|
|
Minorities being sterilized against their will. A story from Nazi Germany or Communist China? No, for today's Europe, the Czech Republic, a modern country and EU member.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT http://www.tol.org/client/article/21373-sign-this-paper-or-you-will-die.html
| Quote: | ‘Sign This Paper or You Will Die’
Tricked into authorizing their own sterilizations, a group of Romani women in the Czech Republic have united to fight for reproductive rights. by Sophie Kohn 20 April 2010
OSTRAVA, Czech Republic | Elena Gorolova was in a great deal of pain. Nurses and doctors crowded around her, trying to insert a balloon between her legs to stop her baby from coming out so they could perform a Cesarean section. Gorolova and her husband, Bohus, a Czech Romani couple with two sons at home, were excited at the prospect of another addition to their young family.
But to the doctors, the new addition meant Gorolova’s third C-section. They told Gorolova that any more childbirths would be fatal.
They put it to her simply and suddenly: sign this paper or you will die. There was no time for questions, explanations, reflection.
“I didn’t read it,” Gorolova explains quietly, lowering her vivid brown eyes. “I didn’t have anybody there with me. Nobody told me what was going on. I was totally out of my mind and so I just signed.”
And there, in the midst of giving birth, Gorolova’s reproductive rights were taken. Moments after delivering her son via Cesarean section, doctors irreversibly sterilized Gorolova by severing her fallopian tubes. It was September 1990.
As Gorolova would later discover, an estimated 90,000 Romani women in the Czech Republic had suffered through the same experience over the past 40 years, many of them frightened into signing the sterilization papers after doctors told them that giving birth after multiple C-sections was life-threatening.
Two days after Gorolova gave birth to her third son, the director of the hospital in Ostrava, an industrial town about 15 kilometers east of the Polish border, explained that sterilization was the only way to ensure she would never deliver again. It was medically necessary, she said. Gorolova lashed out, momentarily denying that the newborn boy was hers.
She and her outraged husband Bohus questioned whether the rationale they’d just received was the real reason Gorolova had been sterilized. They went to Ostrava’s courthouse to ask for an explanation. They were immediately thrown out.
STILL NOT SAYING SORRY
For more than 15 years, Gorolova quietly struggled with shame. Bohos frequented a local pub where Romani men in the community would tell him that his wife was worthless.
Maternity is important in Romani culture, says Vlasta Holubova, 45, another Romani woman from Ostrava who was involuntarily sterilized in December 1988 during the delivery of her fourth child. “People who have the most children in their families are rich. It’s like the family treasures, to have lots of kids,” she says.
Over the past four years, Gorolova and other involuntarily sterilized Roma in Ostrava have united as a single voice for Romani reproductive rights. Backed by several prominent advocates, the women have launched an awareness campaign within the Czech Republic and through speaking engagements abroad. Their work has recently resulted in formal acknowledgment from the government.
|
This seems really horrible if it is true.
| handfleisch wrote: | Minorities being sterilized against their will. A story from Nazi Germany or Communist China? No, for today's Europe, the Czech Republic, a modern country and EU member.
|
Now, if only they could do this to everybody, we could solve a lot of the world's problems. (By partially alleviating overpopulation)
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Now, if only they could do this to everybody, we could solve a lot of the world's problems. (By partially alleviating overpopulation) |
Yup. Prevention is better than cure. And in this case, cure is killing.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Now, if only they could do this to everybody, we could solve a lot of the world's problems. (By partially alleviating overpopulation) |
Yup. Prevention is better than cure. And in this case, cure is killing. |
If only your parents had volunteered
| handfleisch wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Now, if only they could do this to everybody, we could solve a lot of the world's problems. (By partially alleviating overpopulation) |
Yup. Prevention is better than cure. And in this case, cure is killing. |
If only your parents had volunteered |
Really? Did you come up with that yourself? Good effort, you win a water-cooler 
| ocalhoun wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | Minorities being sterilized against their will. A story from Nazi Germany or Communist China? No, for today's Europe, the Czech Republic, a modern country and EU member.
|
Now, if only they could do this to everybody, we could solve a lot of the world's problems. (By partially alleviating overpopulation) |
Sounds a bit drastic to me however. If the contents of the article is in fact the truth. Difficult for me to believe that in this day and age, when the Chech Republic is under scrutiny for human rights violations, and trying to become part of the European Union, that it would do dumb things like these.
I completely agree that something needs to be done about overpopulation, but conning people is probably not the answer.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | It doesn't seem that horrible at all actually. So she'd rather die and honor her stupid traditions rather than live and be in "shame"? Do they not have condoms in the Czech Republic? You can't draw any comparison to Nazi Germany or Communist China in this case; first of all, they're not killing her (in fact, this was done to ensure she survives -_-), nor are they doing it because she's Romani.
You can't compare this to a political genocide. Sometimes (most times...) doctors know what's better for a peroson's health than that person, and if she'd rather die than stop popping out babies to pride her husband and her culture maybe her next stop after the maternity ward should be a mental clinic. |
Even for the low standard of internet chat rooms, your post is utterly detestable. You are wrong on just about all your points, and you are making excuses for a human rights violation and genocidal practice. Are you aware how insulting it is to refer to someone's "stupid traditions", and how ignorant or stupid you appear since this isn't about any tradition, but just about having children?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | So she'd rather die and honor her stupid traditions rather than live and be in "shame"? |
Her life was not in danger, and the whole point of this article is that these forced sterilizations have been used as population control against a minority race, not to save anyone's life.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | You can't draw any comparison to Nazi Germany or Communist China in this case; first of all, they're not killing her (in fact, this was done to ensure she survives -_-), nor are they doing it because she's Romani. |
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Sterilization of so-called undesirables was one of the first things instituted by Hitler. Again this was not done to save her life, and yes they did target the Romany community (as well as the poor and disabled).
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
You can't compare this to a political genocide. Sometimes (most times...) doctors know what's better for a peroson's health than that person, and if she'd rather die than stop popping out babies to pride her husband and her culture maybe her next stop after the maternity ward should be a mental clinic. |
THis is just more repetition of your total inaccuracies and hateful opinions. The doctors were not protecting anyone's health, they were doing forced sterilization of undesirables. If you think that the simple fact that a person has many children means they should be in a mental clinic, you should go check into one yourself, because that's a inhuman and sick idea.
| handfleisch wrote: | | Even for the low standard of internet chat rooms, your post is utterly detestable. You are wrong on just about all your points, and you are making excuses for a human rights violation and genocidal practice. |
I'm wrong on all my points? Half my points were narrating what the article said. I could find another article on this story from another viewpoint, but let's stick with the one you've quoted (which is just a weee bit biased). "They told Gorolova that any more childbirths would be fatal. Ooh, so this is a genocidal practice I see. Preventing someone from dying...is a genocidal practice. LOL 
| Quote: | | Are you aware how insulting it is to refer to someone's "stupid traditions", and how ignorant or stupid you appear since this isn't about any tradition, but just about having children? |
Second last paragraph of article: "Maternity is important in Romani culture, says Vlasta Holubova, 45, another Romani woman from Ostrava who was involuntarily sterilized in December 1988 during the delivery of her fourth child"
Hmm so this woman is outraged because instead of what is important to her culture, popping out another child, she has had her reproductive capabilities taken away (...for her own survival (which is also important to her present children)).
| Quote: | | If you think that the simple fact that a person has many children means they should be in a mental clinic, you should go check into one yourself, because that's a inhuman and sick idea. |
If this is the sort of culture that you want follow, where you'd die just to please your culture (maternity being important), then yeah, that's pretty stupid. If a woman says that she's ok with dying as long as she can make more and more babies, then indeed she needs therapy.
| handfleisch wrote: | | Wrong, wrong and wrong. Sterilization of so-called undesirables was one of the first things instituted by Hitler. Again this was not done to save her life, and yes they did target the Romany community (as well as the poor and disabled). |
They did now, did they? So the article pinpoints two Romany women who this happened to, doesn't mention anyone else, and labels it genocide. Genocide: "The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity." That's a suitable definition. So, who exactly was systematically killed? Is ZERO a substantial number of killings for this heinous genocide? This genocide that is so utterly twisted that it saved this woman's life? Are you saying that if an American woman, or a British woman, or an African woman, or an Indian woman was lying on that bed they wouldn't perform the same treatment? If they didn't perform the same treatment on another woman with the exact same condition, that woman would die. What a genocide against the Romanys this is, targeting them for survival and, according to you, treating others differently, which in this case, would be letting them die.
| Quote: | | This is just more repetition of your total inaccuracies and hateful opinions. The doctors were not protecting anyone's health, they were doing forced sterilization of undesirables. |
Let's see. I support the doctor's decision to cut off her reproductive capabilities because this way the mother can survive. Clearly this is a hateful opinion I hold against this woman. Wanting her to survive?! How do I sleep at night.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | Even for the low standard of internet chat rooms, your post is utterly detestable. You are wrong on just about all your points, and you are making excuses for a human rights violation and genocidal practice. |
I'm wrong on all my points? Half my points were narrating what the article said. I could find another article on this story from another viewpoint, but let's stick with the one you've quoted (which is just a weee bit biased). "They told Gorolova that any more childbirths would be fatal. Ooh, so this is a genocidal practice I see. Preventing someone from dying...is a genocidal practice. LOL =D>
| Quote: | | Are you aware how insulting it is to refer to someone's "stupid traditions", and how ignorant or stupid you appear since this isn't about any tradition, but just about having children? |
Second last paragraph of article: "Maternity is important in Romani culture, says Vlasta Holubova, 45, another Romani woman from Ostrava who was involuntarily sterilized in December 1988 during the delivery of her fourth child"
Hmm so this woman is outraged because instead of what is important to her culture, popping out another child, she has had her reproductive capabilities taken away (...for her own survival (which is also important to her present children)).
| Quote: | | If you think that the simple fact that a person has many children means they should be in a mental clinic, you should go check into one yourself, because that's a inhuman and sick idea. |
If this is the sort of culture that you want follow, where you'd die just to please your culture (maternity being important), then yeah, that's pretty stupid. If a woman says that she's ok with dying as long as she can make more and more babies, then indeed she needs therapy.
| handfleisch wrote: | | Wrong, wrong and wrong. Sterilization of so-called undesirables was one of the first things instituted by Hitler. Again this was not done to save her life, and yes they did target the Romany community (as well as the poor and disabled). |
They did now, did they? So the article pinpoints two Romany women who this happened to, doesn't mention anyone else, and labels it genocide. Genocide: "The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity." That's a suitable definition. So, who exactly was systematically killed? Is ZERO a substantial number of killings for this heinous genocide? This genocide that is so utterly twisted that it saved this woman's life? Are you saying that if an American woman, or a British woman, or an African woman, or an Indian woman was lying on that bed they wouldn't perform the same treatment? If they didn't perform the same treatment on another woman with the exact same condition, that woman would die. What a genocide against the Romanys this is, targeting them for survival and, according to you, treating others differently, which in this case, would be letting them die.
| Quote: | | This is just more repetition of your total inaccuracies and hateful opinions. The doctors were not protecting anyone's health, they were doing forced sterilization of undesirables. |
Let's see. I support the doctor's decision to cut off her reproductive capabilities because this way the mother can survive. Clearly this is a hateful opinion I hold against this woman. Wanting her to survive?! How do I sleep at night. |
You are either functionally illiterate or intentionally misrepresenting the article. It clearly states that this was a campaign of sterilization, not two isolated examples, that the doctors were tricking the women into signing the papers by saying the women's lives were in danger when that was not true, and that the sterilizations were not to save lives but as part of a coordinated effort that easily fits the definition of a genocidal activity. I don't know or care what reason you have for supporting this activity, but it is definitely loathsome.
Then instead of hurling pathos at me how about you prove what I'm saying is untrue? Prove to me that they did it out of hate/murderous purposes and not to save her life. Come on, prove it.
| handfleisch wrote: | | Sterilization of so-called undesirables was one of the first things instituted by Hitler. Again this was not done to save her life, and yes they did target the Romany community (as well as the poor and disabled). |
Not only Hitler, sterilization has been used by countries all over the world, including Canada and the United States - Refer article in Wikipedia:
| Quote: | United States
Most sterilization laws could be divided into three main categories of motivations: eugenic (concerned with heredity), therapeutic (part of an even-then obscure medical theory that sterilization would lead to vitality), or punitive (as a punishment for criminals), though of course these motivations could be combined in practice and theory (sterilization of criminals could be both punitive and eugenic, for example). Buck v. Bell asserted only that eugenic sterilization was constitutional, whereas Skinner v. Oklahoma ruled specifically against punitive sterilization. Most operations only worked to prevent reproduction (such as severing the vas deferens in males), though some states (Oregon and North Dakota in particular) had laws which called for the use of castration. In general, most sterilizations were performed under eugenic statutes, in state-run psychiatric hospitals and homes for the mentally disabled. There was never a federal sterilization statute, though eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, whose state-level "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" was the basis of the statute affirmed in Buck v. Bell, proposed the structure of one in 1922.
After World War II, public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany, though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981. Other forcible sterilizations in Oregon, operating outside of Eugenics law, still continue to this date. The U.S. commonwealth Puerto Rico had a sterilization program as well. Some states continued to have sterilization laws on the books for much longer after that, though they were rarely if ever used. California sterilized more than any other state by a wide margin, and was responsible for over a third of all sterilization operations. Information about the California sterilization program was produced into book form and widely disseminated by eugenicists E.S. Gosney and Paul B. Popenoe, which was said by the government of Adolf Hitler to be of key importance in proving that large-scale compulsory sterilization programs were feasible. In recent years, the governors of many states have made public apologies for their past programs beginning with Virginia and followed by Oregon and California. None have offered to compensate those sterilized, however, citing that few are likely still living (and would of course have no affected offspring) and that inadequate records remain by which to verify them. At least one compensation case, Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital (1981), was filed in the courts on the grounds that the sterilization law was unconstitutional. It was rejected because the law was no longer in effect at the time of the filing. However, the petitioners were granted some compensation as the stipulations of the law itself, which required informing the patients about their operations, had not been carried out in many cases.
The 27 states where sterilization laws remained on the books (though not all were still in use) in 1956 were: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
|
Other countries include the Czech Republic, India, China, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Australia, and more.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Then instead of hurling pathos at me how about you prove what I'm saying is untrue? Prove to me that they did it out of hate/murderous purposes and not to save her life. Come on, prove it. |
The article shows over and over that what you are saying is untrue, as I noted above. The gov't itself has admitted the practice and expressed regret, admitted it was forced on women for population control of the racial minority. From the article:
| Quote: | | (The government ombudsman) explains that when the Czech Republic was a communist state, the practice he describes as “population control” manifested in social workers coercing Roma to undergo sterilization. At times, they would threaten to take away the women’s children unless the women consented to the procedure. |
Another day, another totally false right wing smear against the Obama administration. From Glenn Beck, no less.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
| Quote: |
But with regard to Beck's claim that Holdren "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population," the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions.
Some have argued that Holdren's view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given Holdren's current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. That's a matter for reasoned debate.
But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren's positions. Holdren didn't advocate those ideas then. And, when asked at a Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he did not support them now. We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context to dismiss Holdren's long and distinguished career. And we rate Beck's claim Pants on Fire! |
| handfleisch wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Now, if only they could do this to everybody, we could solve a lot of the world's problems. (By partially alleviating overpopulation) |
Yup. Prevention is better than cure. And in this case, cure is killing. |
If only your parents had volunteered |
Well, actually, my parents did volunteer.
My mom was voluntarily sterilized after her second C-section.
Later on, she adopted another child instead of having her own.
| deanhills wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | Sterilization of so-called undesirables was one of the first things instituted by Hitler. Again this was not done to save her life, and yes they did target the Romany community (as well as the poor and disabled). |
Not only Hitler, sterilization has been used by countries all over the world, including Canada and the United States - Refer article in Wikipedia:
| Quote: | United States
Most sterilization laws could be divided into three main categories of motivations: eugenic (concerned with heredity), therapeutic (part of an even-then obscure medical theory that sterilization would lead to vitality), or punitive (as a punishment for criminals), though of course these motivations could be combined in practice and theory (sterilization of criminals could be both punitive and eugenic, for example). Buck v. Bell asserted only that eugenic sterilization was constitutional, whereas Skinner v. Oklahoma ruled specifically against punitive sterilization. Most operations only worked to prevent reproduction (such as severing the vas deferens in males), though some states (Oregon and North Dakota in particular) had laws which called for the use of castration. In general, most sterilizations were performed under eugenic statutes, in state-run psychiatric hospitals and homes for the mentally disabled. There was never a federal sterilization statute, though eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, whose state-level "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" was the basis of the statute affirmed in Buck v. Bell, proposed the structure of one in 1922.
After World War II, public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany, though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981. Other forcible sterilizations in Oregon, operating outside of Eugenics law, still continue to this date. The U.S. commonwealth Puerto Rico had a sterilization program as well. Some states continued to have sterilization laws on the books for much longer after that, though they were rarely if ever used. California sterilized more than any other state by a wide margin, and was responsible for over a third of all sterilization operations. Information about the California sterilization program was produced into book form and widely disseminated by eugenicists E.S. Gosney and Paul B. Popenoe, which was said by the government of Adolf Hitler to be of key importance in proving that large-scale compulsory sterilization programs were feasible. In recent years, the governors of many states have made public apologies for their past programs beginning with Virginia and followed by Oregon and California. None have offered to compensate those sterilized, however, citing that few are likely still living (and would of course have no affected offspring) and that inadequate records remain by which to verify them. At least one compensation case, Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital (1981), was filed in the courts on the grounds that the sterilization law was unconstitutional. It was rejected because the law was no longer in effect at the time of the filing. However, the petitioners were granted some compensation as the stipulations of the law itself, which required informing the patients about their operations, had not been carried out in many cases.
The 27 states where sterilization laws remained on the books (though not all were still in use) in 1956 were: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
|
Other countries include the Czech Republic, India, China, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Australia, and more. |
But this talks about up to 1956 right?! Not today? Correct me someone if I'm wrong.
| LimpFish wrote: | | But this talks about up to 1956 right?! Not today? Correct me someone if I'm wrong. |
If you look at the quote from Wikipedia, it would seem that the last forcible sterilization was 1981 in Oregon and that others outside Eugenics law may still be continuing to this day:
| Quote: | | The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981. Other forcible sterilizations in Oregon, operating outside of Eugenics law, still continue to this date. |
Wikipedia
| deanhills wrote: | | LimpFish wrote: | | But this talks about up to 1956 right?! Not today? Correct me someone if I'm wrong. |
If you look at the quote from Wikipedia, it would seem that the last forcible sterilization was 1981 in Oregon and that others outside Eugenics law may still be continuing to this day:
| Quote: | | The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981. Other forcible sterilizations in Oregon, operating outside of Eugenics law, still continue to this date. |
Wikipedia |
I know that in Sweden something similar was practiced until the 60s or 70s, but is not anymore, as far as I know at least.
| Quote: | | Another day, another totally false right wing smear against the Obama administration. From Glenn Beck, no less |
More lies from the left to cover up the truth.
Quotes from Ecoscience that Holdren co-wrote:
| Quote: | | 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. |
| Quote: | | One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption — especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. … 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. |
| Quote: | | The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. |
| Quote: | | 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. |
| Quote: | | 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? |
| Quote: | Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime — sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable…
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. |
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/13/obamas-science-czar-john-holdren-considered-putting-sterilants-in-our-drinking-water/
There is no doubt that Holdren has formulated several plans for coerced and involuntary sterilizations. The truth is undeniable on this. Framing Beck as a boogy-man just shows an epic failure of the left so they have to throw in distractions.
No, I think there is plenty of doubt that Holden has formulated ANY plans. The book seems to me to be a consideration of overpopulation and Holden is merely doing what scientists do - examining several hypotheses to see if they are possible and what the likely result would be.
I think he is wrong, mind, in his basic starting assumptions, but examining options, however illiberal and downright offensive might consider them, is a part of any 'planner' role.
The scientist who works out the radiation dosage after a possible nuclear strike isn't hoping that it will happen. Holden is, I think, simply saying that in such and such a circumstance (continued population growth) then what possibilities would we have? Do you seriously think he is advocating what he explores?
I actually think he is wrong to assume that population will grow as per his assumptions. In fact we can now, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, say he was a long way out in his predictions.
| jwellsy wrote: | | Quote: | | Another day, another totally false right wing smear against the Obama administration. From Glenn Beck, no less |
More lies from the left to cover up the truth.
Quotes from Ecoscience that Holdren co-wrote: |
That's funny. When told that the quotes were taken out of context, you reply with the quotes out of context and say they prove your point.
Also funny is that in reply to a non-partisan fact-checking organization that has shown the charge to be a complete lying smear, you quote activist websites ("Stop the ACLU!") and partisan news sources (Washington Examiner?) for your proof.
| handfleisch wrote: | | jwellsy wrote: | | Quote: | | Another day, another totally false right wing smear against the Obama administration. From Glenn Beck, no less |
More lies from the left to cover up the truth.
Quotes from Ecoscience that Holdren co-wrote: |
That's funny. When told that the quotes were taken out of context, you reply with the quotes out of context and say they prove your point.
Also funny is that in reply to a non-partisan fact-checking organization that has shown the charge to be a complete lying smear, you quote activist websites ("Stop the ACLU!") and partisan news sources (Washington Examiner?) for your proof. |
And sadly, we end up with all parties more concerned about quotes and sources than the actual issues at hand. 
| ocalhoun wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | jwellsy wrote: | | Quote: | | Another day, another totally false right wing smear against the Obama administration. From Glenn Beck, no less |
More lies from the left to cover up the truth.
Quotes from Ecoscience that Holdren co-wrote: |
That's funny. When told that the quotes were taken out of context, you reply with the quotes out of context and say they prove your point.
Also funny is that in reply to a non-partisan fact-checking organization that has shown the charge to be a complete lying smear, you quote activist websites ("Stop the ACLU!") and partisan news sources (Washington Examiner?) for your proof. |
And sadly, we end up with all parties more concerned about quotes and sources than the actual issues at hand. |
Are you joking? Forced sterilization is precisely the issue at hand, and people making vicious smears about the same against top US officials is quite on the topic too, as it refutation of those charges by showing bogus sources of proof.
It happens everywhere
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10202429.stm
| Quote: | Namibia HIV women sue over forced sterilisation
Three women in Namibia are suing the state for allegedly being sterilised without their informed consent after being diagnosed as HIV positive.
The women say the doctors and nurses should have informed them properly about what was happening.
The rights group representing them, the Legal Assistance Centre, says it has documented 15 cases of alleged HIV sterilisation in hospitals since 2008.
A march in their support is taking place in Windhoek as the case begins. |
| handfleisch wrote: | It happens everywhere
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10202429.stm
| Quote: | Namibia HIV women sue over forced sterilisation
Three women in Namibia are suing the state for allegedly being sterilised without their informed consent after being diagnosed as HIV positive.
The women say the doctors and nurses should have informed them properly about what was happening.
The rights group representing them, the Legal Assistance Centre, says it has documented 15 cases of alleged HIV sterilisation in hospitals since 2008.
A march in their support is taking place in Windhoek as the case begins. |
|
Well I'm almost 100% certain that there must have been consent. The procedure is an expensive one, would have been free, so the hospital would have ensured they had consent to cover themselves. So what must be at issue here is the type of consent, i.e. "fully informed", and that is always debatable and has to be difficult to prove. If someone should go to them and promise them a reward of X dollars if they should dispute "informed" consent, then perhaps they would do that. People in Namibia in general are very poor, and they have to look after large families, and they will do anything in order to get money. I don't blame them for that. Probably better for the Government then not to have any kind of sterilization programme at all.
|
