So President of these United States Barack Obama infamously said that knowing when life begins is above his pay grade. Then how come the guy he hired knows so much about it?
Patterico writes:
John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Obama’s top science adviser, co-authored a 1973 book that said 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.
***
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.”
We can’t be shocked anymore by anything this guy says. (Holdren, not Patterico.)
But I just have to ask about the hubris of making such a statement. On what philosophical grounding do you make such a statement? None that I can decipher. It’s whim. And worse, it’s whim masquerading as compassionate social planning.
If we had too many babies in America, according to Holdren, the moment where life began would assuredly be slid over to the third trimester of second grade. If we didn’t have enough babies according to Holdren, then we’d limit open season on children to kindergarten or maybe even Pre-K.
Aren’t these supposed to be thinking people? His intellectual pontifications are essentially okaying a Holocaust. And this guy’s working in the White House for the man’s who’s unsure when life begins.
Patterico asks:
Would the authors object to a mother killing her two month old baby if they really believe life begins after a child is socialized? I’m sure they would for PC reasons, but I don’t see how they could and be philosophically consistent.
I’m honestly not sure they would. Or perhaps they would in public but in private they’d have no problem with it.
But let’s face it, the entire “above my pay grade” is just the public face of a monstrous agenda.
July 29, 2009 at 3:07 pm
On what philosophical grounding do you make such a statement?
On the philosophical grounding that all evil is okay if it can be justified. Dehumanizing unborn children helps keep abortion around, so dehumanizing born children will no doubt work toward making infanticide an accepted practice (by some, like Holdren).
July 29, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I just looked up Holdren's qualifications for his post as Science Czar. Well schooled in physics and astronaughtics, but extremely unqualified to make judgments as to when life begins. Statements such as these make this plain to most, but the man (term used loosely) has no business making decisions about any thing scientific in nature, because his ability to observe the observable is skewed by his preconceived notions. He makes determinations of outcome without observation of facts.
This is anything but science. Maybe he should finish his PhD in Astrology. (But then the Obamaphiles would just think that's a legitimate science as well.)
July 29, 2009 at 3:24 pm
If Holden is properly fed and socialized he will ultimately develop into a human being.
July 29, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Seems relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzaSkw2vktg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fhome.php&feature=player_embedded
July 29, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Nice thought Brian, but if it hasn't happened by now it probably won't. So what would his advice be in a situation such as this? Is he viable?
July 29, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Maybe he's just a "potential" human being?
July 29, 2009 at 3:54 pm
This is the trap of living solely by a code of ethics. One could make an ethical case, as some already have, that a small homo sapiens is not a human until it has a level of communication, some ability to provide for itself, etc. So, if abortion is Ok because the fetus in the womb is not human, and a small homo sapiens isn't human until about the age of three, infanticide should be Ok as well. This prospect is horrifying to most people, but not to the person who considers himself a true ethicist, one not bound by a particular moral code. It is simply a logical progression of circumstances.
What we have in this administration is a dichotomy of ideas: a judge ought not to make decisions only by the letter of the law but also by intuitive knowledge (his/her feelings and life experiences); a scientist ought not to use intuitive knowledge (feelings and life experiences) at all in research or development. Einstein's Theory of relativity hasn't been proven; neither has Darwin's Theory of evolution. Both of these scientists had a hunch and they explored it. Now many consider both of these theories to be "settled" laws of science.
This administration has people within it who bend law, ethics, and morality to serve a pre-set agenda. Maybe all politicians, regardless of party, do. I don't know. Figuring it all out is above my pay grade.
July 29, 2009 at 5:29 pm
What's the difference between John Holdren and a sperm?
A sperm actually has the chance of becoming a human being.
July 29, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Brian, you win, man. That is hilarious.
July 29, 2009 at 6:08 pm
My previous post is an old lawyer joke that I modified for this occasion.
July 29, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Since this book was written in 1973 it seems likely that a) it is being somewhat taken out of context and b) given the leaps in scientific advances since then (i.e. sonograms) that his views may have changed somewhat. Just throwing this out there.
July 29, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Then I'd say the burden is on him (and/or the President) to clarify his position.
July 29, 2009 at 7:37 pm
I don't think clarity on any issue is a priority or hallmark of this administration. In fact abortion seems to be the only issue on which the president has been consistently clear.
July 29, 2009 at 7:52 pm
So a person becomes a human only if we feed them and socialize?
July 29, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Back in the stone ages of 1973, while sonograms were not available, eyes presumably worked reasonably well. I was six then and my just born brother was a baby, not a potential human being or a potential potted plant, pot bellied pig or fish. Just saying…and the real problem for Anonymous is that this was taken within context and there's just no way to spin this kind of stupid cruel type of thinking.
July 29, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Sherry – I don't have a problem with anything here. I'm just stating that since the book was written in 1973 and not readily available, it may have been taken out of context. The title "Population Limitation" itself could mean "limiting a population" or "the limitations of a population". I'm not saying it WAS taken out of context, I'm saying it may have been. I understand Texans don't really care about pesky things like reason or verification. But they are pretty fundamental concepts, especially when taking things at face value on the internet.
July 29, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Yes, that passage could read, "Only horrible people believe the following, and I myself never would," but I rather doubt it does.
And thanks for clarifying that we're on the Internet, I could have sworn I was taking this Catholic opinion blog for course credit.
Texans rock, Sherry, I happen to be one.
July 29, 2009 at 8:45 pm
William – you have to admit, it is a bit fanciful that any sane person post WW II, especially someone with a PHD would not believe a baby is human until it is "socialized". It just really sounds suspect. If that is what he believes, then it is indeed horrible and contrary to all science on the subject. But yes, I sincerely doubt it.
July 30, 2009 at 12:17 am
Sadly, Anony, I disagree, especially since it was written in the 1970's, when the "Population Bomb" was at a peak of craziness. I mean, this was the time of the Weather Underground, and a lot of other horrible things that eventually put on regal clothing to get higher jobs in Academia.
The "Doesn't become human until a certain age" theory does exist, though because it is so jaw-droppingly disturbing, it usually only exists in Academia circles. And from the other radicial stuff I've heard about this guy, he seems like a prime canidate to endorse it.
July 30, 2009 at 12:22 am
Not scared of facts. But saying a child born is not a human yet…that seems at best the results of some bad LSD or good hash.
Hey, maybe we should hook this guy up with the person who thinks Cetaceans, Cyborgs and some Chimpanzees should be granted personhood. How long is their wait period after birth?