Jump to content
CBlover CBlover (New Member) New Member

New York passes Full Term Abortion

Politics   (957 Views 38 Comments)
4 Likes; 1 Follower; 11,390 Visitors; 103 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 3 of New York passes Full Term Abortion. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

37 minutes ago, CBlover said:

Lil Nel how am I spreading misinformation? What have I said on here that is untrue??? All ive done is offer my opinion about it. Don't get triggered so easily. And what do you mean "That's not what this is about." I think IT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. Either you agree with killing full term infants in the womb or you're iffy about it and wonder what in the world would necessitate it. What the heck is wrong with people??

As for your question in the last sentence, I can't help you with that.

I often find myself asking the same question regarding folks who demand the unfettered access to guns, despite the amount of gun violence in this country.

I also find myself asking the same question, when it comes to Trump supporters, who insist on rallying behind his blatant lies.

Thus far, I've found no answer to our mutual question.

Maybe you will find an answer to yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CBlover said:

I couldn't open the article from Chare. I "tried reading" it.

Which link didn't work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CBlover said:

I couldn't open the article from Chare. I "tried reading" it.

I gave you two other sources. 

Since Albany is the capital of NY, try the newspaper there. I am sure they cover the Capitol.

Yes, you agreed with a poster, who was disparaging ME.

You weren't agreeing with him on the topic of the Caravan.

In fact, his last two posts on the site, we're all about ME.

I should be flattered, I know, but I am not.

Since you quoted him, and then made a comment, you knew what you were doing.

So, yeah, hypocrisy not lost on me, when you then engaged in name calling towards another poster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it trolling or trapping when the emotionally charged subject is opened with the OP offering no personal commentary, preferring to counter and argue the thoughts of others?

What percentage of terminations fit this late term definition? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Is it trolling or trapping when the emotionally charged subject is opened with the OP offering no personal commentary, preferring to counter and argue the thoughts of others?

What percentage of terminations fit this late term definition? 

I am not allowed to counter huh. I didn't argue with chare or BC . I appreciated their input. Where are you getting that? I did add the photo of the Twitter post of the OB doc that i found. They "countered me" can I not say something in return that includes facts as well? Good heavens. It's like if a conservative voices something on here (I haven't said one thing about Tru...). (By the way pro-life has been a part of conservatism for decades in case anyone forgot. Tru** didn't invent it. lol)

Now Lil Nel is bitter bc I agreed with SC RN Dude that some people can't take what they dish out. She pulled that over from one forum to another. In my opinion, she's outright mean. You don't have to be like that to have debate. Can we not have a civil conservation regarding this topic without demeaning each other's viewpoints? It's ok to disagree and it's ok to counter. I am allowed to do so too.

Edited by CBlover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CBlover said:

I am not allowed to counter huh. I didn't argue with chare or BC . I appreciated their input. Where are you getting that? I did add the photo of the Twitter post of the OB doc that i found. They "countered me" can I not say something in return that includes facts as well? Good heavens. It's like if a conservative voices something on here (I haven't said one thing about Tru...). (By the way pro-life has been a part of conservatism for decades in case anyone forgot. Tru** didn't invent it. lol)

Now Lil Nel is bitter bc I agreed with SC RN Dude that some people can't take what they dish out. She pulled that over from one forum to another. In my opinion, she's outright mean. You don't have to be like that to have debate. Can we not have a civil conservation regarding this topic without demeaning each other's viewpoints? It's ok to disagree and it's ok to counter. I am allowed to do so too.

I am mean?

You called another poster "heartless" and a "special person" because they disagreed with YOU!

Yep. Your hypocrisy isn't lost on me.

I am not bitter, nor am I mean.

I am simply calling you out, and you don't like it.

It's not like any of us haven't seen this behavior before.

It is just more of the same old, same old.

You are entitled to your opinion. We are entitled to disagree with you, minus your editorializing about being "heartless."

I suggest you grow a thicker skin if you want to wade into the abortion debate.

You will undoubtedly encounter many mean people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
37 minutes ago, CBlover said:

I am not allowed to counter huh. I didn't argue with chare or BC . I appreciated their input. Where are you getting that? I did add the photo of the Twitter post of the OB doc that i found. They "countered me" can I not say something in return that includes facts as well? Good heavens. It's like if a conservative voices something on here (I haven't said one thing about Tru...). (By the way pro-life has been a part of conservatism for decades in case anyone forgot. Tru** didn't invent it. lol)

Now Lil Nel is bitter bc I agreed with SC RN Dude that some people can't take what they dish out. She pulled that over from one forum to another. In my opinion, she's outright mean. You don't have to be like that to have debate. Can we not have a civil conservation regarding this topic without demeaning each other's viewpoints? It's ok to disagree and it's ok to counter. I am allowed to do so too.

And I have not demeaned your point of view.

It was You who demeaned another poster's point of view.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, CBlover said:

I am not allowed to counter huh. I didn't argue with chare or BC . I appreciated their input. Where are you getting that? I did add the photo of the Twitter post of the OB doc that i found. They "countered me" can I not say something in return that includes facts as well? Good heavens. It's like if a conservative voices something on here (I haven't said one thing about Tru...). (By the way pro-life has been a part of conservatism for decades in case anyone forgot. Tru** didn't invent it. lol)

Now Lil Nel is bitter bc I agreed with SC RN Dude that some people can't take what they dish out. She pulled that over from one forum to another. In my opinion, she's outright mean. You don't have to be like that to have debate. Can we not have a civil conservation regarding this topic without demeaning each other's viewpoints? It's ok to disagree and it's ok to counter. I am allowed to do so too.

Did you offer an opinion at the start of the thread? The opener looked like bait to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Did you offer an opinion at the start of the thread? The opener looked like bait to me. 

Yes. I said I was horrified. Didn't have all the facts and still don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support laws that leave these very complicated decisions in the hands of  the woman and experts, i.e. health care providers who specialize in the care of expectant women. 

People who are not experts include clergy who are not personally acquainted with the woman, demonstrators in MAGA hats, and media pundits. 

Edited by nursej22
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CBlover said:

Yes. I said I was horrified. Didn't have all the facts and still don't.

Mark me corrected.  

Still looks like bait to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure of the semantics in the VERY RARE situations in these articles and positions. Pro life physicians seem to believe that treatments given the sick mother with the knowledge that the baby will die from that treatment is not abortion because the purpose is not the death of the baby, but the health of the mother. Then the dead baby is delivered.

 

Quote

 

Is abortion ever necessary to “save the life of the mother”?

...   Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life.  For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion.  Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion.  In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health.  The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child.  If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical…

 https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-ever-necessary-save-life-mother/ 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Late-Term Abortion Saved These Women’s Lives

...   [Tammy] Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival.

Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X),...  ...   “Losing my baby at the end of my pregnancy was agonizing,” says Watts...

...   Watts testified on Capitol Hill. So did Viki Wilson of Fresno, Calif., who had a late-term abortion because the brain of the fetus she was carrying had developed outside the skull. So did Vikki Stella of Naperville, Ill., whose fetus had dwarfism, no brain tissue and seven other major abnormalities.

All three women told legislators they owed their health to late-term abortions and that a continuation of their doomed pregnancies posed grave health risks such as stroke, paralysis, infertility or even death...

https://womensenews.org/2004/10/late-term-abortion-saved-these-womens-lives/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×