Eighty-Five Nations Endorse U.N. Population Agenda - but Bush Administration Refuses to Sign

Originally posted by worldwatcher
Now back to the big picture, over population of the planet? Like I said, many of the people in the countries who signed this agreement have religous beliefs that doesn't agree with abortions anyways. I find it a weak argument to deny funds to this cause because of "abortion" disagreements.

Sorry, but it is not the United States responsability to pay for birth control, much less birth control of other countries.

I've said it before and I will say it again. The UN is WORTHLESS to the United States. It is a sinkhole for our taxdollars that allows other nations to gain control over us.

Screw the UN - all they do is take our money for themselves. Everyone complanes that the US is to involved in everyones buisness, well I propose we stop funding the UN unless EVERY country puts in the same amount.

Ideally, if we go with population - China and India would be the major funders of the UN. But since the US is one of the creators of the UN, since it sits on the Security Council and since it's the richest country in the world, it contributes the most. That's a responsibility that comes when you want to be the biggest power in the world.

that is so the American way isn't it? The rich get richer and the poor gets screwed.

We live in a small world, faced with much trials and tribulations to come and instead of helping each other and being a united people, we alienate each other, no wonder mankind is set up for a major down fall.

You know what's funny, the same people who oppose this, will be screaming and shouting when China's and India's population continues to grow causing resources to be scarcer and more costlier for the American people. Spend now and you'll end up saving a lot more later. but that is just my opinion.

Originally posted by edsinger
If this is the case then I could maybe accept it, but I need to read the fine print also........

I did not see anything that stuck out on the first pass..

It's always the fine print in these UN treaties that's scary. Just because the title and introductory paragraph sound noble doesn't mean that all the details are.

Also, since when was the US obligated to sign a treaty just because 85 other nations did? I don't care if 185 nations signed the treaty -- if it's bad for the US, then the US shouldn't sign it.

Also, since when was the US obligated to sign a treaty just because 85 other nations did? I don't care if 185 nations signed the treaty -- if it's bad for the US, then the US shouldn't sign it.

Forgive me, but since when does the Bush Administration speak for the entire populace of America on the Issue of Sexual Rights ? You seem to forget that American is a secular pluralist society, something of which it lauds constantly.

This is pathetic.

Deep

Why should we sign something that we're the spearheads to? Women's rights in the United States has existed here going on 85 years beginning with the 19th Amendment. Women are in very powerful positions that are forbidden to them elsewhere. I believe it's the rest of the world trying to catch up with what we already know.

Equity pay ?

...

Also, to Webdevil: You did not invent Equal rights to women, in fact, the Islamic world warranted equal rights to women 1400 years ago; The Sikh Guru's warranted equal rights to women 600 years ago; and, anthropologicaly speaking, i'm quite sure countless other societies dictated such manifestations of equality.

The religious innendo of President Bush and his Administration is becoming quite clear...

Deep

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
You seem to forget that American is a secular pluralist society, something of which it lauds constantly.

What does the US being a secular pluralist society have to do with signing a treaty that's not in the US's interest?

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
...In fact, the Islamic world warranted equal rights to women 1400 years ago...

The Islamic world sure took that back in a major way over the last 1400 years then!

[edit on 10/14/2004 by ThunderCloud]

What does the US being a secular pluralist society have to do with signing a treaty that's not in the US's interest?

Why did 2 former Presidents sign it then ? Was it not in the best interest of their country? How dare they be so unpatriotic !

Deep

The Islamic world sure took that back in a major way over the last 1400 years then!

Why do you say that ?

Deep

The two biggest problems for the US is that A) its the rest of the world telling them what to do, they much prefer the the roles reversed and B) it has two of the most despised words in the english language for them: sexual and rights in one sentence even!!

Originally posted by Otts
Ideally, if we go with population - China and India would be the major funders of the UN. But since the US is one of the creators of the UN, since it sits on the Security Council and since it's the richest country in the world, it contributes the most. That's a responsibility that comes when you want to be the biggest power in the world.

The US has never paied a cent of its contributions the the UN by the way!!

Another reason to tell the US to go and play on their own.

a cut and paste from the founding post,

The statement notes that in 1994 "the world's governments and civil society committed to an action plan to ensure universal access to reproductive health information and services, uphold fundamental human rights including sexual and reproductive rights

What is the definition of "sexual rights"?

It seems (thru reading this thread) that other presidents have previously signed this document, but that the wording of the document was changed and the term "sexual rights" added. If this the case then the USA is correct in not signing something that has some binding resolutions to it, before the term is defined.

I agree with thunderclouds point about the # of other countries that endorsed this...so what? Just because everyone is jumping off the bridge means you should too? "Everyone else is doing it" is something id expect to hear a kid say to support a questionable action, and it has rarely been a good excuse for anything.

Another point, as the text says "fundamental HUMAN rights including sexual..." this is not exclusive to women alone, and i think that "sexual rights" could be interpreted as "gay rights" mostly meaning gay marriage.

Along this line of reasoning, i ask about worldwatchers statement,

Why is it okay to preach freedom but deny people the freedom to choose for themselves???

Well, part of freedom to choose means that a society has the right to choose NOT to do something as well.

In the case of "sexual/gay rights" we here in the USA are still grappling with this here. Is it proper for us to sign an international agreement that we have not yet worked out internally? This would be 2 faced and potentially a lie if we said one thing then did another. At least by not signing, the USA didnt get locked into a position that they havnt worked out themselves yet.

Here is a hypothetical can of worms...so in support of population control...the UN adds "sexual rights" and includes homosexuality as a right.
I can see the population control advocates now....endorsing homosexuality as a form of population control as no births result from this form of sex.
Yeah that idea will go over like a loud stinky fart in a quiet church.

This term, "sexual rights" could also imply a persons right to sell their body for sex, meaning prostitution. This hot topic is yet another reason that the USA was correct in not signing this....if the definition could include this right, it would then violate our laws and cultural norms. How can you ask a nation to endorse something internationally that they wouldnt condone at home?

Population control on the planet is a serious issue and one that has to try to include many beliefs into any working guidline for dealing with it. But everyone involved should be clear on what the terms in the agrement mean before anyone signs it. While people may agree in principal, they might not agree in the ways/tools used to get there.

Noone should be bullied into an agreement they are not clear on or dont believe in. To do so is COERSION!

Originally posted by American Mad Man

I've said it before and I will say it again. The UN is WORTHLESS to the United States. It is a sinkhole for our taxdollars that allows other nations to gain control over us.

Either play nicely with the other children or go and play on your own.

This is the attitude that get the rest of the world wanting to send the US to live on its own on another planet!!

Get off the planet if you don't want to play fair with the rest of us.. SIMPLE!!

Other nations to gain control of us.... oh what a horrible thought boo hoo... but the US controlling other nations is OK, and in some extreme cases considered it's right and duty.

Originally posted by edsinger
The UN's agenda is what scares me.
it is the Abortion part that I disagree with.
[edit on 13-10-2004 by edsinger]

Same here. The UN controlling population?
The UN deciding to push it's abortion propaganda
onto Muslim and Catholic countries ... countries
that have at it's core belief that Abortion is murder?

UN population and demographics control is what this
is really about. If the NWO at the UN want less people
in one country and more in another ... then they trot
out this agreement and go into those countries and
start sterilizing and aborting. Look at China. Forced
sterilizations and abortions.

G.W. (AND CLINTON BEFORE HIM) did the right thing.

Gotta' watch VERY CAREFULLY what you are getting into
with the NWO UN. VERY CAREFULLY.

Originally posted by Corinthas
The US has never paied a cent of its contributions the the UN by the way!!
Another reason to tell the US to go and play on their own.

I wish that were true. However, it is not. The US has (unfortunately)
paid all it's dues. It was completely 'paid up' at the time of the
security council vote and when G.W. addressed the United Nations
and told them to make a choice if they would be 'relevant' or not.

I wish we wouldn't pay our dues. Actually, I wish we and Japan wouldn't
pay. If our two countries would stop, then the UN would wither and die
the death it deserves and we could turn that expensive Manhatten
real estate that it sits on (the the US has given for free) into something
more equitable for America.

America should go play by itself? Excellent idea. I'm all for it. Stop
ALL foreign aid too. All those billions of our tax $$ going to help
Egypt and Africa and other poor nations could be spent here at home
uplifting our poor and building new schools and restructuring our
infrastructure and power grids and providing free scholarships for the
needy ... heck, free scholorships for everyone in America. Our country
would definately be better off not spending all those trillions that
G.W. just promised to send to Africa to help in the fight with AIDS there.
Trillions of dollars more to be spent here on AMERICANS if we decided
to 'play by ourselves'.

Wonder how long it would be before China decided to stretch out
and take over Europe ... without the threat of our nuclear weapons
to deter them?

Heck ... I'm willing to find out. Sure ... excellent idea Corinthas!
I'm all for it.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Wonder how long it would be before China decided to stretch out
and take over Europe ... without the threat of our nuclear weapons
to deter them?

- What on earth makes you think this either likely or in any way even plausible?

We in Europe feel no threat whatsoever from China. The very idea is hysterically funny, completely laughable.

(oh, and just in case we did have to 'defend' ourselves from anything like this sort of 'takeover' both the UK and France have modern very long range submarine launched nuclear missiles, thanks for your concern though; 'friend')




[edit on 14-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
thanks for your concern though; 'friend'

I was being sarcastic to the poster who said that
America should 'play by itself'. Read the post with
the sarcasim that was intended.

As far as you not feeling threatened by China and that it is
'laughable'. Glad you feel so secure. I'm sure Chamberlain
felt the same way about the Nazi's.

Here you go!


That platform, which the United States also took a leading role in drafting, states: "The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence."

Bush has blocked $34 million in congressionally approved annual assistance to the United Nations Population Fund, alleging that the U.N. agency helped China manage programs that involved forced abortions, a charge it calls baseless.

China is #ed up when it comes to abortions and women's rights.
ps: Bush admin is also stating that women should have a right to make choices over their bodies, decide freely and responsible on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence... Why is this a bad thing??

Sometimes people, it's not as devious as you may think... The UN is #ed, the leaders in the UN are corrupt, their sexual harrassments cases within the UN from women who alledge they have been harrassed from un leaders...

What kind of foundation is this?? Not to mention That bastard in Africa who is now leader of the UN, he and his wife used to tie people up and burn them alive!!

If anybody is going to be thinking devious in this issue, it should be towards the UN...

Originally posted by TrueLies
That bastard in Africa who is now leader of the UN, he and his wife used to tie people up and burn them alive!!

I agree with your whole post. I came to this sentence and
found it to be something I have not heard about. Do you
have any links to educate me on this? Thanks.

My question to people who think the UN is corrupt and so on... From what I've seen, this resolution was adopted by a large number of countries. Surely all these countries are not in the wrong?

And also... if we were to flush the UN... with what do you propose to replace it? How do we replace UNESCO, who ensures that cultural treasures and world heritage sites are preserved? How do we replace UNICEF, who fights for children in third-world countries?

Of course the UN isn't perfect. Of course there's corruption. No government is exempt of it. However, what we must look at when evaluating the role of the UN and its different agencies is the net result. It may not be 100 percent perfect, but is it really ZERO percent perfect?