Mobil Fetus
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.”
Mobil Fetus
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.
John Holdren
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.
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.
He is obviously confusing civilised citizens with DemoLiberal immoral menaces to society.
the book goes on to argue that abortion spares "unwanted children" from "undesirable consequences."
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".
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.
*********************
Imho, he is extremely disturbed and detached from others.
Some will develop into human beings; others will develop into BObots.
How many of you people feel as helpless as I do?
The Left, or at least its 'vanguard', is intelligent enough to focus on the acquisition of that power; Lenin was far more astute than Marx.
Unfortunately, too many public-school trained rubes on the Right share this deluded notion that the state can create positive social goods other than the destruction of state enemies.
Would that it were so. As I have posted numerous times, Americans will be no better at creating a humane socialism than any other people.
The magic is in the power to kill - grasp that and everything else falls into place.
IMHO.
So, as long as it’s a fetus, it’s OK to terminate it. A year after birth, two years, five years, ten years, what’s the limit?
As a matter of fact, discounting LBJ and Tuman who were never vetted through a Democrat Party primary, the last Democrat president who did not attend either an Ivy League College or a Service Academey was Grover Cleveland, who did not go to college at all!
We are in sooooooooo much trouble.
If the RNC and other would just USE all this information. It is being handed to use on a silver platter.
All arguments based on the need to limit population growth depend on the notion that resources are finite.
Most social policies that have been developed by the left in the past 40 years have served to restrict access to resources.
Direct reduction of populations is therefor unnecessary to accomplich the fundamental goal.
This argument has made me think about the asteroid scenario. Or the pandemic scenario? What if we need to get our population up to some critical starting point, so that when the virus comes and wipes out 99.999% of us, there are enough left to populate the planet and start over?
What an effin’ freak!
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.