US Withdraws from UN Women's Health Project

Ah, thought so. Do you really think it encourages it, or accepts it's gonna happen? IMO, there's more to teens getting laid than accessible condoms!

E_S

 

I think accepts that it's going to happen. If you put them in schools. Hey, guys hit their sexual peak at 18. You don't think teenagers are going to have sex before that? Think again. I think America's teenage birthrate wouldn't be so messed up if we gave them condoms in schools. A lot of teens are timid about buying them from a store. Too embarrassing they say. Weird huh? My friend's 13 year old cousin was pregnant by her 14 year old boyfriend because they were never taught about sex. They were never taught about....well if you've ever had sex ed, you'll know which one I'm talking about. And it doesn't require a condom.

 

Sex education is exactly what the UN program is about. So why should the US withdraw from it?

Conservative Christian values.

E_S

 

More or less. I'm no fan of Bush, yeah, he's an okay leader. But he sticks to his own personal beliefs too much instead of listening to anyone. Not very effective IMO. I may hate the UN. And I still do, but this program is interesting because it actually gives people a chance to learn about sex and have sex responsibly. If Bush doesn't support that then he's a fool for doing so. I'd also like to add, so I don't neglect my conservative friends, I may be liberal on many issues, but I'm no democrap. Just a free-thinking American.

 

You claim you know them inside and out; you have not proven anything to me.

So do you think requiring gender quotas for governmental positions and outlawing Mother's Day have anything to do with equal rights? This is what CEDAW is about, O exalted one. Refute this: CEDAW exposed. There is some evidence for you to chew on.

Has the United Despots really learned from the League of Nations? LOL Secretary-General Neville Chamberlain...er, Kofi Annan...claimed Saddam is really serious about allowing "unfettered" access. How many wars has the United Despots prevented? Isn't that what their charter is dedicated to doing? They have failed miserably. There is no conceivable way you could defend that.

The charter is just words on a piece of paper; what are they worth? Apparently the charter is gospel to you. Great liberties are taken with the US Constitution nowadays, so why should the United Despots charter be immutable? Just because it says they are commited to this or that, does not mean they are or they always will be. I could sit here and draft a manifesto saying all sorts of things I disagree with. Would you believe it to be my genuine thoughts? Of course not, because my real views come out when I discuss matters. The real "charter" is not what is written down on a piece of paper, it is the principles that guide the organization.

Kofi Annan claims that the United Despots conveys "moral authority". Somehow the US has to ask their permission in order to act in its own defense, according to these jokers. How is an organization that attempts to establish a world court, desires a world army of "peacekeepers", etc. not out to become a world government?

Oh, wait...here is a link you could peruse to find out why I think such things about the United Despots: The Despots' Vision.

If you do not respect me, then I can pat myself on the back; I neither want nor need your respect. I think "moderates" like you have ground your axe to the handle over Bush and America...and everyone who thinks like myself.

 

Well, theres the proof for ya. Proof from an anti-homosexual, anti-pornography, ultra-christian website. Is that the best you can do? That website is just a tiny bit biased, don't ya think??

 

I am asking Ender_Sai to examine the material contained within. Remember, facts are facts no matter where you got the information, no matter how biased the source.

I happen to agree with them on many issues, as you can probably tell. I do consider them a reliable source of information. How are his sources, for instance, any more reliable? Do you think the United Despots website is any less biased? Of course, they would try to portray themselves in the most positive light possible.

 

Reading through that site, i don't see what anyone sane could see in it. Sorry, but thats just how i feel.

 

Remember, facts are facts no matter where you got the information, no matter how biased the source.

This is just too baffiling to me. Define "facts". So, you'd trust the numbers on election results from the National Enquirer? ?

 

Second, I would like to say that this thread is close to claiming first place for convoluted logic. I don't have time for a long post because I need to catch up on everything else, but I will try to sum up my position succinctly.

Great claim. In reading your comments, I can say that they also vye for that position.



Withdrawing from the UN Women's Health Project was a good thing for these reasons:

-It advocates abortion. Abortion kills. No more needs to be said on that.

Jediflyer, this "If it doesn't fit into my worldview, it's a threat, I'm right, you're wrong, end of discussion" attitude has to stop. I understand that this is charged issue, but you must look at the facts before jumping down my throat and accuse me of "convoluted logic".

Have you read the actual agreement? I'm willing to be you haven't. Nowhere in there does it say anything about a "right to abortion". The point of the act is to spread education on reducing the spread of disease and the number of unwanted pregnancies in the hope of cutting down unwanted pregnancy.

Now, we can ignore all that and scream "ABORTION", but that only adds carbon dioxide and heat to the air. Teaching "abstinence-only" is destined to fail. You can't scare, bully, or legally sanction people into abstinence. It doesn't work in our culture, it won't work in any other culture. It's time to put away the indignant remarks and start thinking about real solutions. Calling me names isn't one of them.




-It promotes faulty family planning techniques
-It is a health risk to people across the world by teaching them to use faulty family planning techniques such as the condom which fail a lot.

That is absolute, positive, utter nonsense. The fact that you have no education to back up that claim beyond high school only serves to reiterate my stand on your position.

Yes, there is no absolute effective method of birth control. That is not a reason to stop using them. Life causes death. We can reduce the risk of death through education and technology. Going by your argument, since vaccines aren't 100% effective, they should be banned. Same with antibiotics, in fact, any medical or surgical outcome. That argument is completely baseless. You're reaching-and not very well, I might add.

Reasons why this thread has the highest concentration of convoluted logic that I have seen in a long time:

I don't care why you think that. Your post was trolling from line one.

-Vaderize03 has been stating, among others, that condom use is part of disease control. Give me a break! Condoms fail all the time. Would you have sex using a condom with a person who has AIDs?

Yes. I would use more than one, but if I loved the person, absolutely. Your logic here, well, isn't. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. And whether or not to take that risk is up to me, not you. You have no authority to interfere in it in anyone's name-the government's, your church's, God's, no-one's. You seem to be under this illusion that you do.


-The complaints about the U.S. taking an isolationist standpoint and imposing its will on others being expoused by the same people.

You know, you could at least have the guts to call a spade a spade. The US is taking an isolationist standpoint by backing out on an agreement designed to at least try and find realistic solutions to this problem; 179 other countries signed on here. We're right and they're all wrong?

Uh-huh. Tell me another one. The United States is going to end up isolated, all right. By the rest of the planet.

-The fact that the U.S. is imposing trying to change cultures by not trying to change the status quo.

Uh, we are trying to change the status quo. The fact that the way we're doing it doesn't sit with you doesn't mean it isn't valid.


-The fact that upholding values is condemed as a bad thing. Look people, the worlds population problems could be solved with a few hundred g

 

You think condoms don't work? You think birth-control is "faulty family planning"? Ban them, and see what happens.

I agree. Condoms can work. They're the only form of birth control my parents have ever used, and they got the exact number of children they wanted at the exact times they wanted them. That's pretty darn good.

And even if you believe that sex within marriage is the only moral choice: do you want to see a bunch of kids starving and in rags because their married, committed, loving parents had no information on birth control and were unable to do anything to prevent having more children than they could possibly afford?

 

But it's not an excuse. If we're sending millions of dollars into this program, we have the right to ask what the results are. I could just as easily say that "It takes time for such problems to be solved" sounds a lot like an excuse too

All right, I'm not going to argue this point with you, because you are right on this one.


I'm pointing out that people conveniently say either the U.S. shouldn't meddle, or shouldn't be isolationist, depending on the issue. Not fair.

True. This one kind of bothers me. Actually, it bothers me a lot. Agreed.



But you can't have it both ways. People would accuse him of imposing our standards by throwing money at programs like this.

Wow, more agreement .



You can say that, but the country is greatly divided on issues like this. Yes, he's representing the people who voted for him. One shouldn't expect any different.

Agree to a point. My problem here is that people will die as a result of his backing out. Also, the alternative he has proposed will not work, and has been balked at by the rest of the world. The entire planet understands that teaching "abstinence-only" doesn't work. America is falling behind the times on social issues. Bush can try to build a bridge back to the 14th century, but we live in the 21st. And he certainly doesn't have a problem starting a war with Iraq, which many in and out of this country oppose. My problem with his decision is that it was based on politics, not IMHO what was right.

As I said, I wasn't just challenging you on the black/white/gray area issue, even though it was your post that inspired it. I respect you making a call on both the issue of terrorism and the health project. But there are many here who I'd like to see explain how this is so black and white, when other issues like terrorism are big gray areas.

This is a tough call. The best answer I can give you is that condoms are proven to stop the spread of AIDS and other STD's, and to help prevent pregnancy, when used properly. If we don't educate on how to use them, they won't be used properly. If we don't help provide them, they won't be used at all. I just don't agree with backing out because a small but vocal political lobby thinks we're "advocating abortion". It just simply isn't true, and I am saddened that our Chief Executive agrees with it. It's a shame.

Peace,

V-03

 

The Pill fails 6.2% of the time.
The condom fails 14.2% of the time.
The diaphragm fails 15.6% of the time.
Spermicide fails 26.3% of the time.

With typical use, not perfect use. If used properly, the rates are closer to 0.5% of the time for the pill, 8% for condoms (6% for condoms w/spermicide), about the same for diaphragms, and about 10% for spermicide.

However, using nothing results in pregnancy 85% of the time.

Peace,

V-03

 

This means you are encouraging people to go around having sex with multiple partners multiple times. I don't know if you have seen the "#partners chart" but it can get pretty scary very fast.

It's not doing that at all. It's giving them the means to protect themselves should they choose to do that. They're going to do it anyway, Jediflyer. Better protected than not protected.

Thanks to Ender, FID, and Sil for their contributions here in my absence. Much appreciated .

Peace,

V-03

 

It is up to you to validate what you find; you can find truth even in traditionally unreliable sources; however, it is not likely you will. One needs to be extra discerning with certain sources. I have not found it successfully argued that the site I referenced is inaccurate.

Facts are nuggets of truth; since when were facts really all that cryptic a subject? I am sure you could find a great definition on Dictionary.com.

 

Personally, I think the "facts" and information that you'd get from a Christian fundamentalist group would be far different from the "facts" you'd get from a pro-abortion group. EVERY source has some level of bias involved in their facts and how they disemminate them...some more than others.

 

Kofi Annan claims that the United Despots conveys "moral authority". Somehow the US has to ask their permission in order to act in its own defense, according to these jokers.

Oh you know nothing about the law! The US can act in it's self defence!
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

So, you see, the US doesn't need permission to defend itself. It DOES however need permission to pound a weak, third world army to dust because it does not satisfy the criteria for the use of force (self-defence, security council resolution). Why? Because the ICJ has widely condemned anticipatory self-defence (what you would call preemptive strikes) on the grounds that it is far too easy to abuse.

How is an organization that attempts to establish a world court, desires a world army of "peacekeepers", etc. not out to become a world government?

The ICC, which again you display volumous ignorance of the statute (though I'm sure you can find some more pseudo-fascist dogma to support your position here) ONLY has jurisdiction IF the state of the offender DOES NOT try the offender. Plus, it deals with violations of jus cogens principlies only - genocide, crimes against humanity, torture... But you knew that right!

These are not "facts". They are vague suppositions, POLUNIS. Why are the words of some jackbooted wannabe-Christian more valid that the words of the United Nations?

The United States has been increasingly marginalized over the years as the voices of third world Member States,

Oh man, that just smells of BS. No other nation has enjoyed as much influence as the USA in the UN!

Consequently, our interests cannot adequately be served by the world body politic.

So, by this fatally flawed logic, the 4.5% of the world's population that is the USA is worth more as human beings than the rest who don't feel American interests are their interests? Right.

The U.N. still lacks the authority to enforce decisions rendered by the Court. Member states determine whether or not to bind themselves to the Court's rulings. However, the U.N. is actively working to strengthen the international system. If successful, this would jeopardize the sovereignty of the United States.

Not so. The times when the US has been brought before the ICJ - like the case of Nicaragua vs United States - the US has deserved to be there. Futhermore, it assumes that if Member states violate basic international law principles, they can be punished for it. Which I'm sure you see as wrong.

The United Nations is one of the leading exporters of abortion to third world countries. However, it is often under the defense of "family planning," "reproductive services," and "women's rights." In fact, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) was instrumental in shaping China's brutal one child policy, which includes forced abortions, sterilizations, IUDs and the otherwise coercive treatment of women.

Oh BFS. Who wrote this crap? An international lawyer? Or a Christian fundamentalist?

As a result of the U.N./China one child policy, imposed in 1979, China is now suffering from a population imbalance.5

Oh man, I'm gonna have to pass this on to people. This is perhaps the single most stupid diatribe I've seen yet. Chinese culture does not favour women. Fact. CCP officials have noted that when THEY implemented this policy under Deng Xiopin

 

It would be interesting to see what that website would say about the UN if they were totally against abortion and didn't accept homosexuality as a basic fundamental human right. I'm willing to bet that with those changes alone the Christians that run that website would change their stance concerning the UN completely.

Good job on countering their "arguments" Ender_Sai.

 

Interesting, perhaps, but then imagine the state of the world we'd live in! Spanish Inqusition and Salem witch trials for all!

E_S

 

Nothing that bad. Though we'd see a few witch burnings. Thankfully puritanism is no longer practiced in America. Well..unless you count the Amish.

 

There's a saying here; "Thank god the Americans got the Puritans and we got the Convicts"!

I was being sarcastic though hombre.

E_S

 

Yeah, I know. Well....two more years of Bush, 6 if he wins in '04. I'm hoping an indi will win. Maybe then some change can be made.

 

This (UN Program) and other Bush iniatives have really done bad things for American pretige worldwide, as well as the international system. The EU is seriously considering putting their ICJ-allowed US$4.3bn of sanctions on the US over the "Steel Wars", because of Bush's uncompromising stance. It'd be really nice if his father gave him a few pointers on how to deal with the world. Reaaaaalllly nice.

Vote McCain!

E_S

 

Nothing that bad. Though we'd see a few witch burnings. Thankfully puritanism is no longer practiced in America.

Are you absolutely sure of that? What do you think John Ashcroft is? Bush coddles up to a rather puritanical base-the question is, how long will they hold on to power? If they push social conservatism too hard, IMHO, then we'll finally see a backlash. It may take awhile though.

Peace,

V-03

 

Well if puritanism were practiced we'd reject all technology. mmm...the stone age.