What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

[guest1163268]

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

[Cclm, LPN]

14 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I read your source and it doesn't support your rhetoric or opinion. If you believe that your opinion is supported somewhere in that language, then you should produce that excerpt for discussion.  Until then, you are simply spouting divisive right wing baloney.

Edited to note that you did make an attempt to do just that...and you were provided a cogent and concise explanation of your error in understanding.  Maybe you should listen to less right wing inflammatory propaganda.

I did post the excerpt here it is again. 

(2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant.

Take note that it doesn't say what to do with the fetus that is viable after it is removed. Do they just let it die? Again if it was pertaining to the emergency situation that is already in place there is no need for this section.  The only difference would be what happens after the fetus is removed. A woman in the late 2nd trimester and 3rd trimester is most likely wanting to continue the pregnancy and wants the baby. Unless they don't and this is where I take issue. 

Maybe you should read the actual bill I posted straight from congress and point out where my claim is false? You asked for the source and I provided it. Now you are just going to say it doesn't support what I said? This is why I do not source in relation to you. Right wing propaganda? The bill is literally a Democrat bill LOL. Are they right wing propaganda as well now? 

Maybe you shouldn't listen to left wing propaganda.  Or at least show some integrity to the specifics of the bill that conveniently leave put what I mentioned above. 

[toomuchbaloney]

48 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Unless they don't and this is where I take issue. 

You fabricate a situation to validate your extremist views.  You've decided to "take issue" with a made up scenario. 

 

49 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Maybe you should read the actual bill I posted straight from congress and point out where my claim is false? 

I read it...it wasn't long or complicated.  I don't have to point out anything accept that the language that you find offensive and outrageous isn't in the document you provided.  You've tried unsuccessfully to support your feelings from that bill once, you should try again.  The burden of proof is yours...you made the claim and said you took issue with a specific thing that isn't a portion of the document.  

 

52 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Maybe you shouldn't listen to left wing propaganda.  Or at least show some integrity to the specifics of the bill that conveniently leave put what I mentioned above. 

That response is projection. I haven't linked to or supported my opinion with anything that even remotely resembles propaganda and I've mentioned repeatedly that I inform myself by reading, not cable television or radio programming. It's not clear that you actually understand what propaganda looks and sounds like in 2021. 

I told you...the bill doesn't say what you implied that it says.  If it does then you should pull that language out and prove that you are credible...because you currently aren't very credible at all on the topic of abortion as was demonstrated in another thread. 

[Cclm, LPN]

9 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You fabricate a situation to validate your extremist views.  You've decided to "take issue" with a made up scenario. 

 

I read it...it wasn't long or complicated.  I don't have to point out anything accept that the language that you find offensive and outrageous isn't in the document you provided.  You've tried unsuccessfully to support your feelings from that bill once, you should try again.  The burden of proof is yours...you made the claim and said you took issue with a specific thing that isn't a portion of the document.  

 

That response is projection. I haven't linked to or supported my opinion with anything that even remotely resembles propaganda and I've mentioned repeatedly that I inform myself by reading, not cable television or radio programming. It's not clear that you actually understand what propaganda looks and sounds like in 2021. 

I told you...the bill doesn't say what you implied that it says.  If it does then you should pull that language out and prove that you are credible...because you currently aren't very credible at all on the topic of abortion as was demonstrated in another thread. 

Yes it does say what I emplied. What does it say then? Fabricating what? Words from a US congress bill? Try refuting my claim instead of calling me emotional or progecting or whatever. You can't or you would. In another thread I challenged you to refute the exact samething. You couldn't. Your credibility is in question. You demand a source don't read it ,usually attack the source and now do not try to establish your opinion by describing in the bills that discredit what I say. When fid I say anything was offensive or outragious? Perhaps that projection from yourself. A woman has to have a medical condition in order to terminate her pregnancy? Is that offensive to you? Because you think a woman should be able to abort her baby at any stage of pregnancy for any reason? You don't like that? You asked for the source you got it.  That's all that I have to say. Refute it or move on. 

[toomuchbaloney]

18 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Try refuting my claim instead of calling me emotional or progecting or whatever. You can't or you would.

I did refute your claim after reading your citation.  You have yet to produce the language from your source which validates your "issues" with the legislation. I don't need to repeat what MunoRN already detailed about the excerpt that you chose.  You need to produce what you said exists in the document that you linked.  Unless you can't...I'm guessing you would if you could. 

23 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Because you think a woman should be able to abort her baby at any stage of pregnancy for any reason? You don't like that? You asked for the source you got it.  That's all that I have to say. Refute it or move on

See? Here's an example of you making something up and forwarding it as fact or in evidence in some way.  You like to start inflammatory dialogs about topics that are emotionally charged and then start throwing around claims, accusations, fabrications and propaganda when your divisive rhetoric is challenged. It's difficult to take you seriously.

[Cclm, LPN]

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I did refute your claim after reading your citation.  You have yet to produce the language from your source which validates your "issues" with the legislation. I don't need to repeat what MunoRN already detailed about the excerpt that you chose.  You need to produce what you said exists in the document that you linked.  Unless you can't...I'm guessing you would if you could. 

See? Here's an example of you making something up and forwarding it as fact or in evidence in some way.  You like to start inflammatory dialogs about topics that are emotionally charged and then start throwing around claims, accusations, fabrications and propaganda when your divisive rhetoric is challenged. It's difficult to take you seriously.

I didn't make anything up and you still have not provided your "facts" within the two abortion bills to refute what you say I "made up". So do that or move on. Nothing like demanding a source. 

It's hard to take you seriously when you demand sources either don't read them or ignore what they say and offer no rebuttle. Not to mention your bizarre fetishis of conservative and Trump bashing. Not to mention your complete hypocrisy and complete inability to even attempt to possible look at something in a different way than other than your own self confessed "non propaganda"!. 

Hey, I'll meet you in the middle. Both bills need more specific definitions in certain areas. Can you at least even a little bit acknowledge that? It doesn't mean you agree with me. 

[Cclm, LPN]

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I did refute your claim after reading your citation.  You have yet to produce the language from your source which validates your "issues" with the legislation. I don't need to repeat what MunoRN already detailed about the excerpt that you chose.  You need to produce what you said exists in the document that you linked.  Unless you can't...I'm guessing you would if you could. 

See? Here's an example of you making something up and forwarding it as fact or in evidence in some way.  You like to start inflammatory dialogs about topics that are emotionally charged and then start throwing around claims, accusations, fabrications and propaganda when your divisive rhetoric is challenged. It's difficult to take you seriously.

That was an assumption not out of the ball park of assumptions you have made about me. A man, white! 2 examples right there. Or that I I am supportive of a bill that will take us back to pre legal abortion. Sounds like emotional propaganda that you accuse others of so often. Did you make that up? Just more hypocrisy.  

[toomuchbaloney]

36 minutes ago, Cclm said:

That was an assumption not out of the ball park of assumptions you have made about me. A man, white! 2 examples right there. Or that I I am supportive of a bill that will take us back to pre legal abortion. Sounds like emotional propaganda that you accuse others of so often. Did you make that up? Just more hypocrisy.  

Baloney.  You don't know the difference between an observation or assessment and an  assumption.  Sort of like your general misunderstanding about the meaning of words like propaganda or hypocrisy or Marxism.

You still haven't figured out that you haven't been able to explain what about that legislation that you linked upsets you. It's your topic. You tried to explain, but failed miserably. Apparently that means that you abandon trying to defend your statements and resort to deflection and projection. It's unclear if you just can't understand that you haven't supported your feelings with actual evidence or if you are just gas lighting. I'm on the fence.  

[Cclm, LPN]

49 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Baloney.  You don't know the difference between an observation or assessment and an  assumption.  Sort of like your general misunderstanding about the meaning of words like propaganda or hypocrisy or Marxism.

You still haven't figured out that you haven't been able to explain what about that legislation that you linked upsets you. It's your topic. You tried to explain, but failed miserably. Apparently that means that you abandon trying to defend your statements and resort to deflection and projection. It's unclear if you just can't understand that you haven't supported your feelings with actual evidence or if you are just gas lighting. I'm on the fence.  

I didn't say any of it upset me. My feeling are intact. 

And you still haven't refuted what I said after I cited my source that you demanded.

I said the part in the democrat bill that says, (paraphrasing) that a woman can terminate a pregnancy after viability if there is a risk to her life or health. 

I questioned that part because it is already standard practice to remove a fetus early after viability if there is a danger to the mothers health or life. However the removed fetus/baby in such situations life is preserved as well if possible. 

There is no need to for that part of the bill unless it is fir something else other than what I described above. I take issue of the vagueness of the "risk to health". What does that mean? It also does not specify what will happen to the removed fetus after the fact. 

Another member falsely claimed that the Texas bill was preventing a termination of pregnancy if the mothers life is in danger. I proved that false by posting the excerpt from the actual bill document making an exception to the bill in the case a mothers life is in danger. 

Now. What do you interpret from the bills? Is it different, am I wrong? Please explain. 

Now if you think I'm an emotional propagandist crazy lying POC Trumper. Think what you may. However using your own logic, please reply to the questions I asked and leave out the extra ad hominem attacks and emotional rhetoric Then we can discuss the facts. 

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Baloney.  You don't know the difference between an observation or assessment and an  assumption.  Sort of like your general misunderstanding about the meaning of words like propaganda or hypocrisy or Marxism.

So all thing you said about me are either an observation, an assumption or an assessment? Which one? 

You still haven't figured out that you haven't been able to explain what about that legislation that you linked upsets you. It's your topic. You tried to explain, but failed miserably. Apparently that means that you abandon trying to defend your statements and resort to deflection and projection. It's unclear if you just can't understand that you haven't supported your feelings with actual evidence or if you are just gas lighting. I'm on the fence.  

 

[toomuchbaloney]

On 12/4/2021 at 12:31 PM, Cclm said:

You prove me wrong and if you could you would. The stock files on your computer selectively deemed not propaganda by you of course is a little low on the megabytes in regard to this "women Protection Act" concerning when and for what reasons an abortion can be done at which point of pregnancy. 

You seem to have forgotten that you made this claim about that legislation that you eventually linked to.  You can't support that claim using the language of that bill...so you fill the void with vitriol.  Then you suggested that you were troubled by all of those women who endure late second or even third trimester abortions because they may decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore.  Do you remember implying anything like that? It was during the same time that you were musing that the health professionals participating in late term abortions might treat fetal demise with some unprofessional disregard.  

In case you can't guess, I'm appalled by your relative lack of knowledge about these medical procedures and your persistently inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric about abortion, it's hard for me to believe that you are a nurse. 

[Cclm, LPN]

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You seem to have forgotten that you made this claim about that legislation that you eventually linked to.  You can't support that claim using the language of that bill...so you fill the void with vitriol.  Then you suggested that you were troubled by all of those women who endure late second or even third trimester abortions because they may decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore.  Do you remember implying anything like that? It was during the same time that you were musing that the health professionals participating in late term abortions might treat fetal demise with some unprofessional disregard.  

In case you can't guess, I'm appalled by your relative lack of knowledge about these medical procedures and your persistently inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric about abortion, it's hard for me to believe that you are a nurse. 

So you still are not going to refute my opinion then? More ad hominem? Classic PROPAGANDA technique. You should know that. 

I in no way shape or form infered or "mused"  that I would question a Healthcare professions ethics on this issue. Not once. Now you are making stuff up. Please quote where is said anything like that. Or better yet refute what I said about the bills in which you still have not. 

Yes. I do not think it's okay for a 7 month pregnant woman terminate her pregnancy for anything other than a medical intervention to save her life. No its not okay. There are my actually words. Since we actually are making assumptions I would make an educated guess you would be fine with a abortion at any stage of pregnancy even in the 9th month for any reason at all. 

I really do not care what you belive. I know forsure you are not a nurse now. What actually was your education? High school diploma and a 6 month rotation? Perhaps you should find your place because the training is a whole lot more intricate than that these days. 

Again. Refute my claims or stop deflecting by trying to discredit me. You still have not made one point about the actual bill. I'll wait......

[toomuchbaloney]

9 hours ago, Cclm said:

Yes. I do not think it's okay for a 7 month pregnant woman terminate her pregnancy for anything other than a medical intervention to save her life. No its not okay. There are my actually words. 

You imagine that is what women are doing and then behave as if that's what the legislation encourages or promotes. That's made up nonsense...you are upset over a thought about abortion that YOU have...not reality.  You tried to pass off your ridiculous beliefs as evidence that there's legislation that encourages or shows the behavior that you've IMAGINED. That didn't work because we read the legislation and actually understand what it says. 

Now why again did you mention that legislation in this thread? Is it to discuss what's actually in the bill or to discuss what you've been told and believe is included in it? Because discussing what you believe to be true about the legislation seems to be at odds with what's actually true about the bill.  

[heron, ASN, RN]

7 hours ago, Cclm said:

So you still are not going to refute my opinion then? More ad hominem? Classic PROPAGANDA technique. You should know that. 

I in no way shape or form infered or "mused"  that I would question a Healthcare professions ethics on this issue. Not once. Now you are making stuff up. Please quote where is said anything like that. Or better yet refute what I said about the bills in which you still have not. 

Yes. I do not think it's okay for a 7 month pregnant woman terminate her pregnancy for anything other than a medical intervention to save her life. No its not okay. There are my actually words. Since we actually are making assumptions I would make an educated guess you would be fine with a abortion at any stage of pregnancy even in the 9th month for any reason at all. 

I really do not care what you belive. I know forsure you are not a nurse now. What actually was your education? High school diploma and a 6 month rotation? Perhaps you should find your place because the training is a whole lot more intricate than that these days. 

Again. Refute my claims or stop deflecting by trying to discredit me. You still have not made one point about the actual bill. I'll wait......

You clearly don‘t realize how utterly ridiculous this post is.

1. Still not seeing the specific legislation you claim will allow  post - viability abortion on demand. You also have not produced a single reproductive choice advocate who even remotely favors this. At the same time, this assertion has been a favorite exaggeration by the forced pregnancy crowd for years. It used to be a (failed) attempt at a gotcha question. Then, when no one took it seriously, they gave up and started stating it as truth, again, without any evidence at all. It’s right up there with reimplanted ectopics and other sick fantasies.

Classic straw man: lie about what your opponent has said, then argue against that instead of the original proposal. Still, I wish you’d come up with something original. Your scriptwriters are exceedingly lazy.

2. You’ve been oozing personal attacks and general snark at least since your cutesy-pooh duets with jive turkey. You must miss him. You have no business whining about ad hominem at this late point. Beams and motes doncha know.

3. So you want TMB to prove a negative, eh? See point #1.

4. For someone who “really (doesn’t) care” about anyone else’s opinions or beliefs, you sure do get triggered easily.