• 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]

Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

Im looking for factual proof that PP FACTUALLY knew of ILLEGAL things happening

if they were telling women to report it to the health board, that would seem to indicate they knew of illegal or actionable activities. And, again, Hearsay isn't an eyewitness accounting of something.

Naturally knowing of illegal or actionable activities does not mean they were aware of the entire scope of such by Gosnell, but it would indicate knowledge of such on some level
 
Did you not say that morals are "subjective" and that the law shouldn't enforce morals?

Yes or no??

You're still changing your story here. I won't answer your questions unless you ask an honest one
 
We have learned during our investigation that Gosnell’s reckless ways were not unknown to people in the community. Some pro-choice and women’s health groups learned from Gosnell’s patients of their frightening experiences. Patients reported that they were put totally to sleep for long periods of time, that they were treated badly, and that the facility was dirty. The community groups tried to help women file complaints. They were unsuccessful, however, in part because the complaint form used by the Department of State – the same form that one would use to complain about a barber or a car salesman – is difficult to fill out, especially if the complainant is not well educated or does not speak English. It demands considerable personal information, and it does not guarantee confidentiality for medical records.

Women who had undergone abortions were generally not willing to send all of this information to Harrisburg. When representatives of one of the organizations tried to file a complaint with the Board of Medicine on behalf of the women, they were allegedly told that they could not file a third-party complaint.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

1. 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.

2.This would include most demented or retarded people and Democrats. But I repeat myself.

1. It's doesn't matter if the being in question is human because in the future artificial life and extraterrestrial life when found will have these characteristics and they won't be human. So all is it human talk is stupid at best.

2. Actually no it wouldn't demented and retarded people are sentient beings and have a mind meaning they're neurologically active. Most find killing non human animals wrong because they're sentient and have a mind as well so the retarded and demented will fit in this criteria. But note as well that the retarded and demented are not 3. capable of comprehending a future of some sort and have not 4. put direct value on their existence so killing them would be wrong but not as wrong as killing a being with 3 and 4.

I am just saying when the unborn are aborted 99% of the time, they have none of the characteristics I told you so it's not wrong to kill them before they have these characteristics in my view. Plus human abortions keeps the population under control and keeps the environment healthy
 
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.

As I've said many times, the moral fascists who want to ban abortion regularly try to demonstrate their moral superiority by telling lies. Grant has ignored what we've in order to make up crap. He pretends that "extraordinary measures" is not well defined by the law and misrepresents that other posters have written
 
Women who had undergone abortions were generally not willing to send all of this information to Harrisburg. When representatives of one of the organizations tried to file a complaint with the Board of Medicine on behalf of the women, they were allegedly told that they could not file a third-party complaint.

So PP couldn't even file a complaint if they wanted to? That seems more a failure of state services than one of PP
 
Wouldn't pp having multiple patiant complaints about Gosnell be actually knowing something about his practice?s

All they would knowo is that multiple people had complaints. It doesn't indicate any specific knowledge of wrongdoing, which explains why you continue to dodge explaining exactly what PP should have complained about
 
Nice dodge. Maybe someday, you'll actually tell us what PP should have specifically complained about.

Sangha, if you have some ideological need to act as if it's impossible for an organization to summarize the complaints of multiple witnesses, and pass it on to another party, I don't know what to tell you.
 
1.)It wasn't really a long post

2.)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

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

4.)No, eyewitness accounts would be "factual" accounts of the event

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


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




7.)actually your own definition contradicts you

". 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

" 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

8.)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



9.) No, an eyewitness report is not hearsay. That is even made clear in your provided definition

1.) longer than it ever needs to be since the facts i stated wont change and you want to discuss somethign i never said
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 :shrug: 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 :shrug: 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 :shrug:

8.) which is exactly why as far as PP its concerned its factually hearsay as support by the definition of the word :shrug:

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
 
All they would knowo is that multiple people had complaints. It doesn't indicate any specific knowledge of wrongdoing, which explains why you continue to dodge explaining exactly what PP should have complained about

you're assuming the complaints consisted solely of "stuff happened". I'm basing the fact they urged these women to report it, that the complaints were more detailed than "stuff happened"
 
There would also likely be their observation and treatments of the patients in question.

It would be against the law for PP to report anything about the treatment and observations of its' patients

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

And you continue to refuse specifying exactly what PP should have complained about.

"There are bad things happening at Gosnells' clinic"




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

PP wasn't an eyewitness. They only had second hand accounts.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

if they were telling women to report it to the health board, that would seem to indicate they knew of illegal or actionable activities. And, again, Hearsay isn't an eyewitness accounting of something.

Naturally knowing of illegal or actionable activities does not mean they were aware of the entire scope of such by Gosnell, but it would indicate knowledge of such on some level

I highy doubt it.

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
 
So PP couldn't even file a complaint if they wanted to? That seems more a failure of state services than one of PP


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.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

if they were telling women to report it to the health board, that would seem to indicate they knew of illegal or actionable activities. And, again, Hearsay isn't an eyewitness accounting of something.

Naturally knowing of illegal or actionable activities does not mean they were aware of the entire scope of such by Gosnell, but it would indicate knowledge of such on some level
No, it doesn't indicate that. All it indicates is that they knew some women have complaints. You can imagine whatever you want, but pretending that your imagination is true is dishonest.
 
Sangha, if you have some ideological need to act as if it's impossible for an organization to summarize the complaints of multiple witnesses, and pass it on to another party, I don't know what to tell you.

Once again, you continue to explain exactly what PP should have been filing complaints about. Unless you have more detailed information, and are for some reason keeping it secret, all you know is that PP knew that some women had complaints.

So tell us, what should PP's summary have sounded like?

"Several women have complained about Gosnell"???
 
It would be against the law for PP to report anything about the treatment and observations of its' patients

Actually HIPAA individual identities and personal health information. Passing along such a complaint needs not include anything that endangers such privacy rights

And you continue to refuse specifying exactly what PP should have complained about.

We have heard multiple complaints about the Gosnell facility concerning "fill in the blank"


PP wasn't an eyewitness. They only had second hand accounts.

he called the eyewitness complaints to PP "hearsay"
 
you're assuming the complaints consisted solely of "stuff happened". I'm basing the fact they urged these women to report it, that the complaints were more detailed than "stuff happened"

No, the only people making assumptions are the ones who want to dishonestly claim that PP did something wrong, even though they have no evidence.

But since you now claim to have facts, please feel free to tell us exactly what PP should have reported aside from "Gosnell is doing something wrong"
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

1.)first lets set things back to which i first replied.

2.)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.


3.)the below as an admission of problems going on.

4.)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".

5.)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.

1.) no need to do that because that has NOTHING to do with my question, its irrelevant.
2.) see 1.)
3.) yes and these problems were complaints, nothing else as far as we know
4.) dont know, probably not but how does that factually provide any information? it doesnt
5.) thanks for this info and i agree it should be criminal if they knew but again, i asked you for proof of your claim and this has nothing to do with that question or providing proof.
6.) yes we have gone over this, this proves NOTHING unless one dishonestly assumes and guess what it means. Theres no FACTS of know there was ILLEGAL things going on.

want an example?

me and a few of my friends when asked about a couple we knew all ADMITTED that we knew the couple was having PROBLEMS, we all ADMITTED that we were AWARE there ware PROBLEMS with their marriage.

turns out those problems were the girl cheated and the guy became a woman beater. NONE OF US KNEW THAT.

but we did know they had PROBLEMS.

sorry its dishonest and nonsensical to think that sentence means anything other than what it actually says. Its a large ASSUMPTION to draw the conclusion that the article/thread title does.

but again, if there is proof that PP did factually know!

then sombody got some explainin' to doooo
 
Actually HIPAA individual identities and personal health information. Passing along such a complaint needs not include anything that endangers such privacy rights

Wrong. HIPAA does more than just protect identities and personal health info.

And you continue to avoid explaining exactly what PP should have complained about

We have heard multiple complaints about the Gosnell facility concerning "fill in the blank"




he called the eyewitness complaints to PP "hearsay"

No, he called anything PP had to report "hearsay"
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

I highy doubt it.

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

did you quote the right post? I'm assuming you're responding to the one where I mentioned the earlier accusations about other clinics stearing patients towards Gosnell. If so, then information being available through other means doesn't indicate that professionals would also not do the same.

Also, the accusation concerned abortions procedures that were illegal under PA and federal law. So I am unsure people are advertising these services online
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

1.) no need to do that because that has NOTHING to do with my question, its irrelevant.
2.) see 1.)
3.) yes and these problems were complaints, nothing else as far as we know
4.) dont know, probably not but how does that factually provide any information? it doesnt
5.) thanks for this info and i agree it should be criminal if they knew but again, i asked you for proof of your claim and this has nothing to do with that question or providing proof.
6.) yes we have gone over this, this proves NOTHING unless one dishonestly assumes and guess what it means. Theres no FACTS of know there was ILLEGAL things going on.

want an example?

me and a few of my friends when asked about a couple we knew all ADMITTED that we knew the couple was having PROBLEMS, we all ADMITTED that we were AWARE there ware PROBLEMS with their marriage.

turns out those problems were the girl cheated and the guy became a woman beater. NONE OF US KNEW THAT.

but we did know they had PROBLEMS.

sorry its dishonest and nonsensical to think that sentence means anything other than what it actually says. Its a large ASSUMPTION to draw the conclusion that the article/thread title does.

but again, if there is proof that PP did factually know!

then sombody got some explainin' to doooo

i will just restate this again.

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.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

i will just restate this again.

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.

PP has never said it knew of anything illegal with Gosnells practice
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

1. It's doesn't matter if the being in question is human because in the future artificial life and extraterrestrial life when found will have these characteristics and they won't be human. So all is it human talk is stupid at best.

Well, we ought to wait and see how extraterrestrials regard us before giving them rights.

2. Actually no it wouldn't demented and retarded people are sentient beings and have a mind meaning they're neurologically active. Most find killing non human animals wrong because they're sentient and have a mind as well so the retarded and demented will fit in this criteria. But note as well that the retarded and demented are not 3. capable of comprehending a future of some sort and have not 4. put direct value on their existence so killing them would be wrong but not as wrong as killing a being with 3 and 4.

But the unborn are neurologically active, with brains, after a certain point which is actually very early on, still in the first trimester.

I am just saying when the unborn are aborted 99% of the time, they have none of the characteristics I told you so it's not wrong to kill them before they have these characteristics in my view. Plus human abortions keeps the population under control and keeps the environment healthy

No, this isn't correct if you go by "neurologically active" and possessing a "mind" by which I presume you mean functioning brain.

Baby killing is the law of the land. Planned parenthood was originally all about keeping specific populations under control, by which it was meant undesireable populations like non-whites and the mentally ill and deformed. From that day to this Planned Parenthood has been focused mainly on these populations, and with great success.

It's not complicated. We just decided to let people kill babies who were inconvienent or unwanted. That's really all there is to it. All this stuff about neurologically active and so on is just so much lame-assed BS rationalization.

Don' you worry none. They ain't gonna change dat law no MATTER what. Yo can going on killing babies to yo heart's content, active neurological systems, functioning minds and all.

Besides which, there are, as you point out, certain utilitarian benefits from the practice. I'm especially fond of the way in which liberals are so much more likely to get abortions. From all the talk about how demographics are going to disadvantage conservatives the chattering class has missed the demograpic disaster that they themselves face in terms of very low birth rates.
 
Back
Top Bottom