Bushes morals for the world/US Draws Jeers for Abortion Comments at UN, page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 7-3-2005 @ 10:07 AM by steggyD
from www.newsalerts.com...:top4:9319

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.


This is the link you provided. Notice the first two words in the paragraph.


reply posted on 7-3-2005 @ 10:14 AM by Kidfinger
Originally posted by steggyD
from www.newsalerts.com...:top4:9319

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.


This is the link you provided. Notice the first two words in the paragraph.


Yeah, I even put them in bold for you. Now think about the implications of those two words. It was presented as an attempt to instill Bush administrations ethics into global policy. It had to be presented before it was rejected. And furthermore, the rejection isnt the issue. The issue is that we DID attempt to influence other nations morals and ethical stances. No matter of the rejection or not.



reply posted on 7-3-2005 @ 10:39 AM by steggyD
Originally posted by Kidfinger
Originally posted by steggyD

If you read this correctly, they are wanting countries to decide for themselves and not have this international document saying that abortion is a right to all women in the world. Seems that your original story has backfired and that the US wants other countries to decide their own morals and not some pact made in Beijing. Admit it, come on, you're wrong.


Oh, Im wrong? If you read this correctly.................:


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.


You would see that the Bush administration has attempted to change the original document with an UNPOPULAR AMMENDMANT that was universally rejected.


skibum. please go bug someone else.

Have you read what the amendment was, or do you ignore that part. That's what we are trying to say. The amendment does not force people to oppose abortion, it gives country the rights to choose for themselves. The US was only trying to amend a 10 year old paper so that it does not make abortion an international woman's right. Read the whole story, please. So, in conclusion, once more, the USA was not trying to force ethics on other countries. The USA was trying to allow other countries to decide their own ethics. Please understand this part, because I am finished with this thread.

BTW, off topic, Kid, Louisville or UK fan? I'm an original Kentuckian. I have a friend in Louisville, but I lived in Lexington last.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by steggyD]


reply posted on 7-3-2005 @ 11:06 AM by Kidfinger
Originally posted by steggyD



Have you read what the amendment was, or do you ignore that part. That's what we are trying to say.
The content of the amendment does not matter. This is not what i am debating here. It is the fact that the amendment was an attempt to establish the Bush administrations ethical views on countries that dont want them.


The amendment does not force people to oppose abortion, it gives country the rights to choose for themselves. The US was only trying to amend a 10 year old paper so that it does not make abortion an international woman's right. Read the whole story, please. So, in conclusion, once more, the USA was not trying to force ethics on other countries. The USA was trying to allow other countries to decide their own ethics. Please understand this part, because I am finished with this thread.


The amendment was changed. It was rejected and changed. The amendment you are talking about is the one which was changed to apease the other nations. I am talking about the original ammendment in its original form.


BTW, off topic, Kid, Louisville or UK fan? I'm an original Kentuckian. I have a friend in Louisville, but I lived in Lexington last.




According to this big pullover hoody Im wearing Im a Big Blue fan to the core I do like UofL as long as they are not playing KY though. My wife is a Louisville fan, so I have to appease her occasionally But I bleed blue
I also live in Louisville, but I have relatives in Lex.
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 4 days ago with 111 member flags
Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 17 days ago with 81 member flags
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 4 days ago with 70 member flags
Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 13 days ago with 60 member flags
She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags
Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 13 days ago with 42 member flags
Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags