Thread: A brilliant response to anti-abortion harassment

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Laz, I would very much like to invest in your perpetual motion machine.

You got the wrong guy for that. Try this guy:

Physicists believe it's possible to build a perpetual motion machine

Originally Posted by iravedic

Dude, you seriously need to vet your sources better. This is yet again another "source" being a rabid conservative site...SMH...Beck made the same tenuous claim.

PolitiFact | Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population

Unfortunately for you, Beck was right. The link I posted, which reviews exactly which pages in Holdren's book contains this shit and what it says, shows that. You could always get a copy for yourself and compare those pages against the link I posted, but I doubt you would do that considering you didn't even read what I posted in the first place, instead making assumptions, then posting a link to another article that made assumptions about what someone else said that had nothing to do with the link I posted in the first place. Ha! Classic. :-)

Originally Posted by iravedic

Dude, you seriously need to vet your sources better. This is yet again another "source" being a rabid conservative site...SMH...Beck made the same tenuous claim.

PolitiFact | Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population

OH! And I think it's wonderful that you posted a link to the sister propaganda site to Media Matters, Politifact. Really, the irony - it's delicious.

You really, really want to read this before citing them again (especially if you intend to chide for posting a biased source):

PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really? - Conservative News

PolitiFact started off straight. As a partnership of Congressional Quarterly and the Tampa Bay Times (then the St. Petersburg Times) formed in 2007, the outfit won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2008 election. The partnership dissolved shortly after when The Poynnter Institute – the parent company of both outfits – sold off CQ.


The Florida journalists carried on alone, and their liberal tendencies became more obvious as the “Pants on Fire” rulings piled up on one side. By one count, from the end of that partnership to the end of 2011, the national PolitiFact operation has issued 119 Pants on Fire ratings for Republican or conservative claims, and only 13 for liberal or Democratic claims.


In another tally, just of claims made by elected officials, Republicans lose 64-10 over the same three-year period.


Those numbers were compiled by Bryan White, who co-founded PolitiFactBias, a blog dedicated to chronicling examples of what he considers poor reasoning, sloppy research, or bias by the PolitiFact.


In considering all rulings where a claim is found untrue (False and Pants on Fire rulings combined), two things are obvious: First, that PolitiFact thinks Republicans are wrong far more often than Democrats and, second, when Republicans are wrong, they’re often said to be lying, while Democrats are just mistaken.


In the three years since the end of the partnership with CQ, PolitiFact has found a total of 323 conservative claims to be untrue, with 119 of those getting Pants on Fire.


In the same time, it’s found 105 liberal claims to be untrue, with just 13 deemed Pants on Fire, according to White’s tally.


“The Pants on Fire rating tells the reader nothing about the claim other than the fact that PolitiFact finds it ridiculously false,” White said in an interview.

Here's some more shit about politifact:

PolitiFact Bias

Heh. Amazing. Anyway as I said, the link I posted earlier outlines the page numbers and cites the book's content, here's a quote:

A close reading of “Ecoscience,” however, shows the authors clearly stated their acceptance of abortion as an effective population-control technique.


“An abortion is clearly preferable to adding one more child to an overburdened family or an overburdened society, where the chances that it will realize its potential are slight,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs argued on page 760 of the 1977 edition of “Ecoscience.”


“There is little question that legalized abortion can contribute to a reduction in birth rates,” the authors wrote on page 761. “Liberalization of abortion policies in those countries where it is still largely or entirely illegal is therefore justifiable both on humanitarian and health grounds and as an aid to population control.”


Moreover, Holdren and the Ehrlichs indicate that should population growth continue uncontrolled, the consequences of “global warming,” including widespread famine, may make compulsory population control measures necessary.


Holdren and the Ehrlichs concede compulsory population control measures if implemented to prevent disasters resulting from uncontrolled population growth will be distasteful to those with moral objections.


Arguing that voluntary measures of family planning and birth control might not be enough, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote on page 783 that compulsory birth control methods would need to be implemented when “massive famines, political unrest, or ecological disasters make their initiation imperative.”


In further defining this “disaster exception” in which compulsory methods, including forced abortions and sterilization, might become acceptable, if not necessary, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote on the same page: “In such emergencies, whatever measures are economically and technologically expedient will be likeliest to be imposed, regardless of their political or social acceptability.”


And again, continuing on the same page, the authors wrote of compulsory population control measures: “Policies that may seem totally unacceptable today to the majority of people at large or to their national leaders may be seen as very much the lesser of evils only a few years from now.”


On page 784, the authors conclude the section by commenting: “Given the family-size aspirations of people, additional measures beyond family planning will unquestionably be required in order to halt the population explosion – quite possible in many DCs [developed countries] as well as LDCs [less developed countries].”


In a section of the textbook on pages 786-789 devoted to considering “involuntary fertility control,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs discuss a variety of methodologies, including: an effort in the 1960s to vasectomize all fathers of three or more children in India; an effort in China to sterilize mothers after their third child; the development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired; the government issuance of a license entitling a woman to a given number of children; and adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.


While in the next sentence, the authors are careful to say a “far better choice” would be to control population by the “milder methods of influencing family size,” they also insist in the same sentence that efforts should be redoubled “to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time.”


In the last sentence of the section on “involuntary fertility control,” the authors make clear even the most radical methods discussed in the section are morally acceptable to them under the right conditions of population emergency.


“If effective action is taken against population growth,” the authors note, “perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries.”


“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,” the authors concluded. “As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control.”




Read more at Obama science chief: Abortion can save planet

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Good stuff, but do you plan on explaining how running out of resources is a myth?

How about any of you explain how this is on topic.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Since you asked, I support the castration of people convicted of sexual crimes. I also support the temporary sterilization of people on certain forms of welfare and/or government programs. There are other scenarios that I am more on the fence about, but for those two I could easily vote yes.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

You got the wrong guy for that. Try this guy:

Physicists believe it's possible to build a perpetual motion machine

right..............

Overpopulation and abortion are separate topics. Anyone who says one is a solution to the other fails at being a human.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk