ObamacareFollow

You could write "this is a bad thing to do". He didn't. He not only didn't say that, he included information showing a constitutional basis for taking the very actions you claim he was "warning" us about...

You actually think the author was saying "this is how we should handle overpopulation"? I feel like you did not bother to look at the link at all.

I'm sorry that you feel all opinions should be purposefully colored instead of looked at in a "cold" academic manner.

Gosh, your lunacy is about to reach the moon itself. I understand you have a tough time saying "Jeez, I guess I shouldn't have used a snippet of misinformation I heard from conservative talk radio," but to try and defend it after requires some truly staggering leaps of logic I thought impossible for those besides Varus and ThiefX up to this point.

textbooks should not be opinion pieces.

Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. 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?

Read it. Read the whole pages shown.

Yes. That's exactly what the book was about. The book was teaching about how overpopulation is a huge problem and presenting solutions to that problem. That was the entire purpose of the book. If you read a textbook about math, and it showed a math problem, and then listed a few methods to use to solve the math problem, you would rightly assume that the authors intended for those suggested solutions to be used to solve the problem.

Why do you think those passages were included in the book? Just for random fun? It's no different than a book on environmentalism suggesting ways to reduce pollution, or a book on animal care suggesting ways to care for animals. We'd naturally assume that the solutions presented were being endorsed by the authors. Why else include them?

As pointed out, this was not a theoretical position paper. It was a textbook. It was intended to teach people about the problems of overpopulation and suggest methods to address those problems. You're in denial if you think otherwise...

No. I just think that if you're writing something which appears to be an advocation of eugenics, you might just maybe include some language to indicate that people shouldn't do this.

Why do you think those passages were included in the book?

No. I just think that if you're writing something which appears to be an advocation of eugenics, you might just maybe include some language to indicate that people shouldn't do this.

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/837_full.jpg
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/838_full.jpg
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/839_full.jpg

As I noted, they don't provide page 840 although the end of 839 is obviously discussing a strong preference for voluntary measures as "legal, constitutional and desirable" ways to limit population.


The author actually makes an explicit point of stating that any legal measures forcing population control could not be selectively applied to particular income brackets, races, etc.

"Eugenics" is a scary word though. Kind of word you'd use if you wanted to influence opinion via emotion rather than what the book actually says.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 4:07pm by Jophiel

As I noted, they don't provide page 840 although the end of 839 is obviously discussing a strong preference for voluntary measures as "legal, constitutional and desirable" ways to limit population.

What's inherently so bad about eugenics? I mean, other than the use of it as a crutch to support other pretty dubious practices.

It's bad manners to tell someone he or she shouldn't reproduce.