View Full Version : Bush finally does something i agree with
Clarkmeister
10-22-2003, 02:50 AM
Partial birth abortion ban.
Kudos to you Mr. President.
That is all.
Il_Mostro
10-22-2003, 05:24 AM
Hmm, i suppose it's because english isn't my first language, but i really can't figure out what "Partial birth abortion ban" means, care to expand sligthly?
Moyer
10-22-2003, 06:03 AM
I'm not 100% sure, but isn't partial birth abortion basically when the baby is killed when it is like halfway out of the mother?
I've heard horror stories involving a pair of metal scissors to "abort" the baby.
Yes, it should've been banned a long long long time ago.
Clarkmeister
10-22-2003, 11:12 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=3&u=/ap/20031022/ap_on_go_co/congress_abortion
I'm not a doctor, but aren't there instances where partial birth abortions are the only option for saving a mother's life, and this bill has no provision for permitting a partial birth abortion when a mother's life is in jeopardy? So does the bill place the fetus' life above the mother's life?
Homer
10-22-2003, 06:36 PM
So does the bill place the fetus' life above the mother's life?
In my opinion (and I'd like to think in the opinion of most mother's too) a fetus's life should be placed above that of the mother.
-- Homer
I just cant understand how anyone can defend partial birth abortions.
I think one can make the abortion argument on development of the fetus. However, this is killing based on Location - i.e., if it were 8 inches to the left it would be a life, but not in its current location. That is pure insanity.
Ed Miller
10-22-2003, 06:58 PM
this bill has no provision for permitting a partial birth abortion when a mother's life is in jeopardy
I believe this is false. I am pretty sure the bill does have exceptions when the life of the mother is in danger.
I agree with your sentiment, but think that the law should not reflect personal sentiments. If the mother's life is in danger, should she be forced to sacrafice her own life for her child's, even in instances where the child will be born prematurely and face a difficult chance of survival or mental impairment? I don't have an firm opinion on this, and don't know much about partial birth abortions, but think that if it was the mother or the child who lives, and if the mother dies the child will still be impaired/likely to die, that the decision is best left with the mother/parents of the child.
Disclaimer: What I would do and what I believe someone else should be legally compelled to do are distinct.
I honestly don't know, and although she is a democrat/liberal opposed to abortion regulation, I would think Boxer would not say the following if there were such exemptions.
[ QUOTE ]
The bill "for the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of the woman," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "This is a radical, radical thing that is about to happen here."
[/ QUOTE ]
Homer
10-22-2003, 07:39 PM
If the mother's life is in danger, should she be forced to scrafice it for the child.
In my opinion, yes, she should.
-- Homer
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-22-2003, 07:48 PM
In my opinion, no government has the right to force anyone to sacrifice his or her life for any reason.
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-22-2003, 07:55 PM
Funny. I agree with a number of things Bush has done, but not this one. The only reason I'm not vehemently outspoken against this ban is that I've yet to have it adequately explained to me why this procedure, which MDs have explained to me is only done in the direst of circumstances to the life of the mother, is less threatening to het life than just delivering the fetus normally.
Homer
10-22-2003, 07:56 PM
In my opinion, no government has the right to force anyone to sacrifice his or her life for any reason.
In the same respect, the government shouldn't be allowed to give someone the right to sacrifice the life of another human being in order to save his/her own.
Obviously, there's no easy answer.
-- Homer
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-22-2003, 08:04 PM
Obviously, there's no easy answer.
I agree. I'm not completely dogmatic on this. I am troubled by the procedure, though I am strongly pro-choice.
Ray Zee
10-22-2003, 08:30 PM
no there isnt an easy answer. but the real reason this bill comes up is to weaken roe vs. wade so the christen right can force more abortion bills through. it isnt a bill to do the right thing. which it may or may not do. it is a purely political religous thing.
pufferfish
10-22-2003, 09:35 PM
Jesus wept. I do not mean that in a religious way.
It’s a sad day for the women of the United States.
pf
I knew I would enjoy your post before I even read it.
no there isnt an easy answer. but the real reason this bill comes up is to weaken roe vs. wade so the christen right can force more abortion bills through. it isnt a bill to do the right thing. which it may or may not do. it is a purely political religous thing
How do you know that? Your insight into the minds and strategy of the republican party is as always - insightful.
Wake up CALL
10-22-2003, 11:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know, and although she is a democrat/liberal opposed to abortion regulation, I would think Boxer would not say the following if there were such exemptions.
[ QUOTE ]
The bill "for the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of the woman," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "This is a radical, radical thing that is about to happen here."
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course she would because she knows she can lie to sheep and they will take her word as gospel rather than spend 30 seconds and find this: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (http://capwiz.com/msnbc/issues/bills/?billnum=S.3&congress=108)
The first paragraph in the act states:
"Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother that is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
You should never trust a Liberal politician!
MMMMMM
10-23-2003, 12:04 AM
'"Of course she would because she knows she can lie to sheep and they will take her word as gospel rather than spend 30 seconds and find this: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
The first paragraph in the act states:
"Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother that is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury."'
Alternatively it may be that Ms. Boxer was not lying but simply cannot read. Or perhaps Ms. Boxer was misquoted.
Homer
10-23-2003, 12:57 AM
Jesus wept. I do not mean that in a religious way.
I don't know what this means. I'm not very religious. Can you please explain?
It’s a sad day for the women of the United States.
Why? It seems to me that this only affects women who have put their lives ahead of the lives of their children -- in other words, women who aren't fit to be mothers.
Perhaps I don't understand this issue properly.
-- Homer
baggins
10-23-2003, 02:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, no government has the right to force anyone to sacrifice his or her life for any reason.
[/ QUOTE ]
does this include sending troops into battle or taking out foreign tyrants in the name of democracy? what about arming security guards or police officers? people are given the legal right EVERY DAY to choose to force someone to give up their life to spare the life of another human being. are you opposed to this also? just wondering...
Redhotman
10-23-2003, 03:06 AM
thank congress...
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-23-2003, 09:25 AM
Well, technically, Congress already did this twice before. What Bush did was sign the law. Clinton vetoed it twice.
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-23-2003, 09:32 AM
does this include sending troops into battle or taking out foreign tyrants in the name of democracy? what about arming security guards or police officers?
All US Military are in the service voluntarily. I am also not aware of anywhere in this country where either police officers or security guards are forced to take these positions against their will.
So yes, I do not think the government has any right to force any citizen to serve in the military or to work as a police officer.
people are given the legal right EVERY DAY to choose to force someone to give up their life to spare the life of another human being. are you opposed to this also?
No. People have the right to choose to risk their lives. Do you have a problem with the concept of the freedom to choose?
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-23-2003, 09:32 AM
I agree.
Clarkmeister
10-23-2003, 11:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, no government has the right to force anyone to sacrifice his or her life for any reason.
[/ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, it should have every right to prosecute those who would kill a viable human being, regardless of whether or not 5% of that humans body is still inside of another person.
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-23-2003, 12:04 PM
On the other hand, it should have every right to prosecute those who would kill a viable human being, regardless of whether or not 5% of that humans body is still inside of another person.
If you believe that is actually what is happening with this procedure, the the fundies have won the battle. In almost 100% of the cases, the fetus is barely viable or severely damaged and the mother is at risk from sepsis.
The people who support this bill are flat out dead wrong.
pufferfish
10-23-2003, 12:24 PM
Jesus wept. I do not mean that in a religious way.
I don't know what this means. I'm not very religious. Can you please explain?
<font color="blue"> It was an expression of incredulity and disappointment.</font>
It’s a sad day for the women of the United States.
Why? It seems to me that this only affects women who have put their lives ahead of the lives of their children -- in other words, women who aren't fit to be mothers.
Perhaps I don't understand this issue properly
<font color="blue"> See Ray Zee's post for an explanation of the statement.</font>
pf
Homer
10-23-2003, 12:43 PM
My apologies, but Zee's post makes no sense to me either. I thought I had made it clear that I don't know one iota about religion (perhaps I didn't make it clear that I'm braindead on the subject), so I don't know what Zee means when he says Christian right. Think me a moron if you'd like (I'm sure many will now if they don't already), I don't care. I asked for an explanation, but it seems to me that all you did was rephrase the fact that you are upset, without explaining why this is a sad day for the women of the United States. I'm not asking for a speech, I would just like a brief explanation that I might be able to understand.
I get the feeling that you're either pissed off or you think I'm too dense to bother wasting your time on. If this is the case, keep in mind that many people come here knowing nothing about poker, and are given they help they request without being forced to run through hoops. I don't see why this should be any different.
-- Homer
pufferfish
10-23-2003, 01:06 PM
I feel like I’m being forced to “run through hoops” to provide you with an explanation that you’ll accept.
Someone said: If the mother's life is in danger, should she be forced to scrafice it for the child.
You said: In my opinion, yes, she should.
I said: Jesus wept. I do not mean that in a religious way.
I meant: I can’t believe you feel that way.
I went on to say: It’s a sad day for the women of the United States.
I meant: (1) The statement was in reference to the partial birth abortion ban, not to your post. (2) The ban is a means to an end. There will be more abortion bills, this is just the beginning.
pf
This bill is symbolic (in the minds of many liberals/women who support abortion) of the end of Roe v. Wade decision, i.e. the right to abortion. They see this as a christian right v. them war, and the christian right (conservative, family values, hard core christian- they are against abortion) have won a major battle in the abortion supporters eyes, and the abortion supporters believe this legislative trend and political atmosphere will lead to greater abortion restrictions and eventually no more right to abortion.
Key:
Women: a proxy for those who suport abortion
Christian (or christen) right: a proxy for those who are against abortion
This bill: reflects the scales tipping further in favor of the movement to end the right to have an abortion
Reference: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html). That's the Supreme Court decision that really whacked Roe v. Wade and started this movement to restrict abortion and tipped the scales in favor of the "christian right". The partial birth abortion ban, in the eyes of abortion supporters, is another big step on the path to ending the right to abortion.
Homer
10-23-2003, 01:13 PM
I feel like I’m being forced to “run through hoops” to provide you with an explanation that you’ll accept.
You know what, [censored] it. Just don't bother to respond if this is going to be your attitude. I feel that I've been civil, and it seems that despite this I'm still getting on your nerves because I don't understand what you are trying to say. All I asked is that you type out more than one sentence to explain something to someone who has little background knowledge on the subject.
I will keep this in mind next time you post a routine poker hand.
-- Homer
Homer
10-23-2003, 01:15 PM
J.R, thank you very much.
-- Homer
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-23-2003, 01:18 PM
Homer,
I think the point in Ray's response is the propensity for the fundamentalist wing of the GOP to frame the debate in simplistic, one-dimensional, moral terms.
The concern for individualists like myself is that the GOP has been co-opted by a very dangerous group of people who challenge the secular nature of our government. That group has been lobbying for an increase in government intrusion into the personal lives of the citizens. That intrusion may involve private sexual choices, private choices of entertainment (read: TV, movies, gambling, recreation substance use, etc.), down to the very core issue of the nature of the family and the freedoms of men and women to be the masters of their own fate.
The religious fundamentalist has always argued against measures that empower women. Since Roe v. Wade became law in 1973, this group (at that time less part of the GOP than of the Dixiecrat wing of the Democtaric Party) has promoted a campaign to return our form of government to what they view as it's Christian roots (read strict biblical law).
Fundamentalists read the Bible (or the Qu'ran, or the Torah, et al) literally, and seek to apply its words in a harsh fashion. Many people on the other side view *any* restriction on abortion to be a step backwards in the struggle for human freedom.
What you're seeing here is two extremes. One side has framed the debate by saying that if you are against this bill, you are in favor of heartlessly pulling a viable baby from the womb and murdering it. The other side is saying if you are for this bill you support keeping women subservient to men.
In my opinion, neither argument is accurate. Abortion is always going to be a hot-button issue because there is always going to be debate as to *when* the right to the protection of one's life by governmental force inheres, and to me that hinges on when a fetus or child becomes sentient.
I think the most relevant statement I can make on the abortion debate is to point out how 2-faced most politicians have been on the issue during their careers. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both strongly pro-life through most of their careers (as a Senator, Gore had a 96% approval rating from the National Right to Life Coalition).
In 1980, when campaigning for the GOP nomination against Reagan, George H.W. Bush clearly defined himself as a pro-choice alternative, and while Governor of California, Reagan himself lauded a liberalization of California abortion laws.
All of the above switched their positions when it became clear from what groups their funding came.
That's an awfully long answer that's only partially on-topic to your question.
Homer
10-23-2003, 01:23 PM
Kurn, thanks. This definitely helped clear some things up for me.
-- Homer
baggins
10-23-2003, 01:23 PM
i believe you missed my point. we give people guns to kill tyrants, to kill enemy soldiers. we give police officers the right to kill in the line of duty.
these are all choices to kill somebody in order to save/spare/better the lives of other people. and our governemnt gives that right to certain people.
do you agree with that?
pufferfish
10-23-2003, 01:30 PM
I’m sorry you feel that way.
pf
baggins
10-23-2003, 01:31 PM
just make sure you realize that Kurnson's explanation above is very slanted. i don't have the time or the will to actually explain it further. just know that he doesn't like Christians very much. and this influences his politics.
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-23-2003, 01:49 PM
just know that he doesn't like Christians very much. and this influences his politics.
That statement is unfair and is akin to calling me a racist if I were to disagree with a political program supported by the NAACP. I have a very libertarian political bent. I disagree strongly with people who would use the power of government to impede individual liberty. That has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike individuals.
I don't like or dislike people based upon their religious beliefs. There are also people with whom I agree 100% politically who I don't like personally. I try to treat all people as individuals.
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-23-2003, 01:52 PM
I agree with that as long as those rights are granted in accordance with the Constitution.
ACPlayer
10-23-2003, 02:03 PM
I agree with this. It is a purely political thing with extremely limited practical impact on abortion.
Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
ACPlayer
10-23-2003, 02:17 PM
just make sure you realize that Kurnson's explanation above is very slanted. i don't have the time or the will to actually explain it further. just know that he doesn't like Christians very much. and this influences his politics
just make sure you realize that Baggin's statement above is very gratuitous. i don't have the time or the will to actually explain it further. just know that he doesn't like people who disagree with him very much. and this influences his politics
baggins
10-23-2003, 02:41 PM
i don't dislike people who disagree with me. i never said i did.
also, i don't have politics.
bdypdx
10-23-2003, 04:24 PM
There is some interesting info here:
http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=148
Abortion is a drastic solution to a fairly simple problem. Most of the anti-abortion crowd seems to be against the best solutions to unwanted pregnancies; i.e., quality sex education and good information/access to contraception. Abortion rates would drop dramatically by providing the right resources to the sexually active. Not only that, but deadly and debilitating diseases would be curtailed as well.
bdy
US constitution does not grant any rights at all. you should brush up on US history is you think it does.
the UN declaration of human rights, however, does.
p.s. just to be clear where im coming from, in UN thing at the end is soemthing like, all people have these rights, *except when UN decides they dont*. US doesnt have this flaw (well until bush 2 crew came along anyway)
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-23-2003, 05:03 PM
US constitution does not grant any rights at all
No, but the Consitution limits the power of the government to abridge certain rights, which has the same effect.
Clarkmeister
10-23-2003, 05:22 PM
I am against abortion. Not just this one type, but all types. I can justifiably be called a hard-core extremist on the issue and I wouldn't argue.
BUT I am not the Catholic Church. I am also highly in favor of basically limitless spending on both contraception and education to help curtail unwanted pregnancies.
well the difference is that under say UN or EU or whatever where state is god, then a person can be detained indefinitely without charges , and even secretly, for, well, ... forever.
whereas in the US, ... ok forget it youre now right even if once you were not /images/graemlins/smile.gif
ACPlayer
10-24-2003, 04:06 AM
Spending on education and contraception are obviously good things.
I am curious about how you feel about making abortion illegal and a) driving it into the back alleys and b) knowng that the rich will be able to go to Canada or Europe etc if they wanted the procedure, so you would only be cutting of the procedure for the poor (some of who may well get it someplace unsafe anyway).
My position of safe, legal but rare, would stress education and alternatives but keep the procedure safe. I am not in favor of the abortion "right" position of the NOW and other pro-choice groups.
jstnrgrs
10-24-2003, 05:45 AM
Good point
nicky g
10-24-2003, 06:07 AM
I'm with Clark in that I pretty much think abortion is wrong in almost all cases, though I would except those in which the mother's life is in danger. Partly because I'm more religious than most people would probably realise. Also like Clark I would urge vastly greater availibilty of sex education and contraception; there should really be no reason for the number of unwanted pregnancies we have in developed countries today. However, given the power to ban abortion I don't think I would; I don't believe that a foetus is simply part of a woman's body and that she should have total power over its life, but I also don't think it's my decision, or feel confident enough in my opinions to apply them to everybody else, especially given that they're based in part on religion, which I don't believe should ever be involved in a political decision that affects others. I'm not even sure if I would vote to ban it. Something of a cop-out, I know. That said, I knew a perfectly intelligent girl who had had four or five abortions by the time she was 20, simply she routinely failed to use any form of contraception, and frankly I almost feel she and her boyfriend (who was a good friend of mine) should have been put in jail. Either them or whoever was responsible for their education. There should be both serious efforts to prevent the need for abortions, and at least some sort of effort to instill the seriousness of it into people, both the mothers and fathers/men and women.
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-24-2003, 08:15 AM
Then even though I could be called a hard-core extremist on the other side, I think you and I could rationally discuss alternatives.
Abortion is not a problem, it's a symptom. The problem is unwanted pregnancy. At least you agree that rational steps should be taken to educate people to take precautions.
I trust you would also teach your male children to use contraception.
Another place where we might agree is in identifying ways that we could make adoption easier.
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-24-2003, 08:16 AM
Believe me, Brad, you and I are in agreement.
elwoodblues
10-24-2003, 09:41 AM
One of the positions of the "pro-life" crowd that has always bothered me it the carving out of exceptions. If you honestly believe that the fetus is a life --- vested with the same rights as other lives --- then carving out exceptions doesn't make sense.
I read a book on abortion (this was a while ago in under-grad, so I can't remember the name of the book) it made a ridiculous analogy, but one that made me think about the issue quite a bit. It went something like this:
A women somehow had a violinist attached to her body. Both the woman and the violinist are alive and well and neither "chose" to be attached to the other. If you remove the violinist from the women, the violinist dies.
What I think the story was supposed to highlight is that if we truly believed that the fetus was a Life, then under no circumstances (no exceptions) could you allow for an abortion. Even if the woman's life was in danger, you wouldn't say that you could remove the violinist as the violinist would then die and that would require you make a judgment call that one life was more valuable then the other.
One of the problems that I have with the whole abortion debate is that I think both sides of the issue have taken positions that most (probably) don't truly believe. I would suspect that most people fall in the middle somewhere but once you choose a side, you are made to take positions which you really don't agree with. For example:
Pro-Choice
I would suspect that most people who are pro-choice don't believe that a fetus is nothing more than tissue. Most pro-choicers still believe that having an abortion is a difficult moral decision (it wouldn't be so if the fetus were nothing more than tissue). I would suspect that most would agree that a fetus is a FORM of life, albeit in very primitive stages, and because of the primitive stages when you balance the rights of this primitive stage of life with the individual rights of the woman, then the balance tips in favor of the woman.
Pro-Life
I doubt that most people on the pro-life side of the equation really believe that a fetus is a life, vested with the same rights as other lives. If they were in a room of pregnant women and were asked to count the number of people in the room, the vast majority would not count the fetuses. They aren't pushing for census takers to count pregnant women twice, and most in the pro-life side carve out exceptions for rape, incest, danger to the health of the mother which don't make sense if the fetus is a life (see above). I would guess that most people on the pro-life side (including myself) would hold the position that, when in doubt about whether something is truly a life we should err on the side of preserving life. However, in difficult cases where there are other mitigating factors (rape, incest, health of mother) we are willing to let our doubts about whether the fetus is a life change our general position that life should be preserved.
Probably because I am one of them, I can understand how people who take the middle position (that a fetus is a form of life, but not necessarily a "life") could end up on either side of the debate. What I don't understand is why (after landing on one side or the other) people let the more extreme positions be the loudest. Doing so makes us appear more divided on this that I think/hope we actually are.
~elwood
nicky g
10-24-2003, 10:02 AM
You write: "One of the positions of the "pro-life" crowd that has always bothered me it the carving out of exceptions. "
and then
"What I don't understand is why (after landing on one side or the other) people let the more extreme positions be the loudest."
Isn't refusing exceptions under all circumstances an example allowing the extremists to shout the loudest? Doesn't moderation require exceptions? If the choice is straightforwardly between two lives (which it rarely is - the fetus is almost always in some kind of danger as well - after all, if allowing the pregnancy to continue will kill the mother it will almost certainly kill the fetus), I think there are still plenty of good arguments for giving the mother's life precedence. Even if you don't accept them, either way someone is going to die, in which case it's an arbitrary decision.
"I would guess that most people on the pro-life side (including myself) would hold the position that, when in doubt about whether something is truly a life we should err on the side of preserving life."
Yes.
WillMagic
10-24-2003, 12:06 PM
I used to be very anti-abortion until one of my liberal friends said something that I didn't forget -
"The only thing worse than a world with abortion would be a world without abortion."
As much as it disgusts me morally, it is necessary for it to be safe and legal.
Sometimes you just have to be a pragmatist.
ACPlayer
10-24-2003, 12:16 PM
My problem with the pro-choice crowd is that it has made it "acceptable" for your acquaintance to use abortion on demand as a form of contraception.
My problem with the pro-life crowd is that they are often against education, condom programs, and attack the problem at the fringes as in the "partial birth" abortion ban presently underway.
Abortion should not be "acceptable" and society should not be giving its OK to it.
Having said all that, putting the abortion industry back into the alleys and kitchen tables is also not acceptable.
Presently we have the worst of both sides in the compromise.
nicky g
10-24-2003, 12:35 PM
"My problem with the pro-life crowd is that they are often against education, condom programs, and attack the problem at the fringes as in the "partial birth" abortion ban presently underway."
Certainly. There are very few prominent "pro-lifers" I have any time for and I certainly don't agree with their stances on related matters such as contraception, premarital sex etc. Given that, despite my misgivings, I don't think a ban on abortion would be accepted or enforcable, I more or less agree with your position in practice.
Nottom
10-24-2003, 03:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If the mother's life is in danger, should she be forced to scrafice it for the child.
In my opinion, yes, she should.
[/ QUOTE ]
How can you force someone to give up their life for any reason? I can certainly argue that a healthy adult woman's life is worth more to society and her family than an unborn baby, but I'm pretty sure there is nothing I could say to change you mind, so why bother.
Nottom
10-24-2003, 03:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
US constitution does not grant any rights at all. you should brush up on US history is you think it does.
the UN declaration of human rights, however, does.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you need to brush up on current event if you think a UN declaration means much of anything
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(other language versions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
...
Article 29.
,,,
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
MMMMMM
10-24-2003, 08:31 PM
"(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
This is the key to the whole thing brad. In other words you have no human rights under the UN Charter if you would use them against the UN. In other words this is pure Statism, as in Nazism, where the motto was : the State comes before the People (paraphrasing, but it's in German on the edge of a 5 mark silver coin I have buried somewhere along with lots of other old European and Russian coins and currency).
The UN Charter guarantees human rights but places the organization even higher; you cannot use your 'guaranteed' UN human rights if so doing would place you in opposition to the UN. It is the scariest, most totalitarian major political document of our times. Look at that phrase closely and consider what it truly implies.
I've been hoping for someone to post the relevant section of the UN Charter so I wouldn't have to search for that insidious, deadly clause. Thank you for finding it and saving me the trouble.
Well guess I'll go look at your link now. Thanks again.
exactly. UN is horrible.
US constitution as originally envisioned was great because men have inaleinable (un?) natural rights that cant be taken away. (except by criminal governments)
Homer
10-24-2003, 11:03 PM
How can you force someone to give up their life for any reason?
How can you give someone the right to kill their unborn child? What is the difference?
I can certainly argue that a healthy adult woman's life is worth more to society and her family than an unborn baby
This statement makes no sense. Certainly at the present moment a mother is "worth more to society" than the unborn child, but in the future the mother will be dead (hopefully of old age) and the child will then be "worth more to society".
Furthermore, I don't see how who is "worth more to society" is of any relevance. Isn't an unborn child a life that deserves the right to be born and to live? I understand that perhaps we can't "force" a mother to give up her life for that of her child, but I can't imagine a human being worth a lick being unwilling to do so.
but I'm pretty sure there is nothing I could say to change you mind, so why bother.
You probably can't change my mind, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't bother.
-- Homer
Homer
10-24-2003, 11:13 PM
Just to make myself clear, my last post pertains to instances in which the child is viable. If this is not the case, then I believe the mother should not be forced to sacrifice her life. Sorry for any confusion.
-- Homer
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.