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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   


Could you reword this as it makes no sense?


From what I read, the amendment proposed has to do with allowing an individual country decide how to deal with abortion rights, instead of making it a basic human right.

From your link.




Sauerbrey said the United States was dropping its demand that the document be amended to say that abortion is a matter of national sovereignty and not a human right delineated by the 1995 conference in Beijing.


In essence I see that instead of making abortion a human right, we wanted to allow different countries to decide the issue themselves.
Lots of forcing morals there. Seems like the U.S. was trying to avoid having others dictate what morals the world should live by in this case.





Look, what I take as the global forced binging of American values is explained in the process that the UN uses to influence the other countries. The US uses the UN for this and I just presented one of many examples. Try Metacrawler. Its a good search engine.



I see you claiming that the U.S. is forcing morals and you try to give a lame example where if you really read the text it appears the U.S. is not forcing anything but trying to allow individual countries to decide.

Somehow you think it is wrong to state facts at a conference set up to discuss the AIDS epidemic. Why hold a conference where noone voices their opinion? What do you expect them to say, "The best way to prevent AIDS is to continue shagging your brains out, with everyone you meet,while not wearing a condom, but don't worry we will keep throwing money so you can keep having your little orgy"




I can only show you the double standards of the administration.


What double standard would that be, I don't recall you pointing any out.
I still don't see any forcing of anything and you fail to show examples in this case , that would explain why I keep asking the same question. Where do you see forcing of anything here? Ooooh the dreaded U.S. forced their morals on the world by stating facts at a conference. Ooooh the evil Bush administration is forcing the world to decide that abortion rights is up to the individual country. I don't exactly see any forcing especially after that fact that the amendment was withdrawn. Wow shows how much force was being applied. You would think by listening to you we are threatining nuclear war if the amendment wasn't adopted.


[edit on 6/3/05 by Skibum]




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Thats some moral high ground Little boots stands on...sure didn't mind aborting all those civillians in Afghanastan and Iraq. IMHO his believers just swallow anything he says without question. If he says he's a man of morals...hot dang..he must be a man of morals...cuz he said he was so he must be. Didn't show much mercy when he was the Texascutioner....one thing he is good at, and thats promoting the great leap backwards....



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum


From what I read, the amendment proposed has to do with allowing an individual country decide how to deal with abortion rights, instead of making it a basic human right.

From your link.




Sauerbrey said the United States was dropping its demand that the document be amended to say that abortion is a matter of national sovereignty and not a human right delineated by the 1995 conference in Beijing.


In essence I see that instead of making abortion a human right, we wanted to allow different countries to decide the issue themselves.
Lots of forcing morals there. Seems like the U.S. was trying to avoid having others dictate what morals the world should live by in this case.


You failed to fully read the part of the article you quoted. I put the part you failed to see in bold in the above quote. Do you see that? It says America droped its DEMAND. The key word there is demand. It was there, but the nations would not accept it. The Bush administration was forced to with draw it. It doesnt change the fact that the Bush administration is pushing their ethics on other countries. The other countries are basically just telling bush to go eat a carrot and keep his nose oput of their business.





I see you claiming that the U.S. is forcing morals and you try to give a lame example where if you really read the text it appears the U.S. is not forcing anything but trying to allow individual countries to decide.


It was lame if you didnt read the part I put in bold. It was really lame if you just read the part that YOU put in bold. Agian, you are failing to see everything going on here and you are just seeing in the information what pleases you.




Somehow you think it is wrong to state facts at a conference set up to discuss the AIDS epidemic. Why hold a conference where noone voices their opinion? What do you expect them to say, "The best way to prevent AIDS is to continue shagging your brains out, with everyone you meet,while not wearing a condom, but don't worry we will keep throwing money so you can keep having your little orgy"


I already adressed the money aspect. Why are you repeating the earlier question in the form of a statement? As for stating the facts, yes, that is what happened after the other nations snubbed the US delagate and the Bush administration was forced to change their stance. They stated the facts in order to attempt to influence them through a passive means instead of the agressive head on approach that failed miserably.



What double standard would that be, I don't recall you pointing any out.


Man, I have pointed out more than once on this hread that the citizens of the United States cant even agree on moral standards and ethics. So one of the obvious dbl standards would be his do as I say, not as I do mentality with his global policy. Right there in plain sight but you seem not to want to believe it.




I still don't see any forcing of anything and you fail to show examples in this case , that would explain why I keep asking the same question.


Agian, I cant help you if your not willing to grasp every aspect of the situation, instead of just the part that makes the Bush administation seem like good ole boy Johnny Reb. It is the narrow sightedness that is preventing you from reading everything that was said.




Where do you see forcing of anything here?


Ive answered this for you enough already. Im not doing it agian. Go back and read please.



Ooooh the dreaded U.S. forced their morals on the world by stating facts at a conference. Ooooh the evil Bush administration is forcing the world to decide that abortion rights is up to the individual country.


Nice, so now we are third graders on the playground?





I don't exactly see any forcing especially after that fact that the amendment was withdrawn. Wow shows how much force was being applied. You would think by listening to you we are threatining nuclear war if the amendment wasn't adopted.


How many times can you say the same thing over and over in the same reply? Here we go agian



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
So to sum up, You think the U.S. is forcing ethics and morals on other countries by trying to allow a country to decide what ethics and morals to go by? Makes alot of sense



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
So to sum up, You think the U.S. is forcing ethics and morals on other countries by trying to allow a country to decide what ethics and morals to go by? Makes alot of sense


No, you shouldnt assume.


To sum it up, I think the Bush administration has no right to attempt to push their ethic agenda on any other soveregn nation. See if you can understand this without twisting my words.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   


Man, I have pointed out more than once on this hread that the citizens of the United States cant even agree on moral standards and ethics. So one of the obvious dbl standards would be his do as I say, not as I do mentality with his global policy. Right there in plain sight but you seem not to want to believe it.


can you name one country anywhere where all people agree on morals and ethics? Of course not.

When did forcing sovereign countries to accept abortion as a fundamental human right (as it is without the amendment) become not forcing morals and ethics upon someone else?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum


can you name one country anywhere where all people agree on morals and ethics? Of course not.



Of cours not. You just defeated your whole argument with that statement as well. This in itself doesnt give us, or anyone else for that matter, the right to impose one nations ehtics on another. How can anyone impose ethics on another if we cant even agree as to what they all might be? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.



When did forcing sovereign countries to accept abortion as a fundamental human right (as it is without the amendment) become not forcing morals and ethics upon someone else?


Forcing a soverign country to accept abortion as a fundamental right has never 'not' become forcing morals and ethics upon someone else. In fact, it IS forcing morals and ethics upon someone else.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   


To sum it up, I think the Bush administration has no right to attempt to push their ethic agenda on any other soveregn nation. See if you can understand this without twisting my words.


I understand you perfectly.

1. You think the Bush administration has no right to attempt to push their ethic agenda on any other soveregn nation.

2. The amendment proposed would allow countries to decide for themselves what abortion rights should be instead of forcing them to accept something they may not agree with.

3. You feel that by this amendment, that would allow countries to decide their own morals and ethics instead of being forced to accept rights they may or may not believe in, Bush is actually telling them what to do.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   


Forcing a soverign country to accept abortion as a fundamental right has never 'not' become forcing morals and ethics upon someone else. In fact, it IS forcing morals and ethics upon someone else.


So, if forcing a country to accept abortion as a fundamental right is forcing morals and ethics.

Where is Bush wrong by proposing amendment to allow a country to decide for themselves what those rights should be?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum


I understand you perfectly.


We'll see.......



1. You think the Bush administration has no right to attempt to push their ethic agenda on any other soveregn nation.



BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!



2. The amendment proposed would allow countries to decide for themselves what abortion rights should be instead of forcing them to accept something they may not agree with.


And then you had to say this. The part agian that you are not getting is that the ammendment HAD to be CHANGED because no nation would accept it. It dosnt cahnge the fact that the Bush administartion is attempting to push their ethics on the world, it just means the world didnt buy it.

And you were doing so well.



3. You feel that by this amendment, that would allow countries to decide their own morals and ethics instead of being forced to accept rights they may or may not believe in, Bush is actually telling them what to do.


I believe that Bush TRIED to tell them what to do. You cant seem to grasp that.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Seem to me that your biggest problem with this is that Bush is trying to force other countries to allow other countries to decide for themselves what ethics and morals they should go by.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum


So, if forcing a country to accept abortion as a fundamental right is forcing morals and ethics.

Where is Bush wrong by proposing amendment to allow a country to decide for themselves what those rights should be?


Is there an echo in here? A parrot maybe? I keep hearing the same thing over and over and over. Are you sure you are not a broken record?

He had to CHANGE the ammendment because the rest of the nations wanted to think for themselves. Please quite asking the same things over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over. Im tired of typing the same answers over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
Seem to me that your biggest problem with this is that Bush is trying to force other countries to allow other countries to decide for themselves what ethics and morals they should go by.


over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over.

That is your opinion of my views and thats fine. If after all I have pointed out that you refuse to see, you still believe this, well, ooooook.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   


He had to CHANGE the ammendment because the rest of the nations wanted to think for themselves.


This is what gets me.

So he had to change his amendment to allow a country to think for themselves, so that the rest of the nations could think for themselves and force abortion to be accepted as a human right.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



This is what gets me.

So he had to change his amendment to allow a country to think for themselves, so that the rest of the nations could think for themselves and force abortion to be accepted as a human right.


That is NOT what THIS means, which is what I originally posted.



He had to CHANGE the ammendment because the rest of the nations wanted to think for themselves.


The other nations want to rule themselves. They want to think for themselves. They want to keep their identity. AND, they want to make their own mistakes. I know this because everybody in this country thinks the same thing. The other nations did NOT want the Bush adminstration to tell them how to think. God I am so tired of repeating myself. Please ask another question, or point out something else because these same two questions are getting old. Over and over and over and........................

[edit on 3/6/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Upon further review, this story you bring is completely bogus. The USA was only trying to put an amendment in the Women's Beijing Declaration that there is no international right to an abortion. From the way I look at it, they are not saying that countries should not allow abortions, but that there should not be some international law that says that every country should allow abortions for women's rights. Read the story with a little less bias next time.

I repeat. The USA is asking for something not to be put in there. Get it? This leaves the countries to decide for themselves, not for each country to say, oh yeah, the Beijing Declaration says that we must give women the right to choose abortion.

One more thing, come back with something a little better next time. No, I'm not a Bush supporter, just someone who reads into all things.

[edit on 6-3-2005 by steggyD]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I keep asking the same question because your answer is illogical and self defeating.

You argue that forcing morals and ethics on a country is wrong.


You agree that forcing a country to accept abortion as a human right is wrong.



Forcing a soverign country to accept abortion as a fundamental right has never 'not' become forcing morals and ethics upon someone else. In fact, it IS forcing morals and ethics upon someone else.


Bushs amendment would have allowed any country to decide what its own morals and ethics are pertaining to abortion.

The only answer I can seem to get from you is that Bush is forcing morals and ethics on other countries.

So if it is wrong to force other countries to accept abortion as a human right, then Bushs proposed amendment, to allow a country to decide for themselves what those rights are, instead of making abortion an international human right which forces countries to accept someone elses morals and ethics ,would be right.

If you are arguing that a country should be able to decide what to do for itself and Bushs amendment would allow a country to decide what they can do for themselves instead of being forced to accept abortion as a human right ,where is he wrong?

He is not forcing anyone to do anything other than to allow themselves to decide what abortion rights are or are not in their own country instead of forcing them to accept abortion as a human right.

How is trying to allow a country to decide what morals and ethics they go by, forcing morals and ethics upon that country?




The other nations want to rule themselves. They want to think for themselves. They want to keep their identity.

So doesn't allowing countries to make their own decisions in regards to abortion rights do just that? How does Bushs proposed amendment to allow a country to rule themselves, violate anyones right to rule themselves?









[edit on 6/3/05 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
NVM, I completely posted in the wrong topic, I clicked the wrong link. What an idiot.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by James the Lesser]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by steggyD
Upon further review, this story you bring is completely bogus.


Not true. Everything I have stated has happened. Go back and read the article agian.



The USA was only trying to put an amendment in the Women's Beijing Declaration that there is no international right to an abortion. From the way I look at it, they are not saying that countries should not allow abortions, but that there should not be some international law that says that every country should allow abortions for women's rights.


Yes, you would read it that way if you completly ignored the part about the Bush administration having to change the ammendment because no other country would accept the US dictating to them morals and ethics. You seem to forget that.




Read the story with a little less bias next time.


The same could be said for you. Read the WHOLE story next time. Not just the part that makes you feel good.



I repeat. The USA is asking for something not to be put in there. Get it? This leaves the countries to decide for themselves, not for each country to say, oh yeah, the Beijing Declaration says that we must give women the right to choose abortion.


I repeat, the Bush administration was forced to change the ammendment because no other country would accept the US dictating to them morals and ethics.

Get it?



One more thing, come back with something a little better next time. No, I'm not a Bush supporter, just someone who reads into all things.


So now you are trying to bait me with a grade schooler mentality?


Oh, and you obviously DID NOT read everything, as I have pointed out.



Originally posted by Skibum
I keep asking the same question because your answer is illogical and self defeating.


My answer is only illogical and self defeating if you pretend that the Bush administration did not have to CHANGE the amendment which you seem to keep doing. You wont even acknowledge that it happenned.




You argue that forcing morals and ethics on a country is wrong.


Oh, is it obvious?
Of course I am saying that! That is the whole purpose of this thread.



You agree that forcing a country to accept abortion as a human right is wrong.


No. Dont out words in my mouth. I agree that it is wrong to force another country to accept US morals. What those morals are makes no difference. It is the principle, not the content. Why cant you understand that? And please stop assuming you can speak for me. Every time you have, you have been wrong and twisted my words to fit your argument. Kind of like you are doing to this news article.





Bushs amendment would have allowed any country to decide what its own morals and ethics are pertaining to abortion.


My God man. This is the last time I will adress your post if you cant quit asking the same damn question over and over and over and over. The ammendment HAD TO BE CHANGED! PLEASE! Ask another question or debate another point.



The only answer I can seem to get from you is that Bush is forcing morals and ethics on other countries.


And all I get from you is denial with a fair amount of my words being twisted by you to suit your purpose.



So if it is wrong to force other countries to accept abortion as a human right, then Bushs proposed amendment, to allow a country to decide for themselves what those rights are, instead of making abortion an international human right which forces countries to accept someone elses morals and ethics ,would be right.


Agian, the Bush administration attempted to push their ethic agenda on other nations with the original amendment. But because of international outcry, the administration was forced to rethink its stance and give in to the other nations. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION STILL ATTEMPTED TO PUSH THEIR MORAL ETHICS ON OTHER COUNTRIES! No change in an amendment will ever make that just dissipear as you hope it will.



If you are arguing that a country should be able to decide what to do for itself and Bushs amendment would allow a country to decide what they can do for themselves instead of being forced to accept abortion as a human right ,where is he wrong?



Hey broken record, I have answered this a hundred times for you. Im not doing it agian. Go back and read the last 50 times you made this statement.


As for the rest of your reply, it was saying the same things over and over and over and over. And I have to give you the same answers over and over and over. I will not attempt to explain this to you anymore. If you cant come up with something else, then please dont reply to my thread anymore. This includes rehashes of the same two questions you keep asking, or the same two statements you keep making. Come up with something else please.

[edit on 3/7/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I still dont understand how people can equate the wholsale slaughter of human beings and morality.
What part of murdering our own children is Moral?
Whether they are n the foetal development stage or 3 years old, how can the murder of an innocent child be considered right, good, or something to celebrate?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join