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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Jul 29, 2009.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    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.”

    More Here
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    If they find ways to continue to move the bar then they can expand their population control agenda.
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Martin, on another thread, whined because Glenn Beck had referred to Obama as Hitler but isn't this the same mentality that Hitler used to justify the slaughter of 6 million Jews. This country has already slaughtered 50 million babies. Will a few more really make any difference? Not to the democrat baby killers including some on this Forum.
     
  4. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Many years ago we were camping in the mountains of Virginia. A forestry class from somewhere in New England was camping in the same campground. We all sat around a campfire talking. During the course of the evening we got around to talking about growing up and being human. The forestry professor said .... "In my opinion from birth to six the child us pre-human. From six until about twenty-two they are sub-human. By the age of twenty-two most people have matured into being human. We have to learn to be human. If a child receives no training, say like a wolf-child of India, they never become what we consider human. Being human is learned."

    A child may be human biologically, but not socially, emotionally or mentally. In those three areas we learn to be human. This does nor mean their life is not of great worth for it is. It does mean we have a responsibility of raising our children to be good, moral, ethical humans.
     
    #4 Crabtownboy, Jul 29, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2009
  5. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    Methinks the "professor" of forestry should stick to his given field and not scientifically orate beyond that of the trees.



    So.....are retarded people not human, in the professor's opinion? Many of them do not possess the social, emotional, nor mental faculites of a 22-year-old as your professor outlined to be the cut-off for being human.

    My brother is mentally retarded. I guess that makes him "sub-human".

    Are Alheimzer's patients not human? My grandmother had Alzheimer's. I guess she was "sub-human", too, according to the qualifications of a human expounded on by your forestry professor.

    Funny ..... Jesus Christ said that we are to become as "little children" if we are to be saved. Trusting, believing, and with total faith. He had quite the opposite idea about people.

    I guess He was wrong.......
     
    #5 Scarlett O., Jul 29, 2009
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2009
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Excellent, Scarlett. I also wonder at what point do people cease to be human....at what age are they again "sub-human" ?
     
    #6 Bro. Curtis, Jul 29, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2009
  7. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Too bad that is not what Holdren was talking about when he authored his book.

    If you read the cited article, you would have found the following:

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

    Context is meaningful - personal anecdotes not so much.
     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    One might expect such crab from a college professor but not from a Christian and supposedly a pastor at that. The above is just about the biggest piece of crab I have seen on this Forum.
     
  9. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Good post Scarlett O. From CTB's post you can see the direction that the so-called liberal mind is leading us. If I am not mistaken there is a, I can't call him a teacher, at Princeton from australia who advocated killing children after a certain age if they don't meet expectations.

    This is the inevitable conclusion of evolutionary thinking. If God did not create man then man is no different than any other animal and we are of all life most miserable.
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Before making a conslusion, it's prudent to know the context of the passage. The book it's quoted from is a book about Ecology. The few other quotes I've seen from the book indicate the conclusion we're coming to here might not be correct. It's possible we might be right, but we should make reasomably sure, lest we be guilty of gossiping.
     
  11. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you read the linked article in the OP?

    You may find it helpful - and it may cause you to reach different conclusions.
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    More sick disgusting reasoning from the liberal left. No human is ever sub human, that is just more excuse to slaughter more children.
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did. It only cites the specific quote, but not the context of the passage.
     
  14. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    Johnv I can understand your point. But, I find Crabtown's to be lacking. I hope he respond's to Scarlet's post. I'd like to see him justify such an ungodly position.
     
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    It matters little as there is no context in which that statement would be acceptable.
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Context is usually everything. Concervatives get comments lifted out of context all the time by the media and by liberals, and it's equally deplorable. I'm not defending the statement at all. I simply desire the context in which it was given, before making a judgement. It would be a prudent thing to do in regards to being a credible Christian witness.
     
  17. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what's the point? That it's less of a sin to kill someone who is "sub-human?" Granted, the conversation didn't go that far (at least what part of it you reported). But why have that conversation in the first place?

    I find such reasoning disturbing, anti-Biblical, totally contrary to the call of God on my life (God didn't call me to minister to sub-humans. You might be surprised to find out what God is doing in some of these "sub-humans"), and morally reprehensible.

    God made it clear that humans are created in His image. No qualifiers. No "when they reach twenty-two" stupid disclaimers. No "when they are viable outside the womb" rationalization. If you have a problem with that, your problem is with God himself, not a political position.

    My suggestion is that you read Psalm 139, and get over any idea that presents itself contrary to that chapter.
     
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783

    This statement stand on its own regardless of the context. It lends to all the credibility in the world without it.
     
  19. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    A little research on the internet will produce both reviews of his book as well as exerpts.

    The book is about "ecology" with an emphasis on "population control".

    In his book he speculates on the possibility of both forced sterilization and laws to limit family. He thought that both would be useful in limiting population growth but also lamented that they may not be politically practical.
     
  20. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    It probably would be less offensive to you and others if he had used the word mature rather than human. He was talking about growing into maturity socially, morally, ethically. He was not speaking biologically. We are not socially, morally, or ethically mature when we are children or teenagers.

    Substitute sub-mature for sub-human and see if this is less disturbing.

    If he had been speaking biologically or the worth of an individual I would agree with you. But, as I try to explain above he was not speaking about these two areas.
     

Share This Page

Loading...