impose State controls on your very existence.
If I'm not mistaken, the state already has the authority to seize children and dispose of them as it sees fit -- albeit with the formality of something that suggest due process.
That's one step away from requiring that U.S. citizens beg their Government for permission to have children.
..may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."
Is there anything that can not be rationalized away by the leftists, who clearly display their arrogant and elitist beliefs that they know better than everyone else?
For all the talk of learning from past human mistakes of the twentieth century, it appears that the only folks who have not learned--whether through inability due to sub-standard intelligence or through willful refusal--from the moral failures of the twentieth century are the so-called "progressives" who, rather than trying to enable the progress of human freedom and liberty, choose to obstruct and impede it.
...don't know of him? You'd better.
This is a bit late. Zombietime had the text online a few months ago...
This was a Berkeley textbook from the late 70’s...
Scary stuff. Apparently, there was a “crisis” back then that “justified” thinking like a totalitarian...
Let’s not forget that shortly after Obama put him in (as far as I know, he was confirmed...is not a czar) he advocated the idea of shooting pollution into space to counter global warming.
Delete the abortion part and Id bet a fair amount of Freepers would agree.
I agree that there is a huge problem with the numbers of unwed mothers in the country. However, just as I believe that there is an absolute problem with the health care industry... The government is not at all the answer to anything.
And how about the woman’s right to choose ruse?
Notice how things change in order for liberals to meet their wacko goals. The entire liberal dogma is nothing but lies.
Then require people to take personal responsibility for their actions.
You'd be amazed at how quickly the illegitimacy rate would decline.
More Population Bomb junk.
Liberals keep proving why they are the biggest hypocrites alive.
Works for me, but goes against the whole left-liberal victimhood thing, which = wailing and gnashing of teeth.
I mean really, you expect me to know how high or low to put my thermostat, who to get health care from, what kind of car to buy, or... God forbid... How to spend my own money?
Hmmmn - given that the most dangerous lace in the world is between a female and her child, perhaps we should have Holdren do the taking of those children.
It hardly seems fair for Holdren to place others in such a risky place merely to further his agenda. As an intellectual and an academic, surely he would understand.
We need to encourage marriage between men and women. And that’s not just because the company I work for makes Invitation Software.
Maybe that’s how Hussein, et al., will create his own army. Collect these babies and raise them in camps.
Wouldn't that be a further denial of a child's natural right to receive support and provision from his father? And a further encouragement for males to disconnect from adult obligations? Your solution seems one more step in the wrong direction. The desirable thing would be to require both women and men to be more responsible, not less.
It would make legitimate, married fathers more important.
Hey, if you want more illegitimacy, subsidize it. Tell women if they can get themselves knocked up by a guy, they can collect a paycheck from him every month. If she gets knocked up by three or four guys she can retire.
Women who don't bother to get married before getting pregnant ought not to be able to avail themselves of the advantages of marriage.
When it comes to sex, women are in charge. They decide if they want to have sex with a man. What the man wants is irrelevant.
While agreeing with you entirely that legitimaacy must be re-emphasized, I still say you have failed to show how your solution (abolishing financial liability for unwed fathers) honors the natural right of every child to his father's support and provision.
If only married fathers have this responsibility, while unmarried fathers can (in your scheme) get off scot-free, you further decrease the likelihood that men will seek marriage.
Women (plural) in general need to re-assert the sexual rule: no matrimony, no sex. OK. But in each and every case where a man and a woman have produced a child by their sexual union, both the man and the woman must be called to responsibility. Otherwise you have only the woman being treated as a responsible adult, and the man being treated as somthing less than an adult: either a mental defective, a rutting animal, or a perpetual lad.
I know a cute little young lady (now 30-something) who has 3 sons from 3 different fathers. She gets $1,500 a month from each of them. She doesn't work, she gets all the WIC support she wants, her house is a disaster, and her kids are snotty little undisclipled feral animals who will likely die in prison.
Plus, she drinks like a fish, she's slept with every guy under 45 in town (except me, yikes!!!), she literally exudes unhappiness, and ironically, she complains that she can't find a "nice guy" anywhere.
Not surprisingly she thought Bill Clinton was the greatest man on earth until Obama came along.
Oh yeah, she's also from California.
Any "nice guy" with an IQ above twelve and the ability to exercise self-control won't touch her.
Some here would actually support this.
Remember where Napoleon got his security force in Animal Farm?
You seem to that illegitimacy is a good thing and want more of it by rewarding women for making illegitimate babies. Why would they even bother to get married? Collecting half a dozen support checks and sleeping with whoever they feel like is a much better deal than marriage.
I think illegitimacy is a bad thing, and that if you make it unpleasant and financially devastating enough there won't be any illegitimate children born to be deprived of their illegitimate father's "support and provision."
Is it a quality the men of Earth possess in abundance?
Hence her 3 bastard kids.... (Oooops - that was very judgmental of me. I'm so sorry. I meant to say "Her 3 poor, precious, disadvantaged single-parent babies, thrice abandoned and victimized by paternal neglect, but fortuitously provided for by the loving embrace of 'the village").
It is an un-called-for inference on your part to say that I think illegitimacy is a good thing, since I have already made it clear that I oppose illegitimacy, and in fact I would argue strongly that only matrimony ---ONLY matrimony ---justifies sexual intercourse, for anybody. (Can I assume you'd agree?)
But the probem is more than illegitimacy. For decades, the USA has had, for its native-born (non-immigrant) population, a negative fertility rate, less than replacement. Of those American infants who, despite contraception, sterilization, and abortion, manage to be born alive, 40% are born out of wedlock.
If you simply make live childbearing a total loss for unmarried women, you will guarantee a huge upsurge in abortion. Not only is this morally repugnant in itself, it would also have the effect of causing a dramatic population collapse in the USA, bankrupting our social institutions (beginning with Social Security and Medicare, which are already teetering on the edge -- but eventually all of our institutions), and gaining a great victory for the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate of America.
Dare I ask why you are in favor of mass abortion, depopulation, and the triumph of th Caliphate?
No, I won't assume that those are your intentions: but I must repeat that those would be your consequences.
The underlying problem is the failure of family-formtion and dying-off of durable human bonds. The solution can only be the re-building of bonds: between men and women (marriage), between women and children (through honoring and rewarding a fully responsible mother/child relationship), and between men and their dependent children, (through a re-assertion of the honors and obligations of husbandry/fatherhood.)
It's a tall order.
It can't be accomplished by severing the ties between children and their natural parents, either through forced adoption (as Holdren wants), or by authorizing men to abandon their offspring without even a financial liability (as you have recommended.)
No, you won't.
You will guarantee a huge downturn in extra-marital sex.
Extra-marital sex is a prerequisite for illegitimate births.
It's simple. Reward a behavior, and you get more of it. Punish a behavior, and you get less of it.
But keep excusing irresponsible behavior, then complain about the consequences of that irresponsible behavior. It seems to come naturally to you.
Examine your premises more closely. If a woman does not have the ability to use government force to get support from the man, then her only option is to encourage the father to emotionally bond with the child, and her, well enough that he is willing to VOLUNTARILY support the kid.
It would also act as an incentive for her to make better choices in who she has sex with.
It is not power which corrupts -- it is the absence of consequences which corrupts.
You operate on the assumption that the children of unmarried mothers are a net asset to the United States, and that we would be worse off without them. While there are many wonderful, productive offspring of unmarried women, they are overshadowed by the criminal element that comes disproportionately from unmarried households. Eliminating them would eliminate a huge drain on government money.
Hey, Unum? what's with the personal insults? That's twice now.
Baleful social and financial consequences for illegitimate live childbearing used to result in both a lot of early marriage and a lot of early childbearing followed by adoptions --- for instance, in the 1950's thru mid-60's. Now that abortion is (damnably) legal, I think it's reasonable to infer that, given a renewal of financial penalty, some unmarried women will refrain from sex, but many more will not: they'll simply refrain from live childbearing.
If you can resist the ad hominem jabs --- a practice which I pointedly avoided doing to you --- I am willing to continue this discussion.
If not, not.
Have a nice day.
In has heretofore always been in women's best interest to refrain from sex until real bonding commitment are reasonably to be expected, leading to the more circumspect behavior you and I both approve; but the availability of abortion has changed that whole dynamic.
Ultimately, nonmarital sex is still self-defeating from a woman's perspective (men's, too, but it's more obviously and dramatically so for women) but the path toward correcting this situation must aim at the re-assertion and reinforcement of both men's and women's sense of responsibility, not going for some fragmentary solution which demands women's performance on their adult obligations, and leaves puerile males to do as they please --- as if we expected them to be fly-by-night inseminators.
I respect men enough to demand strict liability from them (as well as from women) for their sexual behavior.
Nevertheless, dropping the USA's already-low fertility rate by 40% would be awful and probably irreparable. Even bastardy is better than sterility.
Do we agree that marriage as the indispensible context for sex is the way to go? Then the question is, what are the intermediate steps?
I'm all ears. I don't have a whole "program for social recontruction" up my sleeve (whsh I did!) but I remain convinced that suspending any enforcement of unmarried fathers' liability for their own children is not a constuctive step from a practical point of view.I also dooubt that anyone has authorized to relinquish their child's natural right to have the support of his or her father.
I disagree. The Middle Class is still predominantly having children within marriage. They might divorce, but it's generally true that children are born within marriage. The problem is that their fertility is low.
The Underclass are another story, with most children being conceived out of marriage. Their fertility is high.
The high fertility of the underclass results in a high tax burden on the middle class. This necessitates two-income households in order the maintain the standard of living that they are used to from their parents.
A solution would reduce the tax burden on the middle class, by greatly reducing the burden imposed by the underclass. An elimination of rewards for pathological behavior would tend to force underclass women to behave more responsibly, unlike today where the incentives are for them to have irresponsible sex with a large number of men.