Obama's Science Czar Gives More Rights to Trees than the Unborn

I've come across a couple more items about John P. Holdren, Obama's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that make me all the more convinced that Obama's choice should be in a padded room, not advising the president.

1st there is this post from Some Have Hats, A Tree Sues in Brooklyn, that talks about Holden's call to let trees sue in court. You got that right, he wants to give legal rights to trees, in fact the whole environment. According to the article, he endorsed an idea been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’ Holdren said in the 1977 book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environmentthat he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich: “In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties.”

Stone’s article, Should Trees Have Standing?, was published in the Southern California Law Review in 1972. In it, Stone plainly states: “I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called ‘natural objects’ in the environment—indeed, to the natural environment as a whole.”

In a previous post (It's Official! Eugenics Is Our National Science Policy) I mentioned that this book he co-wrote with the Ehrlichs included an endorsement of euthenasia, as well as compulsory abortion.

But there is more, while saying that trees, oceans, etc should have legal rights he made it clear that newborns didn't deserve any rights, because they weren't human. In 1973 he co-wrote another book with the Ehrlichs, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. He wrote: “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.” & until that time it has no rights. But a tree aiutomaticly does according to him. (Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’) The book had been written before Roe v Wade & the passage in question was part of a subsection of the “Population Limitation” chapter that argued for legalized abortion.“

This guy just keeps getting SCARIER & SCARIER. In that same pargraph they say: "To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless, since life is continuous and has been since it first began on Earth several billion years ago,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “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." They also point out that legal scholars hold the view that a “fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until “it is born.”

Follow this to its logical conclusion. If an unborn child isn't fully human, then abortion is OK, if a child isn't fully human even after birth until it meets a certain set of criteria, then it doesn't have the automatic right to live either. (Something ethicist Peter Singer has also been saying in recent years.) The question is, who determines what criteria determine that the newborn has finally become a human being? What determines that the individual is deficient & thus not human? & since it isn't human, it doesn't have the right to life & can be killed at any time. Sound familiar? Yup, Hitler's view of the Jews as well as Sanger's Eugenics among many others.

So what is an "essential early socializing experience"? Would being raised a Catholic who follows the teachings of the Church be enough to say you were deficient in those esential experiences? Sanger would say yes? Her current day followers would say the same. & that includes Sec of State Clinton & a whole huge number of other people in the Obama administration. Get that, by his definition any believer in God, anyone who opposes abortion, or even Obama's agenda could someday be defined as deficient. We aren't there yet, but if Holden's beliefs do become policy & are followed to their logical conclusions we will soon be facing 1 of the greatest eras of persecution & martyrdom for the faith that the world has ever seen.

Human beings who can walk, talk & think would have no rights unless they meet a certain set of criteria, yet trees who can't do any of the above will automaticly have those rights humans are denied. What's wrong with this picture? Maybe I should say "How many things are wrong?" since there clearly is nothing right.