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

Originally posted by Skibum
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.

Absolutly not. THere you go asumming agian. Not to mention disregarding the topic of this thread. If the US banned abortion in the US, well, I would probably be rather happy with the decesion. But agian, that is not what the thread is about.

If that is the case then would it have been acceptable for the U.S. to just vote no on the whole package, Since the entire thing is nothing but forcing anothers morals and ethics upon some unwilling countries? Or do you just want Bush to bend to the will of other countries instead of proposing a compromise. If bush voted no on the whole deal, wouldn't that be the same as imposing his morals and ethics?

Originally posted by Skibum
If bush voted no on the whole deal, wouldn't that be the same as imposing his morals and ethics?

There should not have been a vote on the amendment in the first place. IT never should have been introduced.

There should not have been a vote on the amendment in the first place. IT never should have been introduced.

Why not? Still I ask would it have been acceptable to turn down the whole package. And wouldn't that fall into the same category as Bush pushing his morals and ethics.

Originally posted by Skibum



Why not?

I just answered that.

Still I ask would it have been acceptable to turn down the whole package. And wouldn't that fall into the same category as Bush pushing his morals and ethics.

Answered that one too.......................

My questions

Still I ask would it have been acceptable to turn down the whole package. And wouldn't that fall into the same category as Bush pushing his morals and ethics.

Your answer

Answered that one too.......................

No you answered about the amendment I asked about the whole deal.

[edit on 7/3/05 by Skibum]

Originally posted by Skibum

No you answered about the amendment I asked about the whole deal.

Pay attention skibum. What does this say?

There should not have been a vote on the amendment in the first place. IT never should have been introduced.

The answer I gave earlier. Still hasnt changed.

Exactly you answered about the amendment , I asked about the whole deal that was being voted on.

Simple yes or no questions.

1. would it have been acceptable for the U.S. to turn down the entire treaty being voted on. Yes or No , Realize I am NOT talking about the amendment but the whole treaty.

2. By voting no on the whole treaty would Bush be pushing his morals and ethics. Yes or no , realize again ,I am not talking about the amendment but the entire treaty.

It never should have been voted on because it never should have been introduced.........................Logical deduction there Watson.

It never should have been voted on because it never should have been introduced.........................Logical deduction there Watson.

Which one the whole treaty or the amendment? Or both?

Originally posted by Skibum

It never should have been voted on because it never should have been introduced.........................Logical deduction there Watson.

Which one the whole treaty or the amendment? Or both?

The whole American introduced ammendment.

So now that we have established you have been answering about the amendment. Perhaps we can move on to the other questions you refuse to answer.

Simple yes or no questions.

1. would it have been acceptable for the U.S. to turn down the entire treaty being voted on. Yes or No , Realize I am NOT talking about the amendment but the whole treaty.

2. By voting no on the whole treaty would Bush be pushing his morals and ethics. Yes or no , realize again ,I am not talking about the amendment but the entire treaty.

The amendment was part of the treaty and therefor cannot be excluded. My answeres still stand.

The amendment was part of the treaty and therefor cannot be excluded. My answeres still stand.

The amendment was not a part of the treaty at anytime. It (the amendment) was never voted on and was never part of the treaty.

So, in reality you have NOT answered my questions.

The amendment was written in by the US. It is what was CHANGED. Back in circles agian.

The amendment was written in by the US. It is what was CHANGED. Back in circles agian.

Yes we know the proposed amendment was written by the U.S. , it was NOT written into the treaty. In order for it to have become part of the treaty it would have had to have been voted on. The proposed amendment was withdrawn before a vote, therefore neither the proposed amendment nor the treaty was changed at all.

Of course we are going in circles, because you are dancing around the questions. Instead of answering a yes or no question with a simple yes or no, you point to an answer that does not apply and claim see I answered your question.



[edit on 7/3/05 by Skibum]

Originally posted by Skibum


Of course we are going in circles, because you are dancing around the questions. Instead of answering a yes or no question with a simple yes or no, you point to an answer that does not apply and claim see I answered your question.



[edit on 7/3/05 by Skibum]

The amendment had to be voted on to be changed.........................

Im not dancing around any questions. The answers I am giving you are just not what you want to hear.

The amendment had to be voted on to be changed.........................

Ummm no it didn't. It was withdrawn. There was no vote on the amendment.

Tell me this if as you say the amendment was changed, and you say it had to be voted on to change it, yet there was no vote on the amendment, How exactly was the amendment changed.

Yeah, I dont' get it still. If there was a change in the amendment, show me. Show me the original amendment and then what it was changed to. I can't seem to find any link.

Oh yeah, the source you link to says the amendment was withdrawn. Withdrawing=changing=withdrawing. My English skills need work.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by steggyD]