Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’
CNS News ^ | Tuesday, July 28, 2009 | Terence P. Jeffrey

Posted on 07/28/2009 11:19:53 AM PDT by presidio9

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.”

Holdren co-authored the book with Stanford professors Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. The book was published by W.H. Freeman and Company.

At the time “Human Ecology” was published, Holdren was a senior research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. Paul Ehrlich, currently president of The Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, is also author of the 1968 bestseller, “The Population Bomb,” a book the Washington Post said “launched the popular movement for zero population growth.”

“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” argued that the human race faced dire consequences unless human population growth was stopped.

“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.”

The specific passage expressing the authors’ view that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being” is on page 235 in chapter 8 of the book, which is titled “Population Limitation.”

At the time the book was written, the Supreme Court had not yet issued its Roe v. Wade decision, and the passage in question was part of a subsection of the “Population Limitation” chapter that argued for legalized abortion.

“To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless, since life is continuous and has been since it first began on Earth several billion years ago,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “The precursors of the egg and sperm cells that create the next generation have been present in the parents from the time they were embryos themselves. 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. 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.”

In the same paragraph, the authors continue on to note that legal scholars hold the view that a “fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until “it is born.” But they do not revisit the issue of when exactly the “fetus” would properly be considered a “human being.”

“From this point of view, a fetus is only a potential human being [italics in original],” wrote the authors. “Historically, 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.”

The same section of the book goes on to argue that abortion spares “unwanted children” from “undesirable consequences.”

“From the standpoint of the terminated fetus, it makes no difference whether the mother had an induced abortion or a spontaneous abortion,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “On the other hand, it subsequently makes a great deal of difference to the child if an abortion is denied, and the mother, contrary to her wishes, is forced to devote her body and life to the production and care of the child. In Sweden, studies were made to determine what eventually happened to children born to mothers whose requests for abortions had been turned down. When compared to a matched group of children from similar backgrounds who had been wanted, more than twice as many as these unwanted youngsters grew up in undesirable circumstances (illegitimate, in broken homes, or in institutions), more than twice as many had records of delinquency, or were deemed unfit for military service, almost twice as many had needed psychiatric care, and nearly five times as many had been on public assistance during their teens.

“There seems little doubt that the forced bearing of unwanted children has undesirable consequences not only for the children themselves and their families but for society as well, apart from the problems of overpopulation,” wrote the authors.

The Ehrlichs and Holdren then chide opponents of abortion for condemning future generations to an “overcrowded planet.”

“Those who oppose abortion often raise the argument that a decision is being made for an unborn person who ‘has no say,’” write the authors. “But unthinking actions of the very same people help to commit future unheard generations to misery and early death on an overcrowded planet.”

Holdren has impeccable academic credentials. He earned his bachelor’s degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his doctorate at Harvard. He worked as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before becoming a senior research fellow at California Institute of Technology. He then became a professor at the University of California at Berkeley before joining the faculty at Harvard in 1996, where he was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and director of the Program in Science, Technology and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

In addition to his duties at Harvard, Holdren was director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Mass.

His curriculum vitae posted at the Woods Hole Web site lists “Human Ecology” as one of the books he has co-authored or co-edited.

“Dr. Holdren,” says the Web posting, “is the author of some 300 articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, such as Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Ecoscience (1977), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defences and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), Conversion of Military R&D (1998), and Ending the Energy Stalemate (2004).”

The next to last subsection of the chapter on “Population Limitation” in “Human Ecology” is entitled, “Involuntary Fertility Control,” which the authors stress is an “unpalatable idea.”

“The third approach to population control is that of involuntary fertility control,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Several coercive proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”

“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. “As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

In February, when Holdren appeared before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee for a confirmation hearing, he was not asked about his comment in “Human Ecology” that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being.”

Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.) did ask him, however, about the population-control ideas he expressed in 1973.

“In 1973, you encouraged a, quote, ‘decline in fertility to well below replacement,’ close quote, in the United States, because, quote, ‘280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many,’ close quote,” said Vitter. “What would your number for the right population in the U.S. be today?”

“I no longer think it’s productive, senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States,” Holdren responded. “I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems in the United States appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed.

“I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities,” Holdren continued. “It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling ‘sustainable prosperity.’”

In a subsequent question, Vitter asked, “Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?”

“No, senator, I do not,” said Holdren.

The White House Press Office did not respond to emailed and telephoned inquiries from CNSNews.com about Holdren’s statement in “Human Ecology” that a baby will “ultimately develop into a human being.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; bho44; bhoscience; holdren; infanticide; johnpholdren; lping; moralabsolutes; prolife; radicalleft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last

1 posted on 07/28/2009 11:19:57 AM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

In the Beltway elite mind, it ain’t a respectable human until it graduates from an Ivy League law school


2 posted on 07/28/2009 11:22:05 AM PDT by silverleaf (If you can't be a good example, at least don't be a horrible lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Holden on the right. Guy to the left of Clinton is unidentified, but he worked for Goldman Sachs.

3 posted on 07/28/2009 11:22:49 AM PDT by presidio9 ("Don't shoot. Let 'em burn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’

I can think of one obvious counter example.

4 posted on 07/28/2009 11:22:54 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (AGWT is very robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it at the 100% confidence level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Apparently he is still working on becoming one himself....
5 posted on 07/28/2009 11:23:23 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

“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.”

It makes sense that a newborn will develop into a human being.
It even makes more sense that a fetus will develop in to a newborn.


6 posted on 07/28/2009 11:23:42 AM PDT by RolandTignor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Holdren is so disconnected from his soul!

He’s actually saying that a baby is NOT a human until it’s been fed and grows up! By that theory, there are MANY large non-humans around - that haven’t grown up!


7 posted on 07/28/2009 11:24:10 AM PDT by RebelTXRose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Yeah, so what? I don't think the scientist is that far off.
8 posted on 07/28/2009 11:24:37 AM PDT by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Dick Cheney “flunked out of Yale” (in his own words. Thats why they hate him more than Bush who owns two Ivy diplomas.


9 posted on 07/28/2009 11:25:24 AM PDT by presidio9 ("Don't shoot. Let 'em burn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

unreal.

Has Zombie Times gotten a copy of this book yet?


10 posted on 07/28/2009 11:25:59 AM PDT by GeronL (Guilty of the crime of deviationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelTXRose

So by this logic “abortions” can safely be allowed up to, say, 5 or 6 years old, since they are not human beings until they reach some age past that.

I would propose, based on this logic, to rename toddlers and call them “mobile fetuses” instead.


11 posted on 07/28/2009 11:26:51 AM PDT by drangundsturm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

They call it a “viable” person. Since it cannot go for food on its own, it is still a “parasite” on the parents (or community).

Retroactive abortions up to a year or two.

What a sick world.


12 posted on 07/28/2009 11:27:00 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

PING

And Rush discussed this on his program today.


13 posted on 07/28/2009 11:27:37 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RolandTignor

A fertilized egg has it’s own human DNA. Unique in the 12 (or whatever) billion years since the “Big Bang.” It is alive. It has a sex. A fertilized egg is a human being. There is no need for it to “develop” into one.


14 posted on 07/28/2009 11:27:57 AM PDT by presidio9 ("Don't shoot. Let 'em burn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

“Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’”

Yeah? When will Hussein develop into a human being?


15 posted on 07/28/2009 11:27:58 AM PDT by Howie66 (The one redeeming thing about liberals: their tendency to kill their own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

What a bunch of satanic elitists!


16 posted on 07/28/2009 11:28:24 AM PDT by FlorianG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Another installment of the continuing “Architects of the American Genocide” series.

These people are pure evil. And they have very big plans for all of us.


17 posted on 07/28/2009 11:28:35 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
Yeah, so what? I don't think the scientist is that far off.

How so?

18 posted on 07/28/2009 11:28:53 AM PDT by presidio9 ("Don't shoot. Let 'em burn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

So he wrote more than one book with Paul the Killer Ehrlich


19 posted on 07/28/2009 11:29:36 AM PDT by GeronL (Guilty of the crime of deviationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelTXRose
He’s actually saying that a baby is NOT a human until it’s been fed and grows up!

Yup... And by a simple extension:
Its not human if it suffers from a debilitating injury.
Its not human if its mentally impaired.
Its not human if its undesirable.

And these folks are running our government...
God have mercy on us and God help us.

20 posted on 07/28/2009 11:30:04 AM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Not Eric Holden. this is John Holdren we’re talking about


21 posted on 07/28/2009 11:30:21 AM PDT by GeronL (Guilty of the crime of deviationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

That’s right. It takes a village!


22 posted on 07/28/2009 11:30:27 AM PDT by Ozone34 ("There are only two philosophies: Thomism and bullshitism!" -Leon Bloy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm

The left respects Peter Singer don’t they?


23 posted on 07/28/2009 11:32:13 AM PDT by GeronL (Guilty of the crime of deviationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

It’s nice to have these folks go on the record with comments like this.


24 posted on 07/28/2009 11:33:11 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (_Resident of the United States and Kenya's favorite son, Baraaaack Hussein Obamaaaa...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm

mobile fetuses...that is hilarious.


25 posted on 07/28/2009 11:33:28 AM PDT by LivingNet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Ok conservatives. This article is intentionally misreading a quote. You’re making us all look like idiots. Please stop doing this. Thank you.

Either learn grammar (fetus is the subject of the sentence, baby is only in the parenthetical statement) or quit manipulating words into things they don’t say in order to develop a fake rage.

This is embarrassing.


26 posted on 07/28/2009 11:34:36 AM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Did you also catch the bit about a population where everyone is rich is more limited than one where everyone is poor?

Of course, though, these elitists are willing for YOU to be poor, not them.

This guy reveals the mindset of the whole lot of them.


27 posted on 07/28/2009 11:35:02 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, save Bowman for later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
So Ehrlich and his buddies emerge from their holes.

Too bad for humanity.

It was this POS and his friends who scared the crap out of an entire generation with their overpopulation hysteria.

But now it's obvious they were, and are, ordinary misanthropes.

Worse than that, racist self-hating misanthropes. Calling them "liberals" would be redundant...their only worry, really, was that the United States was "overpopulated" by White Anglo-Saxons. Haven't heard them carping lately about the massive numbers of non-Anglos flooding in....

And it's funny to hear them waffle on "when life begins". I was a biology major in 1973 when Roe came down. If you had said on an exam back then that a human zygote "wasn't really alive", you would have failed. The decision was taken in every biology school to mean that it was OK to kill a human embryo because it was in the phase where "it was just a mass of cells, can't feel anything".

Booooollllsh.....can't say it on this forum. We were all re-assured that "only first trimester embryos" would be offed. Not to worry little children....Mr. Tiller had to waif for Doe v. Bolton to legitimize his macabre obsession with dismembering babies. Which happened almost immediately.

Disgusting to see these SOB's again. At least this time, everyone with a brain knows they're frauds. Maybe the laughter will make them leave...

28 posted on 07/28/2009 11:35:02 AM PDT by Regulator (Welcome to Zimbabwe! Now hand over your property)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

OB already supports letting a baby die unattended after it survives an abortion. Next step, you can kill your baby up until it can buy food and feed itself.


29 posted on 07/28/2009 11:35:51 AM PDT by nufsed (Release the birth certificate, passport and school records.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

and Sarah is no Ivy League grad like the afirmative action obamas

So libs will always consider her as a lightweight


30 posted on 07/28/2009 11:36:26 AM PDT by silverleaf (If you can't be a good example, at least don't be a horrible lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
I don't think the scientist is that far off.

He's not a scientist. He's a murderous psychopath.

If you find his genocidal rantings to be "not far off", I'm sure there's a job in Obama's shadow cabinet for you.

31 posted on 07/28/2009 11:39:08 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

21?


32 posted on 07/28/2009 11:39:48 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
John Holdren was on the losing team in the famous Julian Simon/Paul Ehrlich environmental doom wager.
33 posted on 07/28/2009 11:44:22 AM PDT by steelyourfaith ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" - Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

What are they up until then?
Larvae?


34 posted on 07/28/2009 11:45:33 AM PDT by Salamander (Cursed with Second Sight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Every time I hear about one of Obama's czars I am reminded of this passage:
The history of the present King of Great Britain President of the United States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

---snip---

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.


35 posted on 07/28/2009 11:46:52 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
STATEMENT: "Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’"

RESPONSE: Another great truth enunciated by an Apostle of "The Divine One."

36 posted on 07/28/2009 11:46:56 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newguy357; narses; Salvation; Petronski; NYer
Methinks you need a little comprehension.

“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.”

Mr. Holden lists two criteria for ultimately developing into a human being, both of which must be met.

If the portion in bold is not met, then by Mr. Holden's definition, that person is not a human being.

Given the underlined portion (after birth), I don't think the article's misreading the quote when it says 'babies'. Because that last criterion for becoming a human being (according to Holden) is very VERY subjective. Chillingly so.

37 posted on 07/28/2009 11:48:53 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (To view the FR@Alabama ping list, click on my profile!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Not Eric Holden. this is John Holdren we’re talking about

You'd make a lousy detective. Try reading the name card.

38 posted on 07/28/2009 11:49:03 AM PDT by presidio9 ("Don't shoot. Let 'em burn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The implication is that it isn’t human, yet.
Interesting.
So then, libs, how does it become human? Is it due to some external influence or is it due to something that is already in it?
(libs at this point have switched over to personal attacks, and won’t answer the question)


39 posted on 07/28/2009 11:50:24 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

heh


40 posted on 07/28/2009 11:51:14 AM PDT by GeronL (Guilty of the crime of deviationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LivingNet; drangundsturm
Mobil Fetus
41 posted on 07/28/2009 11:52:03 AM PDT by presidio9 ("Don't shoot. Let 'em burn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
You’re making us all look like idiots. Please stop doing this. Thank you.

Scolding people won't get you anywhere. This is a teachable moment. Please use your superior powers of grammer and comprehension to enlighten and persuade us on what we were capable of missing.

42 posted on 07/28/2009 11:56:53 AM PDT by presidio9 ("Don't shoot. Let 'em burn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

John Holdren


43 posted on 07/28/2009 11:57:17 AM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
Ok conservatives. This article is intentionally misreading a quote. You’re making us all look like idiots. Please stop doing this. Thank you.

Either learn grammar (fetus is the subject of the sentence, baby is only in the parenthetical statement) or quit manipulating words into things they don’t say in order to develop a fake rage.

This is embarrassing.

************************

Sorry, I have to say that this is consistent with the title of the article:

"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. 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.”

The above quote denies the humanity of both the fetus (unborn child) and the child after it is born.

44 posted on 07/28/2009 11:58:22 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
I was a biology major in 1973 when Roe came down. If you had said on an exam back then that a human zygote "wasn't really alive", you would have failed.

You would still fail in my book. As I told my idiot Research Scientist daughter-in-law..."Anyone with any common sense, much less a biology degree such as yours, knows that if you get pregnant, you are going to have a baby. Period. End of discussion." I left her standing there with her mouth hanging open, she has never brought the issue up again.

45 posted on 07/28/2009 11:58:38 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

He is obviously confusing civilised citizens with DemoLiberal immoral menaces to society.


46 posted on 07/28/2009 12:01:19 PM PDT by DGHoodini (Iran Azadi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
the book goes on to argue that abortion spares "unwanted children" from "undesirable consequences."

47 posted on 07/28/2009 12:03:44 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Ummm...maybe you didn't get the statement, Mr. Nutter.

There isn't any contradiction. A Zygote is a human, with unique DNA. The fact that it lives within its Mother is the condition known as "pregnancy".

48 posted on 07/28/2009 12:05:46 PM PDT by Regulator (Welcome to Zimbabwe! Now hand over your property)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: newguy357

After the fetus is “given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, [it] will ultimately develop...”

Nobody’s misreading anything. “Years after birth” the baby will develop into a human being. That’s what it says. You’re the only one here who doesn’t see it.


49 posted on 07/28/2009 12:06:01 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
He's not a scientist. He's a murderous psychopath.

*********************

Imho, he is extremely disturbed and detached from others.

50 posted on 07/28/2009 12:06:06 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson