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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
Originally posted by ZeroDeep
You seem to forget that American is a secular pluralist society, something of which it lauds constantly.
Originally posted by ZeroDeep
...In fact, the Islamic world warranted equal rights to women 1400 years ago...
What does the US being a secular pluralist society have to do with signing a treaty that's not in the US's interest?
The Islamic world sure took that back in a major way over the last 1400 years then!
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.
What is the definition of "sexual rights"?
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
Well, part of freedom to choose means that a society has the right to choose NOT to do something as well.
Why is it okay to preach freedom but deny people the freedom to choose for themselves???
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.
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]
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.
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?
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
thanks for your concern though; 'friend'
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!!