2.) that MIGHT be true but again, no evidence of that. but i agree if there was FACTUAL evidence something more should have been done. Currently we dont have that
3.)I understand them fine, i understand you are presenting your OPINION of what yu think PPs morals and ethics should and nothing else.
You seem to think i should just simply agree with your opinion. I dont not currently as per the fact that we have.
4.) no they are not as the dictionary proves you wrong its hearsay.
Hey everybody Dr, chuckles punched me in the arm, i seen it with my own two eyes. is that factual? i claim to seen it
5.) yes you did but yet you havent provided anything that says your opinion is factually right?
by all means if you can provided something concrete that says "verbal complaints" need to be reported then again, im on board, PP is at least in violation of protocol.
But until then i can jump onto what seems like a witch hunt in my opinion.
6.) which you have yet to define, you are guessing what those obligations are as far as i can tell.
and it means what you are trying to debate has nothing to do with my original OP that you quoted but this isnt anything new for you, its just your style, im also not knocking you for it either, dont take it that way, its just something ive seen you do many times.
I make a point about a and b, you replay sorta talking about A and B but then ask all types of questions about C.
must be just your want or need to debate no biggie
if you are still confused what that means is you are debating whether they should have reported it based on morals and opinions even though it was just complaints. I couldnt care less about that, what i said was two facts. The thread title is wrong/mislead currently and theres no evidence that PP factually knew anything besides there were complaints.
7.) no its not a contradiction me at all LMAO
and like i said "law" doesnt apply, PP is not a court room. SO you are wrong, what the ladies said is hearsay
8.) which is exactly why as far as PP its concerned its factually hearsay as support by the definition of the word
9.) it is in this instance as already proven by definition no matter how you tried to spin the definition and failed.
PP heard what the ladis said and it might not be true, thats hearsay
hearsay n - definition in American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionary Online
information you have heard that might or might not be true:
as far as PP is concerned theres no reason to take the complaints as fact, none
And you continue to refuse specifying exactly what PP should have complained about.But even just multiple complaints, from a number of different patients, would seem to more than justify reporting such to the authorities.
Such reporting isn't some huge burden
right, no one claimed they were. What was claimed was that they had a professional and moral obligation to report such to the complaint department
"There are bad things happening at Gosnells' clinic"
PP wasn't an eyewitness. They only had second hand accounts.well, we would need to look at a situation with multiple complaints from a number of different individuals to the point they were encouraging women to file a complaint with the department of health, and one sole complaint that may simply involve style of treatment (nothing actually illegal or actionable).
If you want to claim that multiple complaints from eye witnesses and victims do not amount to reason for concern there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Also, hearsay would be second hand accounts, not accounts by eyewitnesses
One only needs to go on the internet or ask a friend who can use the intenet to find out what clinics perfoms abortions after the first 20 weeks.
This link has a state by state listing at the bottom of the page.
Late Abortion Clinics: Late Term Abortion Clinics specialists in late-term abortions
PP has admitted it knew of problems, but PP has to stated "ignorance" when it comes to what happened at the clinic.
they cannot admit they knew of an illegal activity or it dooms the people and the organization as a whole.
how? do you know of problems at the clinic, and then say......we are ignorant on what went on there.
Anti-Democracy advocate, Mixed government is the only good government
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.