It does not surprise me at all that you would prefer to be against an international Bill of Rights for Women and choose to support the views of for instance Iran, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan (countries which have not signed this bill). All in the name of fetuses.

Abortion has not been "exported" to Nigeria. Abortion in Nigeria used to be practiced by medicine men, witch doctors and midwifes. CEDAW wants to ensure that the women who want or need to have an abortion get proper treatment and healthcare. Women in Nigeria who want or need an abortion are usually mothers of large families already, they can not afford to have another child. Image what would happen to her other children when the mother would die because of an abortion performed by quacks.
When Ekwowusi is concerned about Western Cultural Imperialism in Nigeria, he should take his Catholic Conservative Christianity with him and leave Nigeria.

Willem,

You Socialist (Ed Note, unfair comment deleted) Liberals should take your anti-Life Socialist agenda, shove it, and leave America.Period.
__________________________________________________

Mark,

In no attempt to divert the thread, I have something that I'd like say that has really troubled me. There was a discussion over at YA last evening, It is really troubling to me. It also pertains to Abortion and the practice thereof, Even more troubling, It is concerning an individual who claims himself a "pro-choice republican" and I'd just like to share my thought concerning the issue... Prepare Yourself, this is *shocking* to me anyways, and I'm sure would be also to others.

This is what the individual says about an unborn child -
It's not a human being yet until the cells have specialized into their ultimate goal, which occurs during the third trimester.

"During the first two trimesters, even referring to the unborn as a fetus isn't correct - it's a blastocyst. Furthermore, that early in the pregnancy the blastocyst would have no chance of survival outside of the womb, which would (scientifically) label it as a parasite - since it's siphoning off what it needs from the host (mother) and returning nothing."

Can you believe that someone would refer to an unborn child as a "PARASITE"??????

What I really think, Is that, this individual who identifies himself as a "pro-choice republican", is actually, a DEMOCRAT creep, Who is trying to make the Republican party look bad, but in the event that he truely is in fact, A "Republican" this is something that we will have to think about in the future, within the Conservative movement. We need to condemn all such individuals for their totally asinine positions, They are the ones who alienate our base, And so we need to come to quick, and speedy condemnation of such individuals.

I mean, this is SOOOOO SAAAAAD!!!!!!!

We DEFINITELY have some kooky individuals within the party lines.

Just something we need to really, really think about...

And as to the Abortion issue in Nigeria, I agree whole-heartedly with your stance on the issue there.

Jeremiah

A couple of things...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but sterilizing women isn't exactly as staple of western culture.

Mark, All of the sudden you hate "Western Cultural Imperialism"? Do you define this as spreading elements of western culture overseas? If so, then why do you like spreading Democracy, a cornerstone of western culture, so much?`

Jeremiah,

While I share your pro-life views, let me point out that there are plenty of Republicans who call themselves "pro-choice", such as Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, Pete Wilson (CA Gov), Rudy Giuliani, Alan Simpson (WY Sen), Susan Molinari (NY rep), etc. The GOP treats them far better than the Dems treat their pro-life wing (yes, there is one), as seen in the number of pro-choice Repubs sitting in Bush's cabinet or being allowed to speak at GOP conventions. (Seen any pro-lifers in Clinton's cabinet, or addressing the Dem convention? I didn't either.)

I'll give the "republican pro-choice" person credit for one thing. At least he's trying to give a scientific reason for his views, even if it's one I don't agree with.

For example:
early in the pregnancy the blastocyst would have no chance of survival outside of the womb, which would (scientifically) label it as a parasite

This inability to survive outside the womb is also true for a newborn infant, who is basically helpless for the first few months of its post-natal life.

it's siphoning off what it needs from the host (mother) and returning nothing."

Sounds like a description of breast-feeding, something done by a baby after birth.

In other words, his reasons really don't distinguish a fetus from a post-natal baby.

Ah. Mark. Did you even bother to go read the CEDAW articles? I am guessing you didn't. Of course not understanding something isn't a reason for Mark not to take an insane stance on something. To witt - lets examine these claims:

-----------------------------------------
But regrettably, the raison d'?tre of CEDAW, the main thrust of the 30-artcicle CEDAW Convention, the whole live wire of CEDAW is centered in Articles 10(h), 12, 14(b) and 16 of CEDAW, which are aimed at legalising abortion, sterilisation of women to control population, prostitution, under the soft language of family planning.
------------------------------------

Listed below are the actual articles of the CEDAW convention. As you can see clearly there is no mention of legalizing abortion or sterilization
at all. it does contain the word family planning. Now - the argument he is making is that family planning means forcing sterilization and killing babies. Quite to the contrary they even define explicitly what they mean:
"to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to hove access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights"

that is they want to educate women and allow them to decide when and if they are pregnant. If you have evidence otherwise - please present it. Otherwise it will just be another of your many many lies

Article 10(h)
(h) Access to specific educational information to help to ensure the health and well-being of families, including information and advice on family planning.
----
Article 12
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.
---
14(b)
(b) To have access to adequate health care facilities, including information, counselling and services in family planning;
-------
16
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:

(a) The same right to enter into marriage;

(b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent;

(c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution;

(d) The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount;

(e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights;

(f) The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount;

(g) The same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation;

(h) The same rights for both spouses in respect of the ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of property, whether free of charge or for a valuable consideration.

Sounds like a description of breast-feeding, something done by a baby after birth.
In other words, his reasons really don't distinguish a fetus from a post-natal baby.

Posted by: Bigfoot

Bigfoot,
There is a huge difference because the post-natal baby can live off of supplemental supplies of mother's milk. This is completely different from a fetus less then 24 weeks gestation. Yes, I know that some fetus may have survived at 20 weeks, but that is something rare.

About the West's influence there is no rule book as to what is acceptable to pass along. Constantly, we provide our religions, technology and money, but we can't stop just there because we are having difficulties with some of our country moral issues.

Let them (Nigeria) decide what is best for their country and we need to butt out.

Just curious Mark. Does this mean that you want to pull all of the Christian Missionaries out of Africa also? There are those that would accuse them of spreading Western Cultural Imperialism also.

"You Socialist Nazi Liberals should take your anti-Life Socialist agenda, shove it, and leave America.Period."

Ah Jeremiah, Willem doesn't live in America. Also, by calling him a Nazi, you broke Godwin's Law and the site's rules.

Deleted - off topic

Deleted - overly insulting, commenter banned.

szpimp,
"Jeremiah needs to be banned."

I disagree. Jeremiah made a mistake. If Matt and Mark banned everyone who went overboard once or twice on this blog, they would have to shut it down inside of a week.

Jeremiah,
I suggest you study your history a little better. There isn't anyone who posts on this blog that comes anywhere close to Hitler or the Nazis, Or to Stalin or Pol Pot for that matter.

Casper, szpimp, et al-

I've been called a whole laundry list of less than favorable things by Jeremiah. Really, it's just him being silly. Really, his lack of logic and reason just validate what I say all of the time.

kblack-

Brace yourself for a barrage of "family planning=abortion" talking-points. The terms are often conflated by both sides, so arguing the semantics of the bill won't resonate with the defenders here...

I've been called a whole laundry list of less than favorable things by Jeremiah. Really, it's just him being silly.

Posted by: Rana Quijotesca at July 19, 2007 02:50 PM

Jeremiah should not be banned. He is just one of those pathetic, deluded individuals who has become mired in a religious delirium from which he is unable to extract himself. As Mark has said; Jeremiah is just an 'enthusiastic' testifier.

If so, then why do you like spreading Democracy, a cornerstone of western culture, so much?

Actually, Rainman, we like to spread freedom.

O/T, and I'm sure we'll have a thread on this here:

Former CIA employee Valerie Plame, aka Joe the Liar's "Spy Wife," had her frivolous lawsuit dismissed today. All I can say is: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh Canadian Observer, I could not agree with you more on that comment "He (Jeremiah) is just one of those pathetic, deluded individuals who has become mired in a religious delirium from which he is unable to extract himself.

Jerry is hilarious. No danger of Jerry being banned.

Jeremiah

We DEFINITELY have some kooky individuals within the party lines.

Willem,

So, a Nigerian should take his Catholicism and leave Nigeria so a Dutch liberal can tell Nigerians what laws they should have? You don't detect a bit of irony in your statement?

Casper,

Not at all - you see, the Church is universal...as would be easily discovered by anyone showing up for the class I took earlier this evening...conducted by an American priest, we also had a priest from Nigeria and another from Sri Lanka, while the group ranged in age from 16 to 80 and had both sexes and every ethnic group you can imagine represented within it. We're not cultural imperialists because we're not imposing ourselves on anyone - we just ask everyone to join with us and worship God.

Jeremiah,

That is how they view it, though...as one priest I've seen says it, "it is just so much easier to say 'choice' than to say 'kill an unborn child'". Even easier when its a "choice" to kill "a parasite", right? These are just the words the guilty use to make themselves feel better - the cries of the dead reach their hearts and God is knocking on the door of their souls...and they, in their insolent pride, are unwilling to bend, admit error and accept the absolution which is their's for the asking.

It is really rather sad, when you think about it.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at July 20, 2007 02:00 AM

Very sad.

If Nigerian woman really don't want this bill then that is up to them not some man claiming to speak for the entire population. I doubt that this bill would result in woman being forcibly sterilised, if however a woman wishes to be sterilised that is her choice as it is her body not anyone elses. In my opinion it should be up to the woman to decide what they wish to do with their own bodies, it would be ironic if a decision made on a bill about womens rights is made by men as it has very little to do with them. Funny how the big evil are woman liberators and feminists, it's always those damn woman thinking they can have the same rights as men.

Ironically after Britain colonised Nigeria and imported our 'superior' morals, the freedoms enjoyed by sections of Nigerias female population, the Igbo and Yoruba populations particularly but others as well were destroyed. Before the British stormed in these woman had the right to own businesses, inherit property and participate in politics. We came along and introduced our so-called morals i.e woman are second class citizens who should stay at home and do what they are told by their husbands or fathers.

Mark

So, a Nigerian should take his Catholicism and leave Nigeria so a Dutch liberal can tell Nigerians what laws they should have?

Instead, it was your argument that became extremely ironic after the tables were turned. You can't use an argument when it supports one part of your views and disavow it when it runs counter to another part of your views. There is a serious error in your and Ekwowusi's reasoning.

BTW, it's not the Western World that is ‘forcing’ CEDAW on Nigeria: Nigeria itself has ratified CEDAW.

Willem,

But not "domesticated" it, which seems to mean that Nigeria has passed no legislation to turn treaty into codified Nigerian law...and the stumbling bloc to this domestication appears to be the fact that it would legalise the butchering of unborn children...a practice which pleases agnostic western elites, and no one else.

The Nigerian who wrote the quoted article carries far more weight in this matter than either of us do...and it is the height of western arrogance for you to find that the author has no business in this matter.

weefee,

ROFL - the Eden that was before the Brits arrived...do you know anything about pre-colonial tribal practices? It is Christianity which raises women up from being a chattle - all other social organizations hold them to be in at least some sense to be the property of another...but we Christians know how often in the Bible God is using women to do the great work...and especially for we Catholics and our devotion to the Blessed Virgin...to say we do other than respect women as individuals is slander.