[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
Cueball, I think you need re-read The Constitution. You’re making my head hurt. No worries though, I will keep speaking up for everyone’s rights so that you can sleep in your warm blanket of freedom.[/quote]
what rights are being taken away?
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
Cueball, I think you need re-read The Constitution. You’re making my head hurt. No worries though, I will keep speaking up for everyone’s rights so that you can sleep in your warm blanket of freedom.[/quote]
Thanks for dodging all that. Nicely done. Completely disregarded every point brought up in that post.
Exactly what part of this initiative is infringing on constitutional rights? You made several incorrect statements about the initiative. If they were correct, I might agree with you, but they weren’t.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You are trying to pick apart minor details of my post to try and prove your point. Also, nice ad hominien. Can’t debate my point, so paint my position with the “ugly brush”… Great work.[/quote]
You were purposefully using inaccurate language that possessed authoritarian connotations. That’s not nitpicking grammatical errors, it’s highlighting disingenuous tactics. And if you think that was a cruel ad hominem attack, then perhaps you shouldn’t attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of anti-American freedom-hater.
You still misrepresented my argument. I believe parents should be able to make whichever choice they desire. I simply don’t see a problem with that decision being made after being presented with the benefits on breast milk. This is information that you and I - people who think a lot about nutrition and health - might find redundant. It might shock you to know that not all new parents are as educated as we are.
[quote]We never had anyone push either choice on us. It was beyond easy to get information on both choices, and the support given by hospitals on breastfeeding is bar none, fantastic.
They don’t want to you to formula feed, they don’t. We said we were breastfeeding and they never brought up formula again. Not once. No fee samples. Neither of my buddies had this mysterious evil corporate push that you and JFit are making up either.[/quote]
LOL, again with this hyperbolic good vs. evil language. I’m guessing you don’t live in New York, where formula has been given away to new parents? Despite the fact that it never happened to you, it is objectively not some contrived conspiracy theory. And to be honest, it doesn’t even bother me that much that it occurred in the first place. It just strikes me as unnecessary.
[quote][quote]
Nobody’s freedom is being taken away. Anyone who wants formula still has access to it.[/quote]
smh…
It’s like you refuse to see it.[/quote]
You have failed to point out how anyone’s choices have been revoked. Instead, you have complained about how educating people might hurt their feelings. Well boo hoo.
[quote]bcingu wrote:
And if you think that was a cruel ad hominem attack, then perhaps you shouldn’t attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of anti-American freedom-hater.[/quote]
So you admit you can’t debate my point but rather who is making it?
And if that hurts your feelings than boo hoo.
How?
Your argument: It’s cool the government is doing this, breast is best! But when the government wants to take away my test supps, ooohhhh noo ya don’t.
My Argument: Government has no say in the matter, period. (Outside of testing the formula to make sure it isn’t ground up bumpers.)
You’ve never sat in the delivery room or lamaz (sp) classes have you?
Breast feeding and its benefits get brought up about 1,456,789 times.
They give it away in MA too. When you ask for it.
[quote]
You have failed to point out how anyone’s choices have been revoked. Instead, you have complained about how educating people might hurt their feelings. Well boo hoo.[/quote]
You failed to read my posts, but rather project what you want my point to be, because you can’t refute my point. You can pretend I want people to be uneducated and refute that though.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
Cueball, I think you need re-read The Constitution. You’re making my head hurt. No worries though, I will keep speaking up for everyone’s rights so that you can sleep in your warm blanket of freedom.[/quote]
Thanks for dodging all that. Nicely done. Completely disregarded every point brought up in that post.
Exactly what part of this initiative is infringing on constitutional rights? You made several incorrect statements about the initiative. If they were correct, I might agree with you, but they weren’t.
[/quote]
I’m not dodging anything. lol I can go on forever, just ask my husband. It just seems like it’s bickering now instead of discussion so I waved my white flag to you. You have your own opinions and I have mine. The likelihood of either one us changing our beliefs is slim to nil I would say. I’m good with that.
My comment about The Constitution was because The Government, no matter what level, should not have a say on things like this. Their powers are limited and should stay that way.
Ciao!
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
So, if I’m paying out of pocket for everything that I receive then I’m sure not listening to a contrived speech designed to make me feel like shit. No member of government or special interest group is paying my bill so they don’t get to have a say. Period, end of story. [/quote]
Tisk, Tisk, silly mother, you should do what the collective wants you too.
It is just an informed choice…
;)[/quote]
By the collective, do you mean special interest groups that disguise themselves as do-gooders? My informed choice is that I will never be part of the collective. haha
Seriously, I’m due in October and if anyone tried this tactic with me it would not go over well in the slightest. Thankfully I’m not in NYC but I’m sure that things like this will cross jurisdictions if people allow it.[/quote]
Congrats.
October babies for the win.
<-------October baby.
[/quote]
Thanks! They are pretty awesome.
<-------October baby too. [/quote]
We Rock[/quote]
Damn right we do!
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
Cueball, I think you need re-read The Constitution. You’re making my head hurt. No worries though, I will keep speaking up for everyone’s rights so that you can sleep in your warm blanket of freedom.[/quote]
Thanks for dodging all that. Nicely done. Completely disregarded every point brought up in that post.
Exactly what part of this initiative is infringing on constitutional rights? You made several incorrect statements about the initiative. If they were correct, I might agree with you, but they weren’t.
[/quote]
I’m not dodging anything. lol I can go on forever, just ask my husband. It just seems like it’s bickering now instead of discussion so I waved my white flag to you. You have your own opinions and I have mine. The likelihood of either one us changing our beliefs is slim to nil I would say. I’m good with that.
My comment about The Constitution was because The Government, no matter what level, should not have a say on things like this. Their powers are limited and should stay that way.
Ciao![/quote]
You made a bunch of statements about the initiative that were incorrect. I corrected them and said you should re-read it so you could see you were miss-informed. You dodged it by claiming I needed to re-read the constitution. You also dodged my question in regards to what part of the initiative is infringing on constitutional rights. So yes, you were indeed dodging.
The only thing that has been a matter of opinion in our exchange has been you opinion of what’s happening based on FALSE information. I corrected those and you’ve chosen to ignore it by changing the subject and calling it all opinion. I think the board will be better if you did bow out since you don’t feel likereading what it is your talking about before you do.
[quote]bcingu wrote:
You have failed to point out how anyone’s choices have been revoked. [/quote]
The fact I have to explain this is why this country is in the mess it is in.
Thing is, medical professionals have been pushing breast is best for awhile now, for good reason. There is nothing worng with this. Not a damn thing. Some of the advocacy groups are insane about it, to the point where it becomes an additional stressor for mothers in a situation that should be one of the most joyous moments in their life.
Have you ever seen a baby that won’t or can’t latch? Have you watch the look on the mother’s face when she doesn’t know if her poor newborn child is feeding or not? Have you seen what guilt can do to an already emotional event?
Now add in, “the government agrees, you should breast feed”…
That is removing choice by dictating rational thought through suggestion. Look to JFit’s assertion to how well advertizing works. You don’t think the government’s wishes influence people?
This is the same government that says eat 400lbs of grains everyday, but their health views are a-okay in this instance because you agree with it? It is like Obama supports calling Romney a liar and saying he won’t vote for him because he lies. Obama’s lies are A-okay because he is their guy… It is foolish.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
As far as free samples at hospitals, that is indeed an f’d up situation. When i was with my niece and nephew when they were still in the hospital, one nurse pushed the formula like she got a cut of the profits. A different one cautiously asked if my sister wanted some breastfeeding literature. That is a little skewed, imho. I dont know if this is a kneejerk reaction (which are NEVER good) to that being the norm in hospitals or not. [/quote]
This is the exact opposite of when I had my child, and my two buddies kids, all 3 at different area hospitals.
Stop making up bullshit.
The nurse asked what you planned to do, and acted accordingly. In fact when you breast feed they bring in extra people to help you with it. And our hospital requested you bring you own formula if you were choosing to go that route, as the free shit was “in case” in that instance.
It is behind the counter and locked up because like everything that is locked up in a store, it gets stolen a lot.[/quote]
Oh my god! someone else had an experience that doesnt go with yours?!?!?!? it HAS TO BE A LIE. Go fuck yourself.
if it is behind the counter because it gets stolen, so be it. I am pretty sure it isnt behind the counter at the store i go to. But i must be lying about that, too, right?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
the voice of reason
[/quote]
Why am I not surprised you support a thinly veiled guilt trip, surrounded by made up “facts” and lack of personal experience?[/quote]
get off my nuts, pal. thinly veiled guilt trip? I didnt veil anything, thinly or otherwise.
Prove any “fact” in my post wrong. It will be hard, because I am right.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Oh my god! someone else had an experience that doesnt go with yours?!?!?!? it HAS TO BE A LIE. [/quote]
Let us look at this situation:
Three couples that went to the classes and were there for birth, in three different hospitals have one experience.
One person, who is in the hospital post birth, long after these conversations typically happen, for a couple hours, has another experience.
Which story sounds more likely to be true?
No thank you.
No, I would imagine you shop in an area where the theift of those type products isn’t all that high.
I know places like Target and BJ’s only lock it up in the “lower rent” areas. But most typical food stores lock it up out of default from what I’ve seen.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
get off my nuts, pal. [/quote]
Wasn’t on them. Are you in high school with this?
So you admit you are using guilt to sway mothers into making a choice that you prefer?
I already mentioned your cute 45 min experience in the hospital stories as far fetched to say the least, and the fact you had no idea of the conversations had leading up to and prior to birth. You told me to go fuck myself.
I also pointed out your use of guilt to sway an opinion. You referenced your nuts in responce
Should I really take the time to continue to break down your rantings? I fear mention of your anus is my only hope of reply.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
Cueball, I think you need re-read The Constitution. You’re making my head hurt. No worries though, I will keep speaking up for everyone’s rights so that you can sleep in your warm blanket of freedom.[/quote]
Thanks for dodging all that. Nicely done. Completely disregarded every point brought up in that post.
Exactly what part of this initiative is infringing on constitutional rights? You made several incorrect statements about the initiative. If they were correct, I might agree with you, but they weren’t.
[/quote]
I’m not dodging anything. lol I can go on forever, just ask my husband. It just seems like it’s bickering now instead of discussion so I waved my white flag to you. You have your own opinions and I have mine. The likelihood of either one us changing our beliefs is slim to nil I would say. I’m good with that.
My comment about The Constitution was because The Government, no matter what level, should not have a say on things like this. Their powers are limited and should stay that way.
Ciao![/quote]
You made a bunch of statements about the initiative that were incorrect. I corrected them and said you should re-read it so you could see you were miss-informed. You dodged it by claiming I needed to re-read the constitution. You also dodged my question in regards to what part of the initiative is infringing on constitutional rights. So yes, you were indeed dodging.
The only thing that has been a matter of opinion in our exchange has been you opinion of what’s happening based on FALSE information. I corrected those and you’ve chosen to ignore it by changing the subject and calling it all opinion. I think the board will be better if you did bow out since you don’t feel likereading what it is your talking about before you do.
[/quote]
I didn’t see you prove me incorrect on anything. I must be missing something. I’m not dodging anything. I’m simply bored/frustrated with you and can’t be bothered. lol
Again, not sure what false info you’re referring to there. That’s nice how you choose to speak for everyone on the board though. lol Do I come across as someone that cares the slightest what you think?
Again, don’t consider it a bow out. I’m just bored with you and you go around in circles. There is more interesting conversation to be had with others.
But maybe I’m just dodging you…yeah, that’s it.
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
Cueball, I think you need re-read The Constitution. You’re making my head hurt. No worries though, I will keep speaking up for everyone’s rights so that you can sleep in your warm blanket of freedom.[/quote]
Thanks for dodging all that. Nicely done. Completely disregarded every point brought up in that post.
Exactly what part of this initiative is infringing on constitutional rights? You made several incorrect statements about the initiative. If they were correct, I might agree with you, but they weren’t.
[/quote]
I’m not dodging anything. lol I can go on forever, just ask my husband. It just seems like it’s bickering now instead of discussion so I waved my white flag to you. You have your own opinions and I have mine. The likelihood of either one us changing our beliefs is slim to nil I would say. I’m good with that.
My comment about The Constitution was because The Government, no matter what level, should not have a say on things like this. Their powers are limited and should stay that way.
Ciao![/quote]
You made a bunch of statements about the initiative that were incorrect. I corrected them and said you should re-read it so you could see you were miss-informed. You dodged it by claiming I needed to re-read the constitution. You also dodged my question in regards to what part of the initiative is infringing on constitutional rights. So yes, you were indeed dodging.
The only thing that has been a matter of opinion in our exchange has been you opinion of what’s happening based on FALSE information. I corrected those and you’ve chosen to ignore it by changing the subject and calling it all opinion. I think the board will be better if you did bow out since you don’t feel likereading what it is your talking about before you do.
[/quote]
I didn’t see you prove me incorrect on anything. I must be missing something. I’m not dodging anything. I’m simply bored/frustrated with you and can’t be bothered. lol[/quote]
Yes, lololololol.
If you didn’t see it, you didn’t read my post or the official press release.
Oh, the “i’m so bored with you” smoke screen.
[quote]
Again, not sure what false info you’re referring to there. That’s nice how you choose to speak for everyone on the board though. lol Do I come across as someone that cares the slightest what you think? [/quote]
This false info, taken from one of your posts:
Jackie wrote-There is nothing wrong with mentioning choices, however, there is something wrong with making one of those choices not as accessible when they are both reasonable. If a new mother is having both choices unbiasedly explained to her, there is no problem with that. When she is being talked down to because of her choice - not right. Besides, it’s not just a matter of mentioning that she wants to formula feed. There needs to be a doctors okay and it appears that approval or a prescription of some kind is needed in order for that mother to use said formula. How is that equal access?
To which I replied:
There is nothing telling doctors to talk down to mothers. A doctor does NOT have to OK a mother’s decision to breastfeed. The only thing a doctor needs to OK is NURSES supplementing a breastfed baby with formula. The NURSES are the ones who have to sign out formula. No prescription needed for formula. You can bring your own in if you want. It’s an over-the-counter product.
That info comes from here:http://www.nyc.gov/.../pr013-12.shtml which you obviously haven’t read but still decide to discuss this topic without correct info. And since you won’t, I’ll post the relevant part so you don’t have to be “bothered” with it.
"By joining this voluntary initiative for NYC maternity hospitals to support mother?s decision to breastfeed participating hospitals have agreed to:
-Enforce the NYS hospital regulation to not supplement breastfeeding infants with formula feeding unless medically indicated and documented on the infant?s medical chart;
-Restrict access to infant formula by hospital staff, tracking infant formula distribution and sharing data on formula distribution with the Health Department;
-Discontinue the distribution of promotional or free infant formula; and
-Prohibit the display and distribution of infant formula promotional materials in any hospital location."
Edit: And this gem about how you KNEW Bloomberg was personally profiting from this. Without any info to back up a claim like that.
You came in without knowing the facts, talked out of speculation and assumption, and when the facts were presented you decided to pretend the conversation wasn’t worth your time and that I run in circles. Typical tactic of someone who got in to a discussion in which they didn’t know the FACTS and found out they were wrong.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
Cueball, I think you need re-read The Constitution. You’re making my head hurt. No worries though, I will keep speaking up for everyone’s rights so that you can sleep in your warm blanket of freedom.[/quote]
Thanks for dodging all that. Nicely done. Completely disregarded every point brought up in that post.
Exactly what part of this initiative is infringing on constitutional rights? You made several incorrect statements about the initiative. If they were correct, I might agree with you, but they weren’t.
[/quote]
I’m not dodging anything. lol I can go on forever, just ask my husband. It just seems like it’s bickering now instead of discussion so I waved my white flag to you. You have your own opinions and I have mine. The likelihood of either one us changing our beliefs is slim to nil I would say. I’m good with that.
My comment about The Constitution was because The Government, no matter what level, should not have a say on things like this. Their powers are limited and should stay that way.
Ciao![/quote]
You made a bunch of statements about the initiative that were incorrect. I corrected them and said you should re-read it so you could see you were miss-informed. You dodged it by claiming I needed to re-read the constitution. You also dodged my question in regards to what part of the initiative is infringing on constitutional rights. So yes, you were indeed dodging.
The only thing that has been a matter of opinion in our exchange has been you opinion of what’s happening based on FALSE information. I corrected those and you’ve chosen to ignore it by changing the subject and calling it all opinion. I think the board will be better if you did bow out since you don’t feel likereading what it is your talking about before you do.
[/quote]
I didn’t see you prove me incorrect on anything. I must be missing something. I’m not dodging anything. I’m simply bored/frustrated with you and can’t be bothered. lol[/quote]
Yes, lololololol.
If you didn’t see it, you didn’t read my post or the official press release.
Oh, the “i’m so bored with you” smoke screen.
I read the article, twice. If you choose to not research things further, as in beyond one article, that’s on you. Do you take everything that read in any article as fact? If you do, that’s on you too. You truly do not understand how crooked organizations sell their ideas to the general public. They do not come right out and tell you their objective. They twist and manipulate their words to sell you on emotion.
Incidentally, it wasn’t the article that I was bored with. I do enjoy hearing different perspectives and even arguments. I always take into account all sides of the story before I develop any sort of judgement. The way that you argue or present your facts is annoying and kind of like a festering wound of sorts. I don’t enjoy conversing with you. What is it that you don’t understand about this? lol I have stated what I have to say. Go back and read it if you will. It’s all there.
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
Cueball, I think you need re-read The Constitution. You’re making my head hurt. No worries though, I will keep speaking up for everyone’s rights so that you can sleep in your warm blanket of freedom.[/quote]
Thanks for dodging all that. Nicely done. Completely disregarded every point brought up in that post.
Exactly what part of this initiative is infringing on constitutional rights? You made several incorrect statements about the initiative. If they were correct, I might agree with you, but they weren’t.
[/quote]
I’m not dodging anything. lol I can go on forever, just ask my husband. It just seems like it’s bickering now instead of discussion so I waved my white flag to you. You have your own opinions and I have mine. The likelihood of either one us changing our beliefs is slim to nil I would say. I’m good with that.
My comment about The Constitution was because The Government, no matter what level, should not have a say on things like this. Their powers are limited and should stay that way.
Ciao![/quote]
You made a bunch of statements about the initiative that were incorrect. I corrected them and said you should re-read it so you could see you were miss-informed. You dodged it by claiming I needed to re-read the constitution. You also dodged my question in regards to what part of the initiative is infringing on constitutional rights. So yes, you were indeed dodging.
The only thing that has been a matter of opinion in our exchange has been you opinion of what’s happening based on FALSE information. I corrected those and you’ve chosen to ignore it by changing the subject and calling it all opinion. I think the board will be better if you did bow out since you don’t feel likereading what it is your talking about before you do.
[/quote]
I didn’t see you prove me incorrect on anything. I must be missing something. I’m not dodging anything. I’m simply bored/frustrated with you and can’t be bothered. lol[/quote]
Yes, lololololol.
If you didn’t see it, you didn’t read my post or the official press release.
Oh, the “i’m so bored with you” smoke screen.
I read the article, twice. If you choose to not research things further, as in beyond one article, that’s on you. Do you take everything that read in any article as fact? If you do, that’s on you too. You truly do not understand how crooked organizations sell their ideas to the general public. They do not come right out and tell you their objective. They twist and manipulate their words to sell you on emotion. [/quote]
Then you would realize it’s not just an article. It’s a press release and the ONLY thing that’s been posted in this thread that is factual. Everything else has been opinion pieces by authors who are against it. What exactly do I need to research?
Explain then, if you’ve read it twice, how you came up with this stuff:
-Besides, it’s not just a matter of mentioning that she wants to formula feed. There needs to be a doctors okay and it appears that approval or a prescription of some kind is needed in order for that mother to use said formula. How is that equal access?-
Totally false and inaccurate. Since you read it twice, I’ll assume you were intentionally making false claims to fit your original stance.
[quote]
Incidentally, it wasn’t the article that I was bored with. I do enjoy hearing different perspectives and even arguments. I always take into account all sides of the story before I develop any sort of judgement. The way that you argue or present your facts is annoying and kind of like a festering wound of sorts. I don’t enjoy conversing with you. What is it that you don’t understand about this? lol [/quote]
If I disregarded something I read TWICE and put up false info just to fit my own feeling on a matter, I wouldn’t like arguing with someone who was posting the actual facts either.
[quote]
I have stated what I have to say. Go back and read it if you will. It’s all there.[/quote]
And it was all wrong. Go back and read what you wrote. It’s wrong. You stated FACTS, not opinions. Those facts were WRONG. As well as claiming you knew Bloomberg was PERSONALLY profiting from this. Dodged that one too.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Explain then, if you’ve read it twice, how you came up with this stuff:
-Besides, it’s not just a matter of mentioning that she wants to formula feed. There needs to be a doctors okay and it appears that approval or a prescription of some kind is needed in order for that mother to use said formula. How is that equal access?-
Totally false and inaccurate. [/quote]
To be fair, only one thing she said can be labled “totally false and inaccurate”. Because, it isn’t “just a matter of mentioning that she wants to”, there is more to it. And she uses the word “appears”, which precludes what she is saying as her representing it as fact, but rather what she has gleamed from it, without being certian.
Given that, based on your quote, the “doctors okay” part is also accurate, just in realtion to supplementation.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Explain then, if you’ve read it twice, how you came up with this stuff:
-Besides, it’s not just a matter of mentioning that she wants to formula feed. There needs to be a doctors okay and it appears that approval or a prescription of some kind is needed in order for that mother to use said formula. How is that equal access?-
Totally false and inaccurate. [/quote]
To be fair, only one thing she said can be labled “totally false and inaccurate”. Because, it isn’t “just a matter of mentioning that she wants to”, there is more to it. And she uses the word “appears”, which precludes what she is saying as her representing it as fact, but rather what she has gleamed from it, without being certian. [/quote]
Still, it’s incorrect. It was pointed out as such and she chose to ignore it and not discuss it and instead resorted to acting too good to discuss it with me as she was “bored” with me. Not really a mature way to discuss a topic.
[quote]
Given that, based on your quote, the “doctors okay” part is also accurate, just in realtion to supplementation. [/quote]
No, it’s not accurate. She took that out of context and applied it to a mother’s wish to use formula. The doctor’s OK has NOTHING to do with a mother’s choice. It has to do with mothers who choose to breastfeed. Since she read it twice, I"ll have to chalk that up to one of two things. She has poor reading comprehension and is to proud to admit she made a mistake, or she is intentionally misrepresenting the facts to fit her stance.
Edited
[quote]cueball wrote:
Still, it’s incorrect. [/quote]
Not really though. The press statement clearly implies a doctor has to sign off on supplementation.
The press statement, at least what you quoted here, doesn’t offer any detail as to what restricted access actually means. I assume it means they have to scan in the barcode like they do for everything else, but it doesn’t mention authorization process, and restriction implies that to a reasonable person.
And the whole promotional material portion could be inclusive of any sort of information, any sort. It doesn’t delineate between information produced in medical journals or passed out by Nestle.
So while I will give you unclear and quite possible that she is tailoring her interpretation to fit her perception, but what she is saying may very well be grounded in some truth. Because to be honest, we are all reading this how we want to, yourself included.
I tend to agree with this.
[quote]
She took that out of context and applied it to a mother’s wish to use formula. [/quote]
But you are also implying context and detail that isn’t there in the press release.
You’re certainly taking a “this is an altruistic endeavor through and through” look at it, as I’m taking a “stupid government being stupid” look at it.
If we don’t know what the restrictions on the formula are, how can you know this?
Again I’m going off of what you quoted here.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Still, it’s incorrect. [/quote]
Not really though. The press statement clearly implies a doctor has to sign off on supplementation.[/quote]
The word prescription appears nowhere in that text. It doesn’t imply anything. It clearly states a doctor has to sign off on supplementation. But that refers to a baby that is already being breastfed. it says absolutely nothing about disallowing a mother’s choice to formula feed. Jackie is stating a doctor has to OK that choice. It’s wrong.
[quote]
The press statement, at least what you quoted here, doesn’t offer any detail as to what restricted access actually means. I assume it means they have to scan in the barcode like they do for everything else, but it doesn’t mention authorization process, and restriction implies that to a reasonable person. [/quote]
But it only applies to hospital supply. There is nothing there that says mothers will be prohibited, restricted, or otherwise in feeding formula to their baby. There is nothing there restricting a mother from purchasing her own formula, bringing it in, and feeding it to her baby. Jackie is reading WAY too much into the wording.
[quote]
And the whole promotional material portion could be inclusive of any sort of information, any sort. It doesn’t delineate between information produced in medical journals or passed out by Nestle.
So while I will give you unclear and quite possible that she is tailoring her interpretation to fit her perception, but what she is saying may very well be grounded in some truth. Because to be honest, we are all reading this how we want to, yourself included.[/quote]
At least I’m trying to stay objective and only go by what information has been given.
I tend to agree with this.
[quote]
She took that out of context and applied it to a mother’s wish to use formula. [/quote]
[quote]
But you are also implying context and detail that isn’t there in the press release. [/quote]
Like what? I’m refuting the context and detail Jackie has implied, falsely at that. All I’ve been saying is that the text doesn’t say this or that.
[quote]
You’re certainly taking a “this is an altruistic endeavor through and through” look at it, as I’m taking a “stupid government being stupid” look at it.[/quote]
Well, I wouldn’t go that far. I’ve already suggested it could have something to do with tax dollars being spent on children’s health problems that MIGHT be avoided by breastfeeding.
[quote]
If we don’t know what the restrictions on the formula are, how can you know this?[/quote]
All I’m saying is what the language says. Nothing more. It says the doctor’s OK has to do with supplementing a baby that’s already being breastfed. Not the other way around. I can’t speak further about it because there is nothing more to go on. I certainly won’t automatically cry foul and assume it means a woman’s choice to formula feed has to be OK’d. It doesn’t say that. Until there is language saying a mother will NOT be allowed to use formula even though she chooses, I’ll stick to this.
Maybe this will calm Jackie down-
-Breastfeeding experts said that in light of this dismal situation, the New York City plan is sorely needed ? and they say such policies will not restrict mothers? choices in feeding their infants.
?Locking the formula up and paying for it does NOT mean it won?t be available for mothers who choose to exclusively formula feed or for mothers who want to supplement or for medically necessary formula supplementation,? wrote Dr. Lori Feldman-Winter, a pediatrician at Children?s Regional Hospital at Cooper in Camden, N.J. ?It simply helps keep track of usage and cuts down on indiscriminate use.?
-And according to the Latch On NYC website, there is no requirement for new mothers to breastfeed while in the hospital. ?While breastfeeding is healthier for both mothers and babies, staff must respect a mother?s infant feeding choice,? the website states.