• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors [W:24]

any factual evidence yet that PP actually knew anything about this doctor besides some people had complaints or is the thread title/article title still misleading and false?

Dont get me wrong if those facts do come forward there should definitely be penalties and id support 100% but that doesnt seem to be the case at all yet.
 
minnie616 said:
No it does not mean taking the babies life.
If a baby is born with severe life threatening conditions and will not survive more than a few minutes or hours the kindest thing to do is to give it comfort care for the few minutes or hours it has instead of inserting
all kinds of machines that might or might not give it
a few minutes or hours more.

Those babies are kelp warm, are held, and are kept pain free until they expire naturally.
Click to expand...

that's nonsense, of course, as your reference to 'extreme measures' indicates.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
1. I get tried of the Anthropocentrism pro lifers show on a daily basis. Let's look at the characteristics these beings have

2. A one day old baby is a sentient being with a mind (neurologically active) and is part of our social fabric meaning that we can interact with and develop a relationship with this being thus it has the right to life

3. A 3 month old baby is a sentient being with a mind and is part of the social fabric thus it has the right to life

4. A two year old is a sentient being with a mind and is part of the social fabric thus it has the right to life

5. A 10 year old is a sentient being with a mind plus is part of our social fabric. This being is capable of comprehending what life is and is capable of deciding what it might want to do with a life of some sort thus this being has put direct value on it's own existence thus it seriously has the right to life

6. Read number 5

The unborn 99% percent of the time when they're aborted are not sentient with a mind
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should be judged if you are sentient with a mind and whether 'extreme measures' should be taken. That seems to be the direction we're headed.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps you should be judged if you are sentient with a mind and whether 'extreme measures' should be taken. That seems to be the direction we're headed.
Click to expand...

I already been judged and doing just fine
 
Grant said:
that's nonsense, of course, as your reference to 'extreme measures' indicates.
Click to expand...

It is not nonsence. If the baby is vivable and has a chance of living more than a few hours the born alive means that medical has to be given.

If a mother or family wants to try to take extraordinary measures to try to save the premie then she can request that surgeries or infant cpap machines be used to try to extend the life of the infant.
 
digsbe said:
Oh, they can feel free to differ but they would still be 100% incorrect. Many women would also agree with me and biological facts. The fetus is not the woman's body. It's an individual. It's independent in the fact that it is its own human life and body. It's not the woman's body.
Click to expand...

And yet, it's dependent on the woman's body for survival which completely destroys your case for it being independent.

Please go on ahead and prove to me, using biology, why a ZEF is not an individual human organism and why it isn't is an individual human life.
Click to expand...

You're moving to goal posts. You claimed it was independent. It isn't. It being "a human life" does not make it a human or a person.

You were shown to be wrong. Fetal body's and the embryo have their own cell metabolism. They are their own bodies.
Click to expand...

And yet, it doesn't process its own food. It's processed for it first.

I'll break it down. A living sperm contains the haploid genetic material from a father, the living egg the haploid genetic material from the mother. When they fuse, a diploid living embryo is created that has a human genome unique for a new human life. Human sperm + human egg fuse to = human embryo containing a human genome that is unique to that individual human life. It's obviously a living organism, and it belongs to the human species as a human life in the first stages. This is fact. To claim that the ZEF is not a human life is completely dishonest and biologically incorrect.
Click to expand...

It's not as it doesn't have any of the conditions for being human other than human DNA. It doesn't feed itself, communicate. :shrug:
 
AGENT J said:
any factual evidence yet that PP actually knew anything about this doctor besides some people had complaints or is the thread title/article title still misleading and false?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't pp having multiple patiant complaints about Gosnell be actually knowing something about his practice? It's a rather strange distinction your making, especially when the required action was nothing more than making a report with some type of oversight committee, professional organization, or applicable authorities
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Wouldn't pp having multiple patiant complaints about Gosnell be actually knowing something about his practice? It's a rather strange distinction your making, especially when the required action was nothing more than making a report with some type of oversight committee, professional organization, or applicable authorities
Click to expand...

no, it would know that there were complaints, not actually and factually what was going on.

PP isnt the compliant department.

Like i said earlier, i personally have bashed doctors/nurses to other doctors/nurses and at times they agreed with me and verbally said that doesnt seem right or thats wrong or theres no reason to do that and i highly doubt anything was done because why would they?

they arent a complaint department.

Now if there was factual evidence that would be different, so the distinction isnt strange at all, its factual.

the distinction is between facts and hearsay.

and my point is PP had no facts to report.
 
AGENT J said:
no, it would know that there were complaints, not actually and factually what was going on.
Click to expand...

There would also likely be their observation and treatments of the patients in question. 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

PP isnt the compliant department.
Click to expand...

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

Like i said earlier, i personally have bashed doctors/nurses to other doctors/nurses and at times they agreed with me and verbally said that doesnt seem right or thats wrong or theres no reason to do that and i highly doubt anything was done because why would they?
Click to expand...

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).


Now if there was factual evidence that would be different, so the distinction isnt strange at all, its factual.

the distinction is between facts and hearsay.
Click to expand...

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
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

Dr. Chuckles said:
depending on the validity of the OP, this seems more PR than anything
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like Gosnell induced labor in women who had late term pregnancies and then murdered the babies if they were born alive.

I do not know of any pro abortions rights person or group who would not condem what apparently went on in the Gosnell clinic.

Anyone pro choice or pro life person or organization should condem the murder of born babies viable or non viable.

I think the thought of what he did should sicken all of us.

I support late term abortions only in the extreme cases where the life or irreparable harm to a major bodily function will take place if the pregnancy contines,where the fetus is already dead from natural causes, will be stillborn or is so malformed it would only live a few minutes or hours.

In those extreme cases the legal abortionist makes sure the fetus is dead before removing it from the womb.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1.)There would also likely be their observation and treatments of the patients in question.
2.) 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



3.)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



4.)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).




5.)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.

6.)Also, hearsay would be second hand accounts, not accounts by eyewitnesses
Click to expand...

really this long post in hopes of changing the fact that PP wasnt factually aware of any wrong doing? LOL
the thread title is currently factually not CURRENTLY true.

ill play for a little while but the facts arent going to change, you are free to have any opinion you like but thats all it is.

1.) maybe, i see no facts to support this.
if 5 different patients came in and had their legs removed when they needed their arms removed (just an example) of course that would probably warrant some investigation but i see nothing that suggests this happened.

2.) you are welcome to this opinion but nothing makes it fact and nothing makes the thread title fact

3.) again, opinion based on what we know, per what what we know they had no facts to report, they did tell the woman if they have complaints what they should do.

4.) I agree which is why the thread title isnt true and it seems they meet their legal obligations as far as we have evidence of

5.) its not a claim its factual unless you can prove otherwise, who said PP had no concern? they did what they should have, told the woman to file complaints, so feel free to end the discussion because my point that i actually said still stands and what you are trying to have a debate about is meaningless to anythign i said.

the thread title is currently not true, that could change but currently there's no evidence to support it and as far as anybody knows PP was not factually aware of anything besides complaints.

6.) also hearsay can in fact be Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated, Unverified information heard or received from another.

https://www.google.com/search?num=3...SBueM0QGz-YGwCg&ved=0CDEQkQ4&biw=1582&bih=829
hearsay - definition of hearsay by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

now in court you would be right, but a check-up room at PP is not a court room, so in this case the term is 100% accurate.

what the people said was hearsay and nothing more.

Let me know if you want to discuss what i actually said because i couldnt care less about your opinion that they should have reported the hearsay to somebody. You are free to have it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

minnie616 said:
It sounds to me like Gosnell induced labor in women who had late term pregnancies and then murdered the babies if they were born alive.

I do not know of any pro abortions rights person or group who would not condem what apparently went on in the Gosnell clinic.
Click to expand...

one of the earlier accusations was that clinics were sending patients to Gosnell knowing that he would do illegal procedures. Which I don't think is impossible, though I would like to see evidence for it
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

GEIxBattleRifle said:
:lol: No you can't kill him because he is a sentient being with a mind plus most importantly capable of comprehending a future of some sort and has put direct value on his own existence

99% of the time when the unborn are killed they have none of the characteristics I told you. Until something is part of our social fabric which your 26 year old cousin obviously is part of human typically don't care for it.

Think why for example non human animals are giving more consideration most of the time then the unborn.
Click to expand...

Ok, so creatures who are not sentient beings with minds capable of comprehending a future of some sort and have not put direct value on their own existence are not human and can be killed.

This would include most demented or retarded people and Democrats. But I repeat myself.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

tererun said:
So under this logic we can charge the NRA and gun dealers with negligence also? Oh yeah, the right does not like their hypocricy pointed out.
Click to expand...

sorry but your argument does not work.

planned-parenthood, knew things which were illegal were going on, and did nothing to stop it by reporting it.

if the NRA knew of illegal gun-running or acts which violates the law, then your argument would be valid
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

ernst barkmann said:
sorry but your argument does not work.

planned-parenthood, knew things which were illegal were going on, and did nothing to stop it by reporting it.

if the NRA knew of illegal gun-running or acts which violates the law, then your argument would be valid
Click to expand...

can you provide a link to this because if true they are in hot water
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

AGENT J said:
can you provide a link to this because if true they are in hot water
Click to expand...

the beginning of the story.

Planned Parenthood has already been connected to Kermit Gosnell in one way — via a grisly abortion experiment he conducted on women back in the 1970s.

But Planned Parenthood Southeast Pennsylvania president and CEO Dayle Steinberg (((((admitted ))))this week at a fundraiser that the abortion business knew of the problems at Gosnell’s Philadelphia abortion facility.

Apparently Planned Parenthood did not report it to the state health department or other state or local officials who could have done something about it. Instead, it appears the abortion giant left it up to women Gosnell injured or traumatized to make public officials aware of his House of Horrors.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

Dr. Chuckles said:
one of the earlier accusations was that clinics were sending patients to Gosnell knowing that he would do illegal procedures. Which I don't think is impossible, though I would like to see evidence for it
Click to expand...

I do not think that would be true.
If a clinic recommended a clinic that they knew performed illegal procedures that clinic not only would lose their licence and their reputation they could be held liable and might be an charged as an accessory to the illegal produce.

More than likely a clinic that only perform first trimester abortions might have told patients who were in their second trimester that Gosnell was licensed to perform abortions during the second trimester ...which was true.
 
AGENT J said:
really this long post in hopes of changing the fact that PP wasnt factually aware of any wrong doing? LOL
the thread title is currently factually not CURRENTLY true.
Click to expand...

It wasn't really a long post

1.) maybe, i see no facts to support this.
Click to expand...

Well, which is why I wrote "likely", not is". Being that if the complaints concerned certain procedures and treatments, that signs of such would be visible on examination

2.) you are welcome to this opinion but nothing makes it fact and nothing makes the thread title fact
Click to expand...

You don't really seem to understand the nature of moral and ethics. They are derived from facts, not facts themselves

3.) again, opinion based on what we know, per what what we know they had no facts to report, they did tell the woman if they have complaints what they
Click to expand...

No, eyewitness accounts would be "factual" accounts of the event


4.) I agree which is why the thread title isnt true and it seems they meet their legal obligations as far as we have evidence of
Click to expand...

Which is why I mentioned professional and ethical obligations ...


5.) its not a claim its factual unless you can prove otherwise, who said PP had no concern? they did what they should have, told the woman to file complaints, so feel free to end the discussion because my point that i actually said still stands and what you are trying to have a debate about is meaningless to anythign i said.
Click to expand...

I can't even make sense of this. But I am clearly asserting they had a professional and ethical obligation to report it themselves


6.) alse hearsay can in fact be Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated, Unverified information heard or received from another
Click to expand...

actually your own definition contradicts you

"1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor."

rumor is generally understood as second hand information. Information that isn't accounted by a direct witness


"2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony."

The above, which is more applicable, also makes that clear

now in court you would be right, but a check-up room at PP is not a court room
Click to expand...

No one claimed it was, and such really has nothing to do with them reporting such complaints to a proper agency, who would investigate the matter. Not merely declare his guilt based on such a report

what the people said was hearsay and nothing more
Click to expand...

No, an eyewitness report is not hearsay. That is even made clear in your provided definition
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

ernst barkmann said:
the beginning of the story.

Planned Parenthood has already been connected to Kermit Gosnell in one way — via a grisly abortion experiment he conducted on women back in the 1970s.

But Planned Parenthood Southeast Pennsylvania president and CEO Dayle Steinberg (((((admitted ))))this week at a fundraiser that the abortion business knew of the problems at Gosnell’s Philadelphia abortion facility.

Apparently Planned Parenthood did not report it to the state health department or other state or local officials who could have done something about it. Instead, it appears the abortion giant left it up to women Gosnell injured or traumatized to make public officials aware of his House of Horrors.
Click to expand...

maybe you misunderstood the question, that guy saying he knew of problems and then later saying those problems were woman complaining is not anywhere near the same as what you said.

Im looking for factual proof that PP FACTUALLY knew of ILLEGAL things happening, not hearsay and not the opinion of somebody who feels PP should have done more then tell the woman to report it.

im looking for facts that can get them in hot water.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

minnie616 said:
I do not think that would be true.
If a clinic recommended a clinic that they knew performed illegal procedures that clinic not only would lose their licence and their reputation they could be held liable and might be an charged as an accessory to the illegal produce.
Click to expand...

the terms it was put in was that they weren't saying go here he will give you an illegal abortion. You should go see this doctor for a second opinion, with a "wink".

It's not something I find impossible, given the fact that most people in the field are working there for ideological reasons (they may see nothing wrong with late term abortions). But I would need to see evidence of such
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

AGENT J said:
maybe you misunderstood the question, that guy saying he knew of problems and then later saying those problems were woman complaining is not anywhere near the same as what you said.

Im looking for factual proof that PP FACTUALLY knew of ILLEGAL things happening, not hearsay and not the opinion of somebody who feels PP should have done more then tell the woman to report it.

im looking for facts that can get them in hot water.
Click to expand...

first lets set things back to which i first replied.

first the NRA, as far as i know never been involved in any actives, which has been questioned by authorities. so for anyone to drag the NRA into any thing parallel to this is ridiculous.


the below as an admission of problems going on.

do you think that after this story broke, that Pennsylvania president and CEO Dayle Steinberg was going to admit, "yes we knew illegal activity was going on".

that would be a felony if she said that., and she would be guilty of a crime, for not reporting it...no one can admit they knew, or its jail for them.



Pennsylvania president and CEO Dayle Steinberg (((((admitted ))))this week at a fundraiser that the abortion business knew of the problems at Gosnell’s Philadelphia abortion facility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom