It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bushes morals for the world/US Draws Jeers for Abortion Comments at UN

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
It appears to me as if the US is simply stating its position on the matter. If anything, its sounds like the rest of the world is trying to ram its pro-choice agenda down the US's throat than the other way around.


I havent seen any delegates come here to tell us what to do. Its the other way around. .




posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by Reaganwasourgreatest
Do my eyes deceive me? Is there really a conservative moderator?



Seekerof is so far right even the Neocons fear him






ROFLMAO


Great post Kidfinger.

...I find it difficult to believe that anyone might use abortion as birth control - IMO, it's usually some kind of "emergency" intervention. ...and not only is it necessary, but it's not anyone's business what any individual chooses to do with their own body and life.

Clean up the world's poverty, disease, disease-causing pollution, violence and injustice - then maybe we can talk about abortion, IF it's still a "problem."


.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   


Voicing an opinion is one thing, but the administration is attempting to make the world behave as Bush feels is right. That constitutes as a lot more than just an opinion. Why is it OK for us to tell everyone how they should act when we cant agree on how we should all act in the first place?



So you equate




U.S. delegate Ellen Sauerbrey spoke at a global womens conference about abortion and ethics.


A US delegate speaking at a conference and voicing the administrations opinion with forcing values and morals.

Especially after...




After withdrawing an unpopular anti-abortion amendment from a key U.N. document, the United States joined in approving the declaration that reaffirmed a 150-page platform agreed 10 years ago at a landmark U.N. women's conference in Beijing.


They withdraw the amendment.



So in essence you equate voicing an opinion with forcing morals and values.
I could see if they threatend santions and invasion if the amendment wasn't adopted you might be able to come to that conclusiuon but since the amendment was withdrawn there is no forcing involved.



[edit on 5/3/05 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by vor78
It appears to me as if the US is simply stating its position on the matter. If anything, its sounds like the rest of the world is trying to ram its pro-choice agenda down the US's throat than the other way around.


I havent seen any delegates come here to tell us what to do. Its the other way around. .


To my knowledge, this was a UN conference. Everyone sent was a delegate of a particular country, each delivering their own country's opinion as to how to solve a variety of problems.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by vor78

How can the US possibly force the rest of the world to accept its moral values through this act in the UN?



I already answered that. See post number 1218417.


And I've yet to see where anyone is literally forcing them to enact the US proposal. The fact is, they do not have to. The US position is nothing more than an opinion, a suggestion, a proposal, that no one has to enact against their will and that the US cannot impose without the support of others in the UN. As it stands, the US isn't doing ANYTHING out of bounds that I can see and is acting well within its rights as a UN member.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by vor78]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   


...I find it difficult to believe that anyone might use abortion as birth control - IMO, it's usually some kind of "emergency" intervention


It is? how many abortions are done in emergency rooms or hospitals where people tend to go in an emergency. Roughly what percentage is actually performed because of an emergency.

Unless you equate impending stretchmarks an emergency.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Perhaps if so many womens bodies are so fragile that being pregnant and having a child is such a health risk, perhaps we should remove the uterus or ovaries while performing an abortion. I mean if all these women are have such serious complication with pregnancy maybe we should help them out and try to prevent future emergencies. After all the uterus and ovaries are just clumps of tissue.

[edit on 5/3/05 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



...I find it difficult to believe that anyone might use abortion as birth control - IMO, it's usually some kind of "emergency" intervention


It is? how many abortions are done in emergency rooms or hospitals where people tend to go in an emergency. Roughly what percentage is actually performed because of an emergency.

Unless you equate impending stretchmarks an emergency.




No. Abortion-related "emergencies" include rape, sexual abuse, failed birth control, exposure to genotoxic contaminants and like that...



.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   


No. Abortion-related "emergencies" include rape, sexual abuse, failed birth control, exposure to genotoxic contaminants and like that...



As much as I despise abortion. I could possibly grudgingly be able to come to terms with points 1 and 2. Point 3 failed birth control or lack of use of birth control is where I start to feel that it gets to be wrong. I wouldn't consider that an emergency.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
Perhaps if so many womens bodies are so fragile that being pregnant and having a child is such a health risk, perhaps we should remove the uterus or ovaries while performing an abortion. I mean if all these women are have such serious complication with pregnancy maybe we should help them out and try to prevent future emergencies. After all the uterus and ovaries are just clumps of tissue.

[edit on 5/3/05 by Skibum]
They're just there for pretty? I got news for you. Do you know about hormones? You should find out all about hormone levels and what these so called clumps of nothings do to a woman if removed.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   


They're just there for pretty? I got news for you. Do you know about hormones? You should find out all about hormone levels and what these so called clumps of nothings do to a woman if removed.


Right , but it will also keep all those emergency pregancies where the lives are at risk from happening.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by Skibum
Perhaps if so many womens bodies are so fragile that being pregnant and having a child is such a health risk, perhaps we should remove the uterus or ovaries while performing an abortion. I mean if all these women are have such serious complication with pregnancy maybe we should help them out and try to prevent future emergencies. After all the uterus and ovaries are just clumps of tissue.

[edit on 5/3/05 by Skibum]


They're just there for pretty? I got news for you. Do you know about hormones? You should find out all about hormone levels and what these so called clumps of nothings do to a woman if removed.




Hmmm. dgtempe, I'd take that as a serious threat. Do you know there is a real trend to sterilize women accused of certain crimes in the USA?

These guys don't stop at NOTHIN! ...Be prepared.



.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   


Hmmm. dgtempe, I'd take that as a serious threat. Do you know there is a real trend to sterilize women accused of certain crimes in the USA?


I would consider it no different than cardiac bypass surgery.

If I had a heart attack and needed bypass surgery to keep it from happening again, good thing.

If a woman has several "emergencies" as you like to call them, Wouldn't it be better to keep those "emergencies" from happening more in the future?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



Hmmm. dgtempe, I'd take that as a serious threat. Do you know there is a real trend to sterilize women accused of certain crimes in the USA?


I would consider it no different than cardiac bypass surgery.

If I had a heart attack and needed bypass surgery to keep it from happening again, good thing.

If a woman has several "emergencies" as you like to call them, Wouldn't it be better to keep those "emergencies" from happening more in the future?





...Would you also support forced sterilization for reasons of "genetic inferiority," like if a woman had health problems considered to be genetic?



.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   


...Would you also support forced sterilization for reasons of "genetic inferiority," like if a woman had health problems considered to be genetic?


No.

I don't even consider my previous statements to be very viable either.
Was just thinking out loud. However I do not consider the majority of abortions performed to be an "emergency". Pregnancy in most cases is a consequence to someones actions not an emergency.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



...Would you also support forced sterilization for reasons of "genetic inferiority," like if a woman had health problems considered to be genetic?


No.

I don't even consider my previous statements to be very viable either.





Glad to hear it.






However I do not consider the majority of abortions performed to be an "emergency". Pregnancy in most cases is a consequence to someones actions not an emergency.




Important question: Whose actions? ...Not always the woman's or girl's. Life is complicated and we can't always know the true circumstances behind the "event." ...Blanket judgments and one-size-fits-all solutions just don't work.



.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
It may surprise a lot of people here, including my good friend Kidfinger, but I do think the U.S. has every right to state its position on abortion. However, that's all it is and must be - stating its position. And other countries who disagree with it are quite entitled to boo it. That's part of normal business at the UN.

What the U.S. would have no right to do is to go beyond stating its position and try to coerce other countries into adopting it. I wouldn't even be surprised if the current administration tried to do just that.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
The loudest catcalls, unusual at the world body, came when she articulated U.S. policy on AIDS prevention for adolescents: "We emphasize the value of the ABC -- abstinence, be faithful, and correct and consistent condom use where appropriate -- approach in comprehensive strategies to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS and the promotion of abstinence as the healthiest and most responsible choice for adolescents."

This being said, if you research all of the above topics you will find that the USA is waaaay on the bottom of all these so called ABC's. No wonder the world boos and laughs. Give me a break. I say wait a few years, see what happens before you go tooting your own horn, and pretending our morality is so above.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   


Important question: Whose actions? ...Not always the woman's or girl's. Life is complicated and we can't always know the true circumstances behind the "event." ...Blanket judgments and one-size-fits-all solutions just don't work.


Not always. But in the majority of cases are not rape and incest. Most of them are oops I got pregant because I had sex. Plain and simple.
Sure they may have used protection but no protection is 100 percent effective. I don't feel that having an abortion because a woman doesn't want to deal with the consequences of their actions is justifiable.

Before you go off on how abortion is a choice and whatnot, The first choice in the majority of cases is the choice to have sex. I'm not saying don't have sex, but be prepared for the consequences that come with it. When you decide to have sex you open yourself up to alot more consequences than just pregnancy.Unfortunately since there is such an easy out, IE killing the consequence, to pregnancy many people give this consequence little thought until it happens.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
The loudest catcalls, unusual at the world body, came when she articulated U.S. policy on AIDS prevention for adolescents: "We emphasize the value of the ABC -- abstinence, be faithful, and correct and consistent condom use where appropriate -- approach in comprehensive strategies to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS and the promotion of abstinence as the healthiest and most responsible choice for adolescents."

This being said, if you research all of the above topics you will find that the USA is waaaay on the bottom of all these so called ABC's. No wonder the world boos and laughs. Give me a break. I say wait a few years, see what happens before you go tooting your own horn, and pretending our morality is so above.


So because it is the administrations opinion that Abstaining from sex or being faithful to one person and using a condom where needed is the best way to prevent HIV/AIDS and the population as you say seems to disregard this opinion it is Bushs fault.

I equate your statement to if Bush were to say playing russian roulette is dangerous and should be avoided at all costs, then just because the morons in the country decide that russian roulette is a fun game , that somehow Bush is to blame.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join