A few weeks ago, President Obama’s recently appointed “science czar” John Holdren came under scrutiny for claims he made in his 1977 book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. Holdren and his co-authors, Paul “Population Bomb” and Anne Ehrlich, advocated for forced abortions and involuntary sterilization as means of population control. Ideally, Holdren argued, the best means of mass population control would be a sterilizing drug to be put in the water or grain source, but alas, the only real downfall to this idea was that it was scientifically impossible by the 1970’s standards.
Well, CNS News reports that it seems Czar Holdren had more to say. It has recently come to light that, despite Mr. Holdren’s very impressive academic record, he seems to doubt when an unborn child becomes a human being. In another controversial book from his past, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, Holdren had this to say:
“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.”
While the question of the “personhood” of an unborn child remains in the abortion debate, you’d be hard pressed to find even a pro-abort that would say the child in the womb is not a member of homos sapiens. It is truly frightening that a learned man of science would question the humanity of the child in the womb. And even after birth, the “fetus” is still not a human being? Only with proper food and “early socializing experiences” will the being in question develop into a human. I am equally flabbergasted by the lack of both logic and compassion in this statement.
Last time I looked at a newborn baby (very recently!) it looked like a human being. He had the same bodily structure and functions as me; his needs were the same as my own—including the needs for nourishment and social interaction. Does my on-going need to be nourished both physically and psychologically make me ineligible for the title of human being?
Are impoverished and starving children less human than their well-fed counterparts? Are abused children who grow up isolated and alone stripped of their humanity by circumstances beyond their control?
Does Holdren’s statement make any sense?
Answer to all of the above: NO.
Again, as this health care debate wages on, Americans must look closely and very critically at how government will go about measuring the worth of human life. If President Obama’s top science adviser questions not only the “personhood,” but the humanity of an innocent, living and breathing child, what’s next!?
