| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
16 Jul 2003 10:13:11 AM |
| Object: |
More on China's Forced Abortions |
On Jul 16, 2003, the AP posted an article by Jim Abrams titled:
"House Bill Backs New Foreign Aid Program."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030716/ap_on_go_co/congress_foreign_aid_2
___________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
In debate Tuesday, the House voted 216-211 to sustain
a policy under which recent Republican presidents have
withheld funds from the United Nations Population Fund.
President Bush last year denied the UNFPA $34 million
out of some $450 million the United States contributed to
international family planning programs. Opponents of the
UNFPA say its programs in China free up resources for
that country's alleged forced abortion practices and argue
that the withheld money goes to other family planning
programs.
"Since 1979, the UNFPA has been the chief apologist for
China's coercive one-child-per-couple policy," said Rep.
Christopher Smith, R-N.J.
[...]
The White House warned that the president would veto
any State Department bill that contained either the Boxer
provision or language in the House bill that made it more
difficult to restrict funding to the U.N. agency.
[...]
___________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
We see how diligently the liberals work to give American
tax dollars to the Chinese government to FORCE women to
have abortions if they already have ONE child. They
claim they favor CHOICE -- but, then they support a
wicked government which gives millions of women NO
CHOICE.
Why? Because they don't really support true "choice."
What they support is the continued international
growth of the abortion industry.
.
|
|
| User: "Baard Ove Kopperud" |
|
| Title: Re: More on China's Forced Abortions |
16 Jul 2003 01:43:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:13:11 +0000, Papa Jack wrote:
On Jul 16, 2003, the AP posted an article by Jim Abrams titled:
"House Bill Backs New Foreign Aid Program."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030716/ap_on_go_co/congress_foreign_aid_2
___________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
In debate Tuesday, the House voted 216-211 to sustain
a policy under which recent Republican presidents have
withheld funds from the United Nations Population Fund.
<SNIP>
___________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
We see how diligently the liberals work to give American
tax dollars to the Chinese government to FORCE women to
have abortions if they already have ONE child. They
claim they favor CHOICE -- but, then they support a
wicked government which gives millions of women NO
CHOICE.
Have you suddenly turned *pro-choice* Jack?!?
Personally, I find what you have preached here
-- denying women the even the *possiblity*
of abortion... to demand that *every* pregnant
woman has to go through with her pregnancy --
almost as bad as what China does... to force
women to *have* an abortion.
But unlike those who preach anti-abortion,
China at least have a legitimate reason for
doing what they does... between 1/5 and 1/6
of every human being on this planet is Chinese,
and despite Chinese policies, this number
continues to grow.
There are limits to how many people a country
can feed, and maybe an early abortion is
preferble to live a short life in constant
hunger... for everybody involved.
Why? Because they don't really support true "choice."
What they support is the continued international
growth of the abortion industry.
Bush seems to believe that people -- especially
poor people -- should practice "abstinence
only"... even if they're married. This makes
many people in developing-countries wonder why
the rich countries don't want them (the poor)
to have children.
That's IMHO is why he's so reluctant to give
money to an organization which mainly educates
people on family-planning, and distributes
contreceptives and offers sterilisation in
developing-countries, by using a non-existance
link to abortion as a flimsy excuse.
I wonder if Bush practice what he's preaching?
Has he been abstinent for 16 years? No wonder
he's got issues and needs to take he's anger
out somewhere.
Only too bad Bush Sr. disn't have the sense
his son appers to have (before Junior was an
itch in Seniors pants).
-Koppe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Jackass's support of forced abortions |
19 Jul 2003 11:31:35 AM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
"Baard Ove Kopperud" <bokoppeNOSpamHere@frisurf.no>
Have you suddenly turned *pro-choice* Jack?!?
Nope,
Snicker.
I just like to point out the hypocracy of
the Pro-Abort crowd. They constantly claim they
ONLY support women's right to CHOOSE. But, they
also consistantly support China's brutal policies
of FORCED abortions and requiring government
licenses to have more than one child.
NO, it's actually only you that support's China's supposed
policies of forced abortions. I have seen nobody who is pro-choice
support denying women the right to choose.
Only you.
Which is it:
= Do you support "CHOICE?"
= Or, do you support a centralized government
deciding how many children each woman may have?
Choice. As you have stated many times, YOU support a centralized
goverment making the choices for women.
Personally, I find what you have preached here
-- denying women the even the *possiblity*
of abortion... to demand that *every* pregnant
woman has to go through with her pregnancy --
almost as bad as what China does... to force
women to *have* an abortion.
Why do you misquote me?
He didn't, moron.
I've repeatedly stated
I agree with the large majority of Pro-Lifers
who would make exceptions in cases involving
rape, incest, and grave threat to the life of
the pregnant women.
Just as the Chinese government makes "exceptions".
What I oppose is the idea that millions of
women have a "constitutional right" to kill
their unborn children for their own convenience.
You, Jackass, are the only one who exists that such a right exists.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Baard Ove Kopperud" |
|
| Title: Re: More on China's Forced Abortions |
19 Jul 2003 01:34:42 AM |
|
|
Sorry for using another account...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0307170915.bc6c76a@posting.google.com>...
"Baard Ove Kopperud" <bokoppeNOSpamHere@frisurf.no> wrote in message > news:<pan.2003.07.16.18.42.56.947383@frisurf.no>...
Papa Jack wrote:
====================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
On Jul 16, 2003, the AP posted an article by Jim Abrams titled:
"House Bill Backs New Foreign Aid Program."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030716/ap_on_go_co/congress_foreign_aid_2
___________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
In debate Tuesday, the House voted 216-211 to sustain
a policy under which recent Republican presidents have
withheld funds from the United Nations Population Fund.
<SNIP>
___________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
We see how diligently the liberals work to give American
tax dollars to the Chinese government to FORCE women to
have abortions if they already have ONE child. They
claim they favor CHOICE -- but, then they support a
wicked government which gives millions of women NO
CHOICE.
====================================================================
Baard Ove Kopperud wrote:
Have you suddenly turned *pro-choice* Jack?!?
====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Nope, I just like to point out the hypocracy of
the Pro-Abort crowd. They constantly claim they
ONLY support women's right to CHOOSE. But, they
also consistantly support China's brutal policies
of FORCED abortions and requiring government
licenses to have more than one child.
Which is it:
= Do you support "CHOICE?"
Yes, that's exactly what *I* support.
I would prefer that women found alternatives
to abortion, but if abortion is their choice,
they should be allowed to.
= Or, do you support a centralized government
deciding how many children each woman may have?
I'm actually for a centrelized government to.
I'm for a government to take steps to ensure
the greatest possible well-being of the majority
of their citizens.
Extreme times calls for extreme measures... those
measures are laws, and if laws are broken, there
will be consequences.
China's policies are unfortunate, but the voluntary
system they've used, just doesn't work. The population
and populatgion-growth in China *must be* brought under
control... for the best of china and the rest of the
world.
China have also implemented girls-apriciation-programs
to curb old views. Girls are the ones who would be
suffering without these programs. Girls are those
who would be killed at birth, left in the woods
or would starve while the boys ate... but then again,
you don't care about girls or women.
====================================================================
Baard Ove Kopperud wrote:
Personally, I find what you have preached here
-- denying women the even the *possiblity*
of abortion... to demand that *every* pregnant
woman has to go through with her pregnancy --
almost as bad as what China does... to force
women to *have* an abortion.
====================================================================
Papa Jack corrected:
Why do you misquote me? I've repeatedly stated
I agree with the large majority of Pro-Lifers
who would make exceptions in cases involving
rape, incest, and grave threat to the life of
the pregnant women.
I wasn't quoting you at all. I just feel it's
a slippery slope... that even if one start out
with allowing abortions in case of rape and
incest, soon extremist pro-lifers will get that
forbidden too.
If for no other reason, that because we undoubtfully
would see an extreme escelation of cases of "incest"
and "rape", if those are the only legal reasons for
abortion.
And if you set the "unborn child" first -- priorities
it before *one* of it's parents (the mother) -- then
why should the *other* parent count more than the
child in some cases? And why should some reasons for
why the mother doesn't want the baby (rape, incest),
be more important than other reasons?
How can _you_ decide that a child that's the product
of a rape or incest is *less* important than any
other child?
You may argue it's because such a child is not wanted,
but what has that got to do with anything?!? We're
after all talking about children born because their
mother was denied an abortion... odds are *none* of
them was wanted. So do we start to argue that some
children are *more* "not wanted" than others?
What I oppose is the idea that millions of
women have a "constitutional right" to kill
their unborn children for their own convenience.
They have the constitutional right to have control
over their *own* bodies!
Baard Ove Kopperud wrote:
There are limits to how many people a country
can feed, and maybe an early abortion is
preferble to live a short life in constant
hunger... for everybody involved.
====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
And, of course, you believe we all need a
centralized government to make such decisions
for us. Do you think the government should
decide how many sheets of toilet paper each
citizen should use?
Well, people tends to think only about themselves.
They *need* a government to see "the big picture".
Apart from the latest 80 years or so, Chinese have
controlled their own reproduction without any help
from the government... and we see the result.
====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Why? Because they don't really support true "choice."
What they support is the continued international
growth of the abortion industry.
Abortion in China is done government-eployees...
for free... often by force. I can hardly see
how that supports an industry -- as no money is
being made.
====================================================================
Baard Ove Kopperud wrote:
Bush seems to believe that people -- especially
poor people -- should practice "abstinence
only"... even if they're married...
====================================================================
Papa Jack corrected:
That's false. What President supports is sex
education for teens which teaches "abstinence
only." This certainly has nothing to do with
whether or not married couples should use
contraceptives or other forms of birth control.
Then why doesn't he support programs for sex-ed,
family-planning and the distribution of conreceptives
in development-countries? I'm talking programs that
*doesn't* involve abortions.
====================================================================
Baard Ove Kopperud wrote:
...This makes many people in developing-countries
wonder why the rich countries don't want them (the
poor)to have children.
====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Huh? Your point?
Sorry about that.
It's the view in some poor countries, as we
push programs for them to have less children
-- while doing little ourselves -- that we
concider children from development countries
"unwanted".
====================================================================
Baard Ove Kopperud wrote:
That's IMHO is why he's so reluctant to give
money to an organization which mainly educates
people on family-planning, and distributes
contreceptives and offers sterilisation in
developing-countries, by using a non-existance
link to abortion as a flimsy excuse.
====================================================================
Papa Jack corrected:
Again -- President Bush has never discouraged
the use of contraceptives. His only point
has been that American tax dollars shouldn't
go to organizations (like Planned Parenthood)
who try to export the abortion industry to
foreign countries. This has nothing to do
with real family-planning separated from
abortion.
I was thinking about support for programs in
development-countries. See above.
-Koppe
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More on China's Forced Abortions |
22 Jul 2003 12:16:07 PM |
|
|
Baard Ove Kopperud (baard.kopperud@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: Extreme times calls for extreme measures... those
: measures are laws, and if laws are broken, there
: will be consequences.
Are you on LSD or something?
There are no laws in mainland China.
There are rules falsely called laws, made by the ruling junta that calls
itself a government there.
But none of these so-called laws deserves the respect that we, living in
democratic countries, give to the law in our countries.
It is written: "The just powers of governments derive from the consent of
the governed". China does not have a free press. China does not have a
genuine multi-party system (it has recently introduced a so-called
multi-party system, but the other parties are _not_ independent of the
Communist party). China is the land of the Cultural Revolution and
Tienanmen Square. Despite those responsible for the Cultural Revolution
being booted out in factional struggle, it is not true that the ordinary
decent people it menaced now rule China; instead, those who made the
Cultural Revolution possible are still shielded and protected by the Red
Chinese regime.
Thus, any "consequences" of breaking a "law" enacted by the Chinese
dictatorship are imposed without legitimate authority. If they put someone
in jail, they're guilty of kidnapping. If they execute someone, they're
guilty of murder. Prosecutions, following the liberation of China, would
presumably take place under the last real laws that existed in that
country: those of the Republic of China, which still exists in Taiwan.
John Savard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: More on China's Forced Abortions |
22 Jul 2003 07:03:15 PM |
|
|
In article <rjeTa.3750$Fy1.171356@localhost>, says...
Subject: Re: More on China's Forced Abortions
From: ()
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
Baard Ove Kopperud (baard.kopperud@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: Extreme times calls for extreme measures... those
: measures are laws, and if laws are broken, there
: will be consequences.
Are you on LSD or something?
There are no laws in mainland China.
Don't be ridiculous.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More on China's Forced Abortions |
28 Jul 2003 03:33:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:16:07 GMT, () in alt.abortion with
message-id <rjeTa.3750$Fy1.171356@localhost> wrote:
Baard Ove Kopperud (baard.kopperud@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: Extreme times calls for extreme measures... those
: measures are laws, and if laws are broken, there
: will be consequences.
Are you on LSD or something?
There are no laws in mainland China.
Of course there are.
There are rules falsely called laws, made by the ruling junta that calls
itself a government there.
It IS the government, whether you (or I) like it or not, and no matter what
form it takes.
But none of these so-called laws deserves the respect that we, living in
democratic countries, give to the law in our countries.
Nonsense. Nothing requires law to have 'respect' nor do they exist solely
in a democratic country. Obey the law or suffer the consequences.
It is written: "The just powers of governments derive from the consent of
the governed".
That is one theory for one of the bases of one type of government. There
are many types of governments.
China does not have a free press. China does not have a
genuine multi-party system (it has recently introduced a so-called
multi-party system, but the other parties are _not_ independent of the
Communist party). China is the land of the Cultural Revolution and
Tienanmen Square. Despite those responsible for the Cultural Revolution
being booted out in factional struggle, it is not true that the ordinary
decent people it menaced now rule China; instead, those who made the
Cultural Revolution possible are still shielded and protected by the Red
Chinese regime.
Irrelevant. All of it.
Thus, any "consequences" of breaking a "law" enacted by the Chinese
dictatorship are imposed without legitimate authority.
Absolute nonsense. Are you saying no legitimate laws existed prior to the
establishment of what you recognize as 'legitimate authority'? A time
period that covers most of history?
If they put someone
in jail, they're guilty of kidnapping. If they execute someone, they're
guilty of murder. Prosecutions, following the liberation of China, would
presumably take place under the last real laws that existed in that
country: those of the Republic of China, which still exists in Taiwan.
Totally wrong.
Check the definition of a law.
A law can be established by any ruling body, be it a President, a King, an
Emperor, or a Tsar. Or a governing committee of any kind. A law is as
valid as the strength and power of the governmental entity that enforces
it.
John Savard
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Jackass's Forced Abortions |
16 Jul 2003 09:36:15 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
On Jul 16, 2003, the AP posted an article by Jim Abrams titled:
"House Bill Backs New Foreign Aid Program."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030716/ap_on_go_co/congress_foreign_aid_2
___________________________________________________________________
President Bush last year denied the UNFPA $34 million
out of some $450 million the United States contributed to
international family planning programs. Opponents of the
UNFPA say its programs in China free up resources for
that country's alleged forced abortion practices and argue
that the withheld money goes to other family planning
programs.
ROFL! Since the allegations that UNFPA money was used to provide
abortion were proven to be baseless lies, now we see claims that
UNFPA _allows_ "alleged" forced abortion.
What pathetic liars.
___________________________________________________________________
We see how diligently the liberals work to give American
tax dollars to the Chinese government to FORCE women to
have abortions if they already have ONE child.
What "forced abortions", Jackass?
And why are you objecting to forced abortions WHEN YOU HAVE
DEFENDED FORCED ABORTIONS YOURSELF?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
