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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by steggyD
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.


Prepare for more dancing around by Kidfinger.




posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Skibum. Im not going to argue with you anymore. If you want to continue to tell me that my opinion is wrong, then present proof of such. I gave a link in my first post. It states clearly what went on and gives other supporting info. You do not wish to hear what I have to say, instead, you wish for me to say what you want me to say. I have answered every repeated question neumorous times and yet my answers still dont satisfy you. This is becomeing an exercise in wasted time. Our discussion is over. I do welcome other input from other people who will not attempt to portray my words in a false light.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Skibum. Im not going to argue with you anymore. If you want to continue to tell me that my opinion is wrong, then present proof of such. I gave a link in my first post. It states clearly what went on and gives other supporting info. You do not wish to hear what I have to say, instead, you wish for me to say what you want me to say. I have answered every repeated question neumorous times and yet my answers still dont satisfy you. This is becomeing an exercise in wasted time. Our discussion is over. I do welcome other input from other people who will not attempt to portray my words in a false light.


Thank you I accept your admittance of defeat. You claim to have answered all my question, yet there are several you have not and refuse to , because it is obvious that you have no desire to show how invalid your arguement is.



[edit on 7/3/05 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum


Thank you I accept your admitance of defeat.


More twisting of words to make you feel better? Cant come up with something more childish? Glad to see you still have presented no proof of your views, only biased opinion.................



[edit on 3/7/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   


If you want to continue to tell me that my opinion is wrong, then present proof of such.


I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I am trying to get straight answers from you on several occasions so I can see exactly what your opinion is. You seem to think that by pointing to an answer that has nothing to do with my question , that that is an answer. Instead of dancing around simple yes or no questions by pointing to unrelated answers just answer the question with a simple yes or no. Why can't you do that?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   


Glad to see you still have presented no proof of your views, only biased opinion.................


I think it is brutally obvious that you are the one with the biased opinion here.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Also, some more links:


Earlier Friday, 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.

The first version of the abandoned amendment said the Beijing meeting's final document did not recognize abortion as a fundamental right; a later version said the document did not create any new international human rights, code for abortion.

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.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   


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?


Yet another unanswered question posed to Kidfinger and then danced around.

[edit on 7/3/05 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   


skibum. please go bug someone else.


Why, because you hate having your illogical , extremely biased opinions pointed out? Because you cannot answer yes or no questions that , if answered will show you to be a hypocrit? You espouse that other nations should be allowed to do what they want and when Bush proposes an amendment that does just that you slam him for it.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

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]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I still would like to see the alleged original and changed amendment before I go on believing what you state. Until then, I still see it the same way I have been posting. I cannot find two different versions of this amendment.

BTW, I still bleed blue myself, even up here in NY. Too bad about that Florida game, but you could tell that those seniors really wanted that win bad, very bad. Cannot leave school without one win against Kentucky. Maybe we can get at least to the elite 8 this year...




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join