Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Obama science czar says babies may become human, eventually (another bloody hands alert)

Times beyond easy count, we warned people who were trying to profess Christ and Obama that the two weren't a good mix, given (among other things) Obama's pro-abort extremism. (See here, for instance.)

In response, a lot of talk was thrown out to try to mask what one can only guess was a restless itch to fit in better with the world.

The predictions we made about Obama were about as bold as saying that a lemon will taste sour. Since then, they've unfolded, sadly and obviously.

Here's the latest.

The man for whom so many "evangelicals" shot a tranquilizer dart into their conscience has appointed John P. Holdren to be director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He is Obama's top science adviser.

The Bible makes clear what natural revelation alone also puts beyond argument: what a male human conceives in union with a female human is fully human, from conception.

What did Holdren write, in 1973?

That we don't know whether the fetus begins life as human?


That the fetus becomes human in the first, second, or third trimester?


Here is the published view your man Obama legitimized by appointment to a position of influence, emphases added. In 1973, Holdren co-authored a book presenting this view:
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.
Not human at conception, not human during conception, not human after birth, not human at first birthday, perhaps not human at second birthday....

Perhaps a "becoming human" ceremony should be held in addition to birthday parties? And who will certify humanity? Perhaps a government agency? A subdivision of the agency that will determine who does and doesn't deserve particular medical treatments?

The authors actually try to paint abortion as the best thing for the (poisoned, burnt, dismembered) baby. Hear the chilling torture of logic your man Obama just anointed, emphases added:
From the standpoint of the terminated fetus, it makes no difference whether the mother had an induced abortion or a spontaneous abortion.... 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.
Holdren was not questioned on this specifically in his confirmation hearings.

But we already knew what Obama thought, well before the election. Inconvenient children are a punishment, and their lives are forfeit at a whim.

Seems like a close ideological fit, to me — simply a natural extension.

And nothing that a Biblically-faithful Christian could remotely accept.


Anonymous said...

I haven't done much research on this guy yet, but I know several articles have been written concerning this textbook that he co-wrote in 1973. Has he remained silent on these issues since then so we can only assume he still holds these heinous beliefs? Or has he continued to write and teach in this train of thinking and this textbook is simply the most blatant example of his philosophy on human life?

I was appalled when I first read excerpts from this textbook, but I also know that I would not want to be quoted as holding today some of the opinions I held only 6 years ago, let alone 36 years ago. Just wondering if there are more recent quotes in which he might explain his current views on these issues.

One Salient Oversight said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DJP said...

Obsessive banned stalkertroll OSO asked me to tell you that he still can't believe how blind people were about Obama. Professed Christians who knew better, voting for a professed Christian with no sign of faith beyond a naked (and itself fatally flawed) claim, and many signs of rebellion against God's word....

Whatever anyone knew or allowed himself to know before the election, OSO is appalled at the scope of blindness that would open its mouth in public to do anything but confess a gross error, and get to work exposing the truth, educating the ignorant, undoing the damage, and preventing further harm.

Then his mother needed to check on an E-Bay item and he had to get back to mowing the lawn, or no pretzels in his sandwich tonight.

Jay said...

Based on that second excerpt, I wonder if Holdren goes up to people who have had mental problems, come from broken homes, have gotten in trouble with the law, or were deemed unfit for military service and says, "Oh, don't you think your lives would have been so much better if you hadn't been born?"

I really can't believe that any human being thinks that killing a person is somehow best for them. Screwed up as life can be sometimes, isn't the fact that it's life enough?

Fred Butler said...

I wrote about his other book he co-authored:

The one where he advocates forced sterilizations

I know. I am a shameless link troll, but I thought people would be interested.

Aaron said...

Forced sterilizations...abortion...euthanasia. Health care at it's finest. Where is it in the OT where God says something to the effect that Hes waiting for a certain group to fill their quota of evil before He brings severe judgement? I'll have to break out my tiny travel Bible to see if I can find it. But do you ever wonder if our nation is getting close to that? On the other hand, my travels showed me that Rome and Greece were at least as bad. (Although i doubt they could turn on the tv, flip a channel and see abominations on non pay per view channels while searching for the news while in a hotel. Not that CNN's propaganda isn't as dangerous)

candy said...

Scary scary stuff going on.

Jill said...

Sir Aaron - I most definitely find myself asking this same question quite frequently! How long will God leave us to mock Him and basically endorse the vilest of actions.

I spent the time leading up to the election trying to make the point with who ever I could that this man was nothing but deceptive about his "faith". There are just so many OBVIOUS things to point to (many of them his own direct quotes!) that tell me that this man is NOT my brother in Christ!!

Okay, done with my vent.

Paula said...

As one who was born pre-legalized abortion to poor, unwed parents, I am VERY glad that abortion wasn't a legal option. I am VERY glad some science czar didn't convince my mother that my life would be worthless!

It would have been a very easy "choice" for my mother. She was Catholic and my dad came from a strict Pentecostal family - neither is a believer of either faith. They eloped and had to eventually come home to face the consequences - living with my strict Pentecostal grandparents for a year.

They didn't have great parenting skills - my brother and I spent a LOT of time in bars, hanging out with their drinking buddies, & waiting up until 2 AM wondering where they were & if there would make it home alive. But we grew up next door to our grandparents who taught us about Jesus and my dad dropped us all off at the "Pentecostal Tabernacle" every Sunday. By God's grace I eventually came to saving faith (though not the Pentecostal part!)

My husband grew up in similar "undesirable circumstances" - only add welfare and a MIA father to the mix. Neither of of would consider abortion a preferable option to our "undesirable circumstances."

trogdor said...

Two obvious corollaries are that there comes a point where a person is no longer human, and that some people never attain full humanity. If humanity is determined by some factor such as, say, ability to take care of oneself, anyone who is incapable through age (young or old), disability, etc, is considered sub-human. Their caregivers or the state would practically be able to regard them as life unworthy of life, and put an end to them. This is so monstrous it would be inconceivable if it hadn't happened on such a grand scale in recent history.

The fact that this kind of thinking dovetails perfectly with health care rationing, denial of service to those who aren't deemed valuable enough to society, is probably worth considering.

Of course, in his view certain people have less rights than trees. Although I actually sort of agree with him on one part of that - if ever a tree is able to file a lawsuit and give testimony, I for one would love to see it.

DJP said...

Would the tree file his lawsuit... on paper?

trogdor said...

Bekahmae raises a good question about the fact that these views were published so long ago, well before I was born. I too first wondered about that when I heard the quotes were from the early 70's - isn't there anything more recent from him? Isn't it possible that he's changed drastically since then?

Here's the thing though - the burden of proof is squarely on him to prove that he has changed. Well, given the current administration, there's no burden to prove any such thing, and they'd probably be upset if he did. But among rightly-thinking people who are appalled by his Hitlerian view of subhuman people, the onus would be on him. At the very least he would have to denounce those views and explain what he now believes. A paper trail showing a view befitting a non-monster (say, a journal article or book arguing for a human position) would be great. But even a simple assertion that he's changed would be a great start.

He's the one who claimed this position. We have to assume he still holds these views until he at least claims otherwise. Unless he clearly and unambiguously denounces these views, there is no reason not to believe he still holds them.

DJP said...

Agreed; and if he's repented of these monstrous positions, I'd be happy to point it out, and note whether he explains why and how he changes his mind.

Robert-the-Chemist said...

Last week (here in the deep south 'Bible belt' no less) I saw a car with both a "Jesus Is Lord" and an "Obama 08" bumber sticker. ?!?!?!?!?!?
I really have no words to describe my mental disconnect at that point!

DJP said...

Try going to church with such bumper-stickers.


Paula said...

Could have been George Tiller's church.

Aaron said...

Trogdor: I would have difficulty accepting a denial of such views without significant evidence of repentance and substantial explanation of how he came to be persuaded of his error. His views are radical and he proudly persuaded others of this view. A 180 turn would require some significant event. This is the same problem I had with Romney. He never explained what caused him to change his view on abortion. Absent some compelling story, I have to believe that it is not a deeply held belief or he is willing to chamelize himself for political gain.

DJP said...


You heard it here first.

This blog has everything.

Aaron said...

Straight from my book "501 Nouns Conjugated into Verbs."

trogdor said...

Indeed. I'm not saying that such a claim would be sufficient; I am saying it is necessary. We should not believe he's changed solely because he makes such a claim without major corroboration, but we shouldn't even entertain the idea until such a claim is actually made.

Aaron said...

We agree there.