Notable Quotes

[JQA]

"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."
Involuntary fertility control
...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
"The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."
"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection"
"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? "
"Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
"If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar

[bonds77]

"Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/ob...

BTW, JQA, please provide a source if you are quoting.

This man should be fired immediately and the senators who confirmed him called on the carpet for not doing any research.

MIT? Didn't we know someone who claimed to go there, who is now the CZAR of the Suckie Forums? It DOES prove you can be educated and still an idiot!

[Ian]

bonds77 wrote:

This man should be fired immediately...

Why?

[bdwg]

bonds77 wrote:

It DOES prove you can be educated and still an idiot!

yes you do...

[bdwg]

bonds77 wrote:

BTW, JQA, please provide a source if you are quoting.

really? so your lapdog can just turn around dismiss it based on the source? you know - shoot the messenger like he always does.... um yeah...

[bonds77]

I KNEW you could find fault in...well...everything. Good for you, big guy!

[bdwg]

good response... good response...

[JQA]

look it up yourself unless you fear you'll learn what a radical obama really is?

[bdwg]

he ridicules rather than debate...

considering the locatiion of his head it would be hard to see much.

[JuanHalt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[bonds77]

"really? so your lapdog can just turn around dismiss it based on the source? you know - shoot the messenger like he always does.... um yeah..."

"yes you do... "

"he ridicules rather than debate...

considering the locatiion of his head it would be hard to see much."

Fascinating debate, BD. I'll try harder to post such interesting and insightful material.