• 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]

1.)Yes, in your analogy there is one sole statement of an eyewitness account. This ignores there were multiple eyewitness accounts.



2.)I've been rather clear that I do think they have a professional and moral obligation to do so, yes.




3.)I don't think you really understand how things like "fact", "logic" and 'debate" really work. If something can be "factually" established it wouldn't be "debatable". And many important things are "debatable". SO what we do in "debate" is present our arguments for why something is correct, based on supporting fact and logic, because we are unlikely to find 'factual" evidence one way or the other

1.) no thats what YOU think my analogy was about, in fact it was simply about word of mouth isnt factual or knowledge
but please tell ME again what MY analogy was about

sorry it ignores nothing

2.) great then you can stop talking about it lol

3.) so no you do not have any facts and the statements i made are still 100% correct. Thanks

lets reflect.

the thread title is currently factually not accurate based on any evidence we have
also currently, we have ZERO proof of PP knowing anything besides woman had complaints
 
I support laws which are based on the constitution.

The constitution does not give the govt the power to ban abortion.

the constitution does give government the power to protect life though.

but aside from that, the constitution does not give government the power to make people /business moral or immoral, meaning discrimination laws on people or business are unconstitutional, ---------->because they are based on morality.

and you support discrimination laws on people and business, meaning your forcing your moral values on them.
 
yes i can, all my questions still apply

you posted 3 links

2 support the current evidence that PP didn't factually know anything accept that some woman had complaints and that they told the woman they should report their complaints to the appropriate authorities.

1 link is a story about some random PP facility that seems to be in violation and it looks like action will be taken against that facility as it should if its true.

so again, what did i miss?

nothing... if you read them, it was for your viewing pleasure...i made no comments enforcing them or disavowing them.
 
So it's unconstitutional to kill animals?

Or do they not have lives?


:lol::2razz::lol:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

do you see animals anywhere?

government is to secure the rights of the people

--"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
 
:lol::2razz::lol:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

do you see animals anywhere?

government is to secure the rights of the people

--"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

That's the DOI, which has no legal force.

Don't you know the difference between the DOI and the Constitution?
 
nothing... if you read them, it was for your viewing pleasure...i made no comments enforcing them or disavowing them.

thanks it was a view pleasure reading links that support the fact i have been stating.

and it did lead to a NEW question and another thing that if it is true id like to see action taken.

If PP CEO did factually know, action should be taken
but now, also, if PP was referring woman to that doctor for late term abortions and those late term abortions would be illegal action needs take against that too
 
That's the DOI, which has no legal force.

Don't you know the difference between the DOI and the Constitution?

i know them both very well, and the founders say are rights are self-evident, and they are natural after the constitution was ratified.
 
thanks it was a view pleasure reading links that support the fact i have been stating.

and it did lead to a NEW question and another thing that if it is true id like to see action taken.

If PP CEO did factually know, action should be taken
but now, also, if PP was referring woman to that doctor for late term abortions and those late term abortions would be illegal action needs take against that too

well everyone translates it different, i saw an admission and a denied by PP.
 
:lol::2razz::lol:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

do you see animals anywhere?

government is to secure the rights of the people

--"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

i think that was sorta his point

i dont see woman, children, or ZEFs on there anywhere either

just saying
 
Last edited:
well everyone translates it different, i saw an admission and a denied by PP.

there is nothing to translate when dealing with facts LMAO, the only admission is that they knew of complaints. If you disagree, again please provide factual evidence supporting otherwise

the other denial by PP was a possible denial by a DELAWARE CEO about a specific PP clinic not gosnell's clinic about possible bad conditions which has nothing to do with this thread.

again, please point out any facts that you think i got wrong and prove otherwise, did i miss something?
 
thanks it was a view pleasure reading links that support the fact i have been stating.

and it did lead to a NEW question and another thing that if it is true id like to see action taken.

If PP CEO did factually know, action should be taken
but now, also, if PP was referring woman to that doctor for late term abortions and those late term abortions would be illegal action needs take against that too

I agree but first we need to define what they meant by late term.

Sometimes the term late term abortions is subjective.
As far I can tell Dr. Gosnell was licensed to perform abortions up to 24 weeks gestation.
Some people call any abortion past 16 weeks gestation as late term abortion and more still call any abortion past 20 weeks gestation as late term.

But third trimester abortions would be past 24 weeks gestation.

Since planned parenthood and other clinic were only licensed for the first trimester they might have refer women who were past the trimester to a clinic which performed abortions in the second trimester.
 
1.) no thats what YOU think my analogy was about, in fact it was simply about word of mouth isnt factual or knowledge
but please tell ME again what MY analogy was about

Again, eye witness accounts would be considered "factual" accounts of the events. That's why they are admissible in a court of law

also currently, we have ZERO proof of PP knowing anything besides woman had complaints

right, complaints I am saying they have a moral and professional obligation to report. The same obligations I would hold any medical provider to, regardless of their legal ones
 
Again, eye witness accounts would be considered "factual" accounts of the events. That's why they are admissible in a court of law

PP was not an eyewitness

right, complaints I am saying they have a moral and professional obligation to report. The same obligations I would hold any medical provider to, regardless of their legal ones

I have seen no evidence that they were under any obligation to report anything
 
1.)I agree but first we need to define what they meant by late term.

2.)Sometimes the term late term abortions is subjective.
3.)As far I can tell Dr. Gosnell was licensed to perform abortions up to 24 weeks gestation.
4.)Some people call any abortion past 16 weeks gestation as late term abortion and more still call any abortion past 20 weeks gestation as late term.

5.)But third trimester abortions would be past 24 weeks gestation.

6.)Since planned parenthood and other clinic were only licensed for the first trimester they might have refer women who were past the trimester to a clinic which performed abortions in the second trimester.

1.) i agree 100%
2.) i agree 100%
3.) im not aware of anything he is allowed to do but i get it
4.) yes ive seen this
5.) agreed
6.) ahhhhhhhh see thanks for this info this is something I did not know and would changing my opinion.

thanks mini
 
1.)Again, eye witness accounts would be considered "factual" accounts of the events. That's why they are admissible in a court of law



right, complaints I am saying they have a moral and professional obligation to report. The same obligations I would hold any medical provider to, regardless of their legal ones

1.) only your opinion, its nothing but word of mouth as far as PP is concerned, let me know when you can change this fact.
its "admissible" but not considered FACTUALLY lol HUGE difference

2.) again more opinion that you have, its fine with me that you have that opinion but currently thats all it is

and once again, none of that changes the facts i stated
 
PP was not an eyewitness

Yes, we covered that. I'm not sure how it changes they had first hand accounts though, which I feel they have a moral and professional obligation to report


I have seen no evidence that they were under any obligation to report anything

Well, a professional in the medical field is privy to information that the general public is not, and they understand the legal and ethical framework such organizations are bound to work within, while the general public is not. So given the privilege of information, understanding, and unique access to the individuals who have been harmed, and the obligation of protecting their patients interests, I would say the moral and professional obligation is clear
 
Yes, we covered that. I'm not sure how it changes they had first hand accounts though, which I feel they have a moral and professional obligation to report

There is no obligation to report.


Well, a professional in the medical field is privy to information that the general public is not, and they understand the legal and ethical framework such organizations are bound to work within, while the general public is not. So given the privilege of information, understanding, and unique access to the individuals who have been harmed, and the obligation of protecting their patients interests, I would say the moral and professional obligation is clear

What you would say is not evidence of anything other than what you would say.
 
What you would say is not evidence of anything other than what you would say.

It's a logical argument supporting an ethical and moral position. If you don't understand the dynamics of such, that isn't my problem
 
It's a logical argument supporting an ethical and moral position. If you don't understand the dynamics of such, that isn't my problem

No, it was not. It was a collection of assertions that are not true, with no concerns for any consideration of facts which argue against your predetermined conclusion.
 
It's a logical argument supporting an ethical and moral position. If you don't understand the dynamics of such, that isn't my problem

nope the problem is yours.
theres no argument based on facts that you have provided nor is there any factual ethical or moral position.

you seem to not understand that dynamic

again i have no problem with you thinkin word of mouth is good enough to report but currently theres nothing factual about that, its just your opinion which i have no problem with you having.
 
nope the problem is yours.
theres no argument based on facts that you have provided nor is there any factual ethical or moral position.

you seem to not understand that dynamic

again i have no problem with you thinkin word of mouth is good enough to report but currently theres nothing factual about that, its just your opinion which i have no problem with you having.

"...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{.
 
No, it was not. It was a collection of assertions that are not true

so a professional medical worker is not privy to the specialized guidelines that they need to operate under, don't have unique knowledge of their patients, and the effects of treatment on them?


with no concerns for any consideration of facts which argue against your predetermined conclusion.

I am more than open to criticism on the point, but the above isn't criticism. It's some strange statement about medical professionals not understanding how to conduct themselves as medical professionals. A notion we can clearly dismiss as silly
 
Back
Top Bottom