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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
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?


You may not realize this, but I am no proponent of abortion. However, Abortion is not the issue here. As I said earlier, it is the principle of the situation that I have the problem with. Not the content.




posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
So tell me kidfinger, dont you feel that by trying to make abortion an "internatonal human right" the UN is just as guilty of trying to force its own morality on others as you claim the US is?
Or is it only wrong when the US does it?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
So tell me kidfinger, dont you feel that by trying to make abortion an "internatonal human right" the UN is just as guilty of trying to force its own morality on others as you claim the US is?
Or is it only wrong when the US does it?


No. Abortion has nothing to do with it. I feel that the Bush administration was attempting to use the ammendment to force their moral standards on the world. It is the principle, not the content.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Maybe it is non of our business how other countries
apply their own moral ethics and standards.................

When it's OUR tax money that supports the U.N.,
and it's OUR tax money that goes overseas to
kill unborn children, it darn sure IS our business.
If those countries don't share our views, then we
have every right on the planet not to financially
support them. We have a right to spend our
money as we see fit and we have a right to say
why we don't support them.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
My point is Kid, whether you agree with abortion or not, you feel that by trying to put in this ammendment the US was attempting to foist its morals on others correct?
My queston is by attempting to make aborton a "international human right" wasn't the UN doing the exact same thing, only on the oposite side?
Wasnt it an attempt to use the UN to force other countries to accept its stance on the morality of abortion?
The only difference is that the US an UN were attempting to advance different morals, however both IMO were attempting to advance ther morals.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
When it's OUR tax money that supports the U.N.,
and it's OUR tax money that goes overseas to
kill unborn children, it darn sure IS our business.
If those countries don't share our views, then we
have every right on the planet not to financially
support them. We have a right to spend our
money as we see fit and we have a right to say
why we don't support them.


*sigh* why do I have to show these pages to every right wing American out there?? please take a few moments to have a look

THE UNITED NATIONS -- MYTH AND REALITY AMERICAN SUPPORT

THE UNITED NATIONS -- MYTH AND REALITY UN BUDGET AND BUREAUCRACY

and the UN headquarters in NY is international territory


thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 7-3-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

When it's OUR tax money that supports the U.N.,
and it's OUR tax money that goes overseas to
kill unborn children, it darn sure IS our business.
If those countries don't share our views, then we
have every right on the planet not to financially
support them. We have a right to spend our
money as we see fit and we have a right to say
why we don't support them.



WE dont have the right to tell them how to behave. I already addressed the money issue earlier. Do you people not read? DO you just jump to the last page of the thread and post based on what you see there?




Originally posted by mwm1331
My point is Kid, whether you agree with abortion or not, you feel that by trying to put in this ammendment the US was attempting to foist its morals on others correct?


Yep.



My queston is by attempting to make aborton a "international human right" wasn't the UN doing the exact same thing, only on the oposite side?
Wasnt it an attempt to use the UN to force other countries to accept its stance on the morality of abortion?


My post is not about the UN. It is about the US. If you want to start another thread on the UN's role in this, feel free. Otherwise, I ask you to please stay on topic. We are discussing the United States , not the UN, or any other country for that matter.



The only difference is that the US an UN were attempting to advance different morals, however both IMO were attempting to advance ther morals.



You are quite right. BOTH are guilty of pushing ethics. However, I wasnt addressing the UN aspect. I was addressing the US aspect.

[edit on 3/7/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
Foetus's aren't human yet,

Well, the babies certainly aren't little pigs, or chickens, or dogs ...
they definately are humans. Did you know that the children
suck their thumbs, sleep, blink, and do a variety of other things
inside the womb? Yep. They also feel pain. When doctors perform
surgery on babies in the womb, they have to use pain killers. I
can't even imagine the pain the unborn child goes through when
it is burned to death with saline solution, or ripped apart and sucked
up the vacuum machine. Ever see the movie 'The Silent Scream'?
Before you say that the children aren't human, take a look at it.
In the mean time, here is some information on preborn human
development.

www.babycenter.com/fetaldevelopment/
www.visembryo.com/baby/
www.americanbaby.com/home/fetal-development.html
www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/ prenatal_developement.asp



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   
So then Kid if you agree that both parties were attempting to push thier own morality, why create a thread only critsizing the US for doing so?
Why not critisize both parties?
It would seem to me that if doing so is wrong then both parties are wrong, however if doing so is not wrong then the US has every right to do so.
So which is it?

I ask because this post seems nothing more than an attempt to bash current US foreign policy and the current administration. Especally in light of the fact you admit both parties are attempting to push thier own morality on others. If you feel both parties are wrong why are you only critisizing the US? If you dont feel either policy is wrong why crtisize the US in the first place?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
please take a few moments to have a look

Thank you. That helped prove my point. I never said
that America upholds the UN all by itself. However, we
DO put in a BIG bunch of our money and we have a right
to say how we think it should be spent.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Well, the babies certainly aren't little pigs, or chickens, or dogs ...
they definately are humans. Did you know that the children
suck their thumbs, sleep, blink, and do a variety of other things
inside the womb?



FF, please dont change the subject. There are a ton of threads debating the benifits and disasters of abortion. This thread, however, is not one of them. Abortion is not the issue here. It is the process with which opinions of abortions were attempted to influence the rest of the world.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
and the UN headquarters in NY is international territory


On paper perhaps. But in reality it is midtown Manhatten and it
is taking up valuable NYC office space. I say NYC should overrun
the UN and kick 'em out. What would the UN do? Use it's 'army'
and take it back? yeah, right. That land is AMERICAN no matter
what the UN paperwork says.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
So then Kid if you agree that both parties were attempting to push thier own morality, why create a thread only critsizing the US for doing so?
Why not critisize both parties?


I am critisizing the Bush administration because it is the administration of my government. The UN is not. I have no affilliation with the UN, but I DO have an affilliation with Bush as he is my president, and I take issue with his foriegn policies, such as what we are discussing here.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Then the question I would ask in response is, Considerng that every single Nation, and/or international organisaton attempts, to one extent or another, To push its own morality on other nations, either through trade, diplomacy or military strength, why do you object to the US doing the same?
Is it because you disagree with the particular moralty the US is currently trying to push or is there a deeper reason?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331

Is it because you disagree with the particular moralty the US is currently trying to push or is there a deeper reason?



No deep reasons. I personally believe that no one nation has the right to push a ethical agenda on another nation. I have already stated as such. I am not a member of the other nations, nor am I a citizen. Therefore my views on them are irrelavant. I have no affilliation with any other nation but the US.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by FlyersFan

When it's OUR tax money that supports the U.N.,
and it's OUR tax money that goes overseas to
kill unborn children, it darn sure IS our business.
If those countries don't share our views, then we
have every right on the planet not to financially
support them. We have a right to spend our
money as we see fit and we have a right to say
why we don't support them.

WE dont have the right to tell them how to behave. I already addressed the money issue earlier. Do you people not read? DO you just jump to the last page of the thread and post based on what you see there?

Yes Kidfinger. I read everything you said. I didn't just
jump to the last page. You spoke, and I still disagree
with what you said. It's very simple.... We have a right to
say what we want our money spent on. That's OUR tax
money that is going to support the UN. We worked for it.
It's ours. If the UN isn't going to spend it how we see fit,
then we have a right not to give it to them. Right now, it's
the UN that is pushing IT'S 'morality' on America. They say
'give us your money and shut up'. 'Act like Europeans'.
Screw that. We are Americans. We aren't Europeans and
don't want to be Europeans. The UN looooooooooves to push
'tolerance' onto Americans (pushing it's own version of 'morality'),
but it is guilty of intolerance towards those very same Americans.

So Kidfinger, I have read what you have had to say ... and I still
disagree with it. Everyone has a right to say what they want
done with their tax money. I say that I definately don't want my
tax money spent on the other side of the planet killing unborn
children. There are MUCH better things to spend that money on right
here at home - infrastructure, the poor in Baltimore (have you
seen parts of that city??), adult education to lower unemployment,
etc etc etc. Spending my tax money on overseas abortions is a
WASTE and it also goes against my beliefs AND I (and G.W.,) have
a right to say that and to act accordingly.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
FF, please dont change the subject.

Okay. He said that the children weren't human.
I naturally responded with evidence to the contrary.
But I will abide by your wishes and stick to your
original post. No problem.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Yes Kidfinger. I read everything you said.


You sure? Because I have already stated that it is also within our right to quit giving money as well.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
You sure? Because I have already stated that it is
also within our right to quit giving money as well.

Yep. I read it. I saw that and I agreed with that, but then
what you said about G.W. not having a right to push his
brand of morality (paraphrased) ... I thought that countered
what you just said.

Am I reading you wrong?

Wouldn't America withholding UN money because it performs
abortions be G.W. 'pushing his morality' - according to you?
Or would this be okay?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I can see it now. 20 years from now the U.S. bans abortion and Kidfinger is on here ranting and raving about how the U.S. is violating International Law by doing so.


[edit on 7/3/05 by Skibum]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join