avatar4321
07-16-2009, 09:46 PM
How would you like to have involuntary sterilization? Looks like the science czar has seriously proposed putting something in the water supply to do that All in the name of the environment, of course. Here are a couple links:
http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d16-Science-Czar-John-P-Holdrens-disturbing-beliefs-about-America-capitalism-and-humanity
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.
It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on 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.
For Glenn Beck analysis see: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/27958/
http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d16-Science-Czar-John-P-Holdrens-disturbing-beliefs-about-America-capitalism-and-humanity
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.
It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on 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.
For Glenn Beck analysis see: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/27958/