Join 3,557 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Surely they must be wrong!
December 18, 2002 7:11 AM   Subscribe

All together now: NO! 32 Asian nations tell the Bush admin where to stick its opinions on abortion
posted by magullo (54 comments total)

 
Looks like the views of the executive branch really do reflect the views of everyone in the US. It's right there in black and white that all the US opposes abortion and any language that might be construed to support abortion or teen-age contraception. Jocelyn Elders said it best regarding teens and contraception with "Yes, condoms do sometimes break, but vows of abstinence break much faster and more often."

Does this mean the Canadians are correct in their assessment that we're all a bunch of morons?
posted by nofundy at 7:24 AM on December 18, 2002


The State Department said in a statement: "Some participants at the conference sought to force the U.S. to agree to language supporting abortion. We are disappointed that so much attention at the conference was focused on this language rather than on improving the lives of people in the region."

Okay, actually, what happened was that ALL participants at the conference voted to tell the U.S. they can't seek to force the rest of them to agree to language opposing abortion rights. In a related story, "some participants" of the world think George Bush is a psychotic right-wing imbecile. Show of hands?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:26 AM on December 18, 2002


[T]he American delegation . . . tried to remove references to adolescents in a section dealing with reproductive rights, arguing that the provision promoted sexual activity among teenagers.

*bangs head on desk*
posted by gottabefunky at 7:30 AM on December 18, 2002


Does this mean the Canadians are correct in their assessment that we're all a bunch of morons?

No.
posted by jsonic at 7:34 AM on December 18, 2002


Does this mean the Canadians are correct in their assessment that we're all a bunch of morons?

Yes
posted by batboy at 7:38 AM on December 18, 2002


"The United States supports the sanctity of life from conception to natural death."

All together now: Except when we're executing people.
posted by subgenius at 7:40 AM on December 18, 2002


Does this mean the Canadians are correct in their assessment that we're all a bunch of morons?

batboy: Yes


Ahh, another believer in generalizations and stereotypes. But its OK because its TRUE, right?
posted by jsonic at 7:44 AM on December 18, 2002


"The United States supports the sanctity of life from conception to natural death."

All together now: Except when they're bombing Afgan villagers and issuing death warrants on terrorism 'suspects' to the CIA etc etc etc....
posted by DrDoberman at 7:47 AM on December 18, 2002


But its OK because its TRUE, right?

Yeah.
posted by ed\26h at 7:47 AM on December 18, 2002


But its OK because its TRUE, right?

ed\26h: Yeah.


Racists and segregationists use the same argument.
posted by jsonic at 7:51 AM on December 18, 2002


"Because the United States supports innocent life from conception to natural death, the United States does not support, promote or endorse abortions, abortion-related services or the use of abortifacients."

Um... (raises hand)... I do. I support it. Thank you.
posted by The Michael The at 7:59 AM on December 18, 2002


Racists and segregationists use the same argument.

earth to you: lighten up!

I wonder if they threw in the "natural" to the "natural death" part just to keep "anti-american folks" from bringing up our current administration's decidedly non-pro-life stances on foreign policy, the death penalty, welfare, etc.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:05 AM on December 18, 2002


This is the worst part:

Earlier this month, the Bush administration blocked $34 million appropriated by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund.

Appropriated by Congress!
posted by valval22 at 8:07 AM on December 18, 2002


::steps up on soapbox, balanced precariously::

Most of the world realizes that Bush is an idiot and his pack of slavering fanatics needs to go.

Remember - only about a third of the nation voted in 2000, with a very slight increase in 2002. Complain first, but make sure you vote this moron (and all of the other ones) out on 2004.

Thank you.

::steps down, resumes staring at nude pictures on Internet::
posted by FormlessOne at 8:07 AM on December 18, 2002


earth to you: lighten up!

Generalizations and stereotypes are by definition incorrect and useless. Yet otherwise intelligent people somehow actually believe that the stereotype that all americans are fat, intolerant, ignorant war mongers is OK because its TRUE.

[on preview] I guess i'm just angry today.
posted by jsonic at 8:11 AM on December 18, 2002


It's OK to slam people for making generalisations... but it was Mr. Bush's administration who said "The United States supports ..."

I would say that was pretty general ;)
posted by DrDoberman at 8:28 AM on December 18, 2002


But its OK because its TRUE, right?
ed\26h: Yeah.
Racists and segregationists use the same argument.

So, I would note, does the new "Drug money funds terror" commercial than ran twice during 24 last night.
posted by tingley at 8:35 AM on December 18, 2002


but it was Mr. Bush's administration who said "The United States supports ..."
I would say that was pretty general ;)


I agree. It is always suspect when a politician attempts to portray the U.S. as having one united opinion in any matter.
posted by jsonic at 8:37 AM on December 18, 2002


So, I would note, does the new "Drug money funds terror" commercial than ran twice during 24 last night.

Absolutely. Everytime I see those my first reaction is "And oil doesn't?"
posted by jsonic at 8:41 AM on December 18, 2002


[on preview] I guess i'm just angry today.

jsonic

Didn't mean to anger you, was just being a bit flippant.

However, the position on this issue (and others such as the war on drugs) that is taken by the executive branch are generalizations and stereotypes of what "The United States supports"
posted by batboy at 8:52 AM on December 18, 2002


the position on this issue (and others such as the war on drugs) that is taken by the executive branch are generalizations and stereotypes of what "The United States supports"

I agree.
posted by jsonic at 9:02 AM on December 18, 2002


Generalizations and stereotypes are by definition incorrect and useless.

Actually, that's not true. Generalizations and stereotypes can be offensive to the degree that they are not accurate, true, or representative (and by definition, they can never be fully accurate, true, or representative), but they are often quite useful in summarizing broad ranges of data and are frequently used by laymen and professionals alike. If, for example, I say "Americans do not support the eating of dogs," that would be a useful and informative statement that would bear up to further investigation, even while not being true in an absolute sense.
posted by rushmc at 9:32 AM on December 18, 2002


The writing is on the wall folks. Start kissing your reproductive rights goodbye. Bush is already telling the rest of the world that we don't support it (when we do). He's already made the decision for us, so now it is only a matter of time until he can stock the supreme court with his own fish.
posted by archimago at 9:35 AM on December 18, 2002


All stereotypes are based in truth. If they were not, they wouldn't hold the power they do.
posted by archimago at 9:36 AM on December 18, 2002


Even though I disagree with Bush' Iraq policy and the proliferation of ant-life legislation in the US, I have to say, kudos to the US for standing up for the voiceless innocent in a clear and identifiable way.

I was pro-choice/pro-abortion until I was 26. Then I started to think deeply about it, Unless you can 100% conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (and in a way that the normal skeptic has no rebuttal to) that the unborn are not people, you must assume that they are, regardless of what the mother thinks this baby will do to her standard of living. No one has presented 100% proof yet, and probably never will be able to.
posted by timbley at 10:00 AM on December 18, 2002


I agree.

/release of balloons
posted by Dick Paris at 10:05 AM on December 18, 2002


timbley, how do you feel about teaching teens how to use contraceptives? They're against that, too.
posted by Karmakaze at 10:10 AM on December 18, 2002


They also argued that the Cairo agreement already contains language stating, "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning."

Wouldn't that be like promoting spending as a method of financial planning?

timbley:
Unless you can 100% conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (and in a way that the normal skeptic has no rebuttal to) that the unborn are not people, you must assume that they are, regardless of what the mother thinks this baby will do to her standard of living.

Define people.
posted by skryche at 10:14 AM on December 18, 2002


If the "unborn" blastocyte, embryo, and fetus are "people" with all the rights and responsibilities that pertain to born people, then they're hardly innocent – they're committing felonious assault on their mothers! Drinking their blood like vampires for nine months! Kicking them repeatly in very sensitive parts of their insides! And then incestuously and brutally raping them from inside with their huge heads during birth!

Kill the little monsters!

Or, maybe, they're undeveloped people, conceived with no rights or responsibilities, and earn the right to live gradually as they gestate until they're born – just like Roe v. Wade says. Yeah, that's it. Never mind that other stuff I said.
posted by nicwolff at 10:25 AM on December 18, 2002


All stereotypes are based in truth. If they were not, they wouldn't hold the power they do.

I would say that stereotypes are based on a flawed perception of the truth. That is why I think they are dangerous.
posted by jsonic at 10:40 AM on December 18, 2002


regardless of what the mother thinks this baby will do to her standard of living

If this is the reason you think women make the decision to have an abortion, there may be some more deep thinking that needs to be done.

Try improving your deep thinking by actually talking to women who have made this decision. You may learn something, and while you still may hate and revile them, your opinions will at least be more informed.
posted by birgitte at 10:44 AM on December 18, 2002


Absolutely 100% with birgitte.
posted by Woolcott'sKindredGal at 10:52 AM on December 18, 2002


but it was Mr. Bush's administration who said "The United States supports ..."
I would say that was pretty general ;)

I agree. It is always suspect when a politician attempts to portray the U.S. as having one united opinion in any matter.


This is diplomatic semantics. They use the wording "the United States does this or that" because they are our representatives to the UN, so as our representative they speak as the voice of the US, maybe not your personal opinion or voice, but hey, that's what representatives do.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:07 AM on December 18, 2002


I don't understand the many hysterical comments. Simply put: the U.S., before Bush and for a long time, has not been supportive of abortion or education about abortion or making accessible birth control stuff...Political figures cater to the right wing and to those religious groups opposed to abortion. What is odd of course is that we believe in "the sanctity of life," and when there are too many people and starvation and disease we spend lots of money to alleviate but do nothing about huge growing populations.
Now in the U.S., there are many members of relgious groups whose church does not condone abortion but these folks are educated enough to use birth control when they want to, despite church teaching. Education helps. So too money for education about abortion and making birth control available ...but this we refuse to do.
I didlike Bush but I bet he has taught his daughters to use protection!
posted by Postroad at 11:24 AM on December 18, 2002


Natural Death!
Natural Death!
Natural Death!
posted by 4easypayments at 11:42 AM on December 18, 2002


"The writing is on the wall folks. Start kissing your reproductive rights goodbye. "

Uh, how 'bout we start kissing the current regime goodbye?
posted by 2sheets at 12:13 PM on December 18, 2002


Karmakaze: I am actually against artificial contraception, but that is based on a religious and moral stance. Natural contraception (i.e. Billings Ovulation method, sympto-thermal method, etc...) are fine by me. The difference is whether or not you are open to giving God a free hand in your life or whether you are saying, "No, I want the pleasure but not the responsibility" to God. Ooh, more fuel for the fire, I actually mentioned God. ;)
posted by timbley at 12:13 PM on December 18, 2002


birgitte: Okay, I was being somewhat facetious. However, there are few other reasons in North America why women have abortions (pregnancy through rape and threat to the mother's life are incredibly low). I am well-read on the subject, and have seen it from both sides of the fence. I have to say that the pro-life side is more rational, compelling, and has a stronger sense of the rightness of the issue, whereas the pro-choice side has a certain illogic to it as well as a generally selfish attitude towards life. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Do you find it interesting that Roe (from Roe vs. Wade) now works in the pro-life movement , trying to get women to avoid abortions? How many women out there are devasted by grief after buying into the "pro-life" story and killing their unborn children?

Yes, there are women who cry out "pro-choice", and there are women who cry out "My God, I can't believe I killed my baby instead of loving it".
posted by timbley at 12:24 PM on December 18, 2002


The difference is whether or not you are open to giving God a free hand in your life

God needs a new hobby.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:30 PM on December 18, 2002


...and there are women who cry out, "my God, that letter bomb I sent to that clinic killed a cop instead of one of those hell bound abortionists!" Hell, there are women that cry out, "trust me honey, you'll heal up just fine, just like me and Grandma did, now let them finish your circumcision with this jagged piece of glass."

So what's your point?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:42 PM on December 18, 2002


The difference is whether or not you are open to giving God a free hand in your life

This is the same reason I don't wash fruits and vegetables before I eat them, don't use deodorant, don't cut my hair, and don't seek medical attention.
posted by 4easypayments at 12:48 PM on December 18, 2002


Excuse me Timbley, but how dare you. How dare you. You have no idea of the responsibility involved with carrying a baby. I can't believe the gall of a Canadian man telling American women what it's all about and what we think. If you are against women having the right to choose, then make damn sure that you use protection when you have sex. Don't make sweeping statements as fact and then use that cop-out "it's just my opinion". Sickening.
posted by Woolcott'sKindredGal at 12:50 PM on December 18, 2002


Do you find it interesting that Roe (from Roe vs. Wade) now works in the pro-life movement , trying to get women to avoid abortions?

Yep, that's pretty interesting, on a related note, Pam Anderson Lee Rock had a procedure to remove some of the size of her breasts which she had previously had enlarged to galactic proportions and then made a career of exposing them to the public. Its often interesting when people change their minds. George Wallace apologized to the African-American community of Alabama and (claimed that he) worked towards the advancement of black people in his final days. Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment. Our president, a dedicated party boy now claims to be born-again, while Robert Downey, Jr. claimed to be cleaned up and returned to his addictions. Yeah, people do some funny things.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:58 PM on December 18, 2002


I'd just like to say that I would like the pleasure but not the responsibility. What's the advantage of risk? Tell God if you want, but He's been hinting to me lately that He already knows.

timbley:
whereas the pro-choice side has a certain illogic to it

I'm inclined to agree with that: "Pro-choice"? Hey, who doesn't like choice? That doesn't sound at all offensive. (I realize that "pro-life" suffers from a similar problem)

There's also a certain feeling I get from pro-choice rhetoric: that many don't really believe that pro-lifers don't really think abortions == baby-killing.
posted by skryche at 1:42 PM on December 18, 2002


I meant to say:
that many don't believe that pro-lifers really think abortions == baby-killing.
posted by skryche at 1:47 PM on December 18, 2002


I can't believe the gall of a Canadian man telling American women what it's all about and what we think.

Woolcott'sKindredGal:

my goodness, does everything these days have to devolve into a Canada vs. USA feud?
posted by batboy at 2:15 PM on December 18, 2002


Damn Canadian bastards! Why can't they keep their damn, dirty laws off my body! What's next? I gotta listen to some Frenchy telling me Bush is a dufus?
posted by Pollomacho at 2:21 PM on December 18, 2002


I think people are taking diplomatic language out of context. When a diplomat at an international conference says, "the position of the United States is," it means, and always has been understood to mean, the then-current position of the President, in whom exclusive powers to set foreign policy (but for the declaration of war and the ratification of treaties) is vested by the Constitution.

The President's position on abortion has always been unambiguously clear, and the State Department is not only free, but is obliged, to express the same as the policy of the United States, regardless of its relation to domestic law (including, in this case, Roe and Doe).
posted by MattD at 2:31 PM on December 18, 2002


I'd just like to say that I would like the pleasure but not the responsibility.

Hear, hear. That's the whole POINT of being a tool-using animal (i.e., technology), to overcome the arbitrary limits of biology and nature.
posted by rushmc at 2:34 PM on December 18, 2002


(Arbitrary from our perspective, that is.)
posted by rushmc at 9:39 PM on December 18, 2002


Timbley....you need to speak about this issue with 70 and 80 yr old women. I have and believe me if you heard the horror stories that they tell of the measures that desperate mostly teen age girls took in the days...the blood bath that was those days before Roe V Wade you might feel differently. Women of that age group are much wiser and have a far better understanding of what life is like for women when they do not have reproductive rights. Do you not realize that like other things in this country, if you try to remove peoples legal ability to obtain them does not remove thier access. Do you honestly believe that if RVW were overturned that there would be no more abortions? There were abortions, attempted abortions, not to mention the deaths as a result of those attempts, long before. Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
posted by SweetIceT at 10:07 PM on December 18, 2002


Yeah, where have you been? Didn't you see Dirty Dancing?!?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:25 AM on December 19, 2002


Do we really belive that Bush cares deeply about poor women in Bangladesh? Really? Then wouldn't teaching contraception to them be a good thing?

Once Bush and Co. hired Poindexter and friends, they lost all credibility.

The answer to the above question is NO.
posted by 4midori at 1:56 PM on December 19, 2002


I was pro-choice/pro-abortion until I was 26. Then I started to think deeply about it,

just because you came to a different conclusion, don't assume other people haven't also given the issue considerable philosophical speculation.

Unless you can (and in a way that the normal skeptic has no rebuttal to) that the unborn are not people, you must assume that they are, regardless of what the mother thinks this baby will do to her standard of living. No one has presented 100% proof yet, and probably never will be able to.

can you present 100% proof that animals are not fully conscious beings? Can you present 100% proof that plants are not conscious beings? Can you "100% conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" that viruses and bacteria aren't conscious beings? Maybe there's a whole world of people in another dimension who are constantly killed by any sound waves we produce... No? Where's your proof?

A human fetus does not even have a brain stem until around the 24th week. Humans are probably not really conscious until they're at least a year old - we have to learn to use the sensory perception we're born with, and then learn to differentiate with it. While in the womb, the fetus is simply growing, developing these organs for future use. 1st term abortions seem to me to be without any real moral difficulty - you're ending a possibility, but that's it. Often women who go in for early term abortions are told they have to wait for the embryo to grow a bit more so that it can be spotted by the naked eye. If women are well informed and not shamed about making this decision, the only reason anyone would need a second or third term abortion is because of complications, severe defects, or possibility of severe harm to the mother.

Pregnancy is not an easy or enjoyable thing, or anyway, it's only enjoyable because of what will come of it. But women are forced to give over their bodies for an interloper's use; their own movement and capability is significantly decreased, they have to carry around an additional 20-odd pounds, their skin is extended, their back and feet ache, their hormones go crazy. People should be grateful their mother was willing to go through this for the possibility that became them, not assume it was simply her duty to do so, as you do.
posted by mdn at 9:12 AM on December 20, 2002


« Older Comic Thief Confronted...  |  Man Beheads (statue of) Margar... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments