• 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]

nope, unlike you i would never make illogical assumptions like that because i have no biased involved that makes my posts be dishonest.

what i said was is you are GUESSING, next time quote the whole post it will help you out. nice try to deflect but you failed.

It's a situation we will likely never know the "facts on", like most human endeavors. That's why we apply logic and argumentation to the facts that we know. This goes back to my earlier point about you not understanding the terms you often use
 
Please prove that PP viewed the complaints as "actionable"

that they refered them to the health department, as I clearly stated in the post you just quoted
 
I never been in a situation medically, and know of no medical professional who refers all complaint to the health department. The only such incidents I have heard referred to such authorities, is where there is concern for actionable behavior

How often do you go to a PP clinic for medical care?

PP is a target of lawsuits. What they do is different than what your physicians do.
 
It's a situation we will likely never know the "facts on", like most human endeavors. That's why we apply logic and argumentation to the facts that we know. This goes back to my earlier point about you not understanding the terms you often use

It is not logical to assume your opinions are facts, or that your experience in places that were not PP are applicable to PP
 
No one said it did. What was stated was that it had to be viewed as actionable for that complaint to warrant a referral to the health department

Try reviewing pages 144 and 145 of the Grand Jury report just to give you a small idea that even the CEO of Planned Parenthood herself/himself hand delivered a complaint to the Penn .Sec. Of the Health department it most likely would not have been investigated. So even if some workers at PP called in complaints we might never know.
 
No, it makes no sense for PP to judge whether the complaints it heard of were "actionable" or not. It makes sense for PP to encourage it's clients to report *any* complaints, valid or not, to the proper authorities.

so you are asserting they referred people to the health department because they said their doctor was "a grump"? Again, I have never heard of such a practice, and it defies my experience as a patient and someone who has discussed such topic with health care professionals before
 
I never been in a situation medically, and know of no medical professional who refers all complaint to the health department. The only such incidents I have heard referred to such authorities, is where there is concern for actionable behavior

good for you lol
who are you again?
I sign a form yearly at my doctors about privacy etc, who they are allowed to release info too and another one saying that i have been informed of what to do if i have ANY complaints. Hotlines, mailing address etc.

:shrug: what does that mean? and i Live in PA!

notice how i didnt bring that up until now because i realize its meaningless to the facts of this case, but go ahead, tell us another cool story that has no impact to facts and is just another ASSUMPTION on your part
 
Last edited:
Try reviewing pages 144 and 145 of the Grand Jury report just to give you a small idea that even the CEO of Planned Parenthood herself/himself hand delivered a complaint to the Penn .Sec. Of the Health depart it most likely would not have been investigated. So even if some workers at PP called in complaints we might never know.

Right, I saw that post. But that is not what we are discussing here. What we are discussing is if PP had a moral and professional obligation to report such, independent of their patiants.

I don't know about you, but this is a standard I would apply to any healthcare professional, and for good reason. Mainly because they understand the legal and ethical framework such institutions need to operate under, in a way that is completely inaccessible to most of the public
 
It's a situation we will likely never know the "facts on", like most human endeavors. That's why we apply logic and argumentation to the facts that we know. This goes back to my earlier point about you not understanding the terms you often use

translation: please please please agree with my OPINION and when you dont im going to judge it as illogical even though i have zero facts to support that claim LMAO
and the failed insults begin, <sniiiiiiffffffff> smell that, its desperation LOL
ths is typically what happens when you one has no logical or factual path to take.

so again i ask you, do you have any proof your arent guessing and your not basing your assumption off of anything more than your opinion?

we'll wait
 
good for you lol
who are you again?
I sign a form yearly at my doctors about privacy etc, who they are allowed to release info too and another one saying that i have been informed of what to do if i have ANY complaints. Hotlines, mailing address etc.

No personal information needs to be divulged about a patient to go "we have heard complaints concerning" insert actionable behavior here" about "insert name of practice here"
 
this isnt proof its a GUESS

No, It's a reasoned position from the facts, like any logical argument. You not understanding how logical argument works doesn't change that
 
so you are asserting they referred people to the health department because they said their doctor was "a grump"? Again, I have never heard of such a practice, and it defies my experience as a patient and someone who has discussed such topic with health care professionals before

You are the one who is posting deceitful claims about what PP knew. I have said nothing about what PP knew or believed.
 
No personal information needs to be divulged about a patient to go "we have heard complaints concerning" insert actionable behavior here" about "insert name of practice here"

who mentioned personal info????? WTF????

thanks for proving me right again, you assume crazy stuff that was never said LMAO

tell me more of this logic you have that you just make stuff up in your head, me talking about the papers i sign was just describing what they are, they were in no way an argument for anything as i CLEARY stated when i mead eht ecomment . . . . wait for it . . . . wait for it . . .
notice how i didnt bring that up until now because i realize its meaningless to the facts of this case

:lamo

WOW

you argue from fantasyland and you just proved it, you makes tons of assumptions and think they are true


my post was an example of how your personal story was meaningless to anything being discussed, you fail again LMAO
 
No, It's a reasoned position from the facts, like any logical argument. You not understanding how logical argument works doesn't change that

oooooh look another failed insul, desperation is getting worse LMAO

uhm what fact? you havent presented any.

you guessed and thats it

if you disagree PLEASE provide these FACTS that you made your assumptions on, id LOVE to read them LMAO
 
Concerning what, exactly?

nothing its just another thing he made up and assumed, he is arguing fantasy and guess and that fact has been proven repeatedly LOL
 
who mentioned personal info????? WTF????

thanks for proving me right again, you assume crazy stuff that was never said LMAO

tell me more of this logic you have that you just make stuff up in your head, me talking about the papers i sign was just describing what they are, they were in no way an argument for anything as i CLEARY stated when i mead eht ecomment . . . . wait for it . . . . wait for it . . .


:lamo

WOW

you argue from fantasyland and you just proved it, you makes tons of assumptions and think they are true


my post was an example of how your personal story was meaningless to anything being discussed, you fail again LMAO

your post directly referenced privacy and the regulations that restrict on who they can release patient information to. I pointed to the fact no patient (personal) information need be divulged. And if you are referring to a general warning that exists as a standard part of a patient/doctor agreement, then it makes no sense. Because we are not talking about such generalized warnings, we are discussing direct referrals based on specific patient complaints
 
your post directly referenced privacy and the regulations that restrict on who they can release patient information to. I pointed to the fact no patient (personal) information need be divulged. And if you are referring to a general warning that exists as a standard part of a patient/doctor agreement, then it makes no sense. Because we are not talking about such generalized warnings, we are discussing direct referrals based on patient complaints

which nobody was talking about :shrug:
but please continue to babble on about a point nobody was making, it wont hide all your arguments getting destroyed LOL

can you point out where i said that privacy had anything to do with this case? PLEASE do this so i can destroy this fairytale argument to and continue to laugh at your broken, dishonest, made up logic you are using, PLEASE! lol
 
yesssss now quote my WHOLE post :D

Well, I am editing it above because I am citing specific statements you denied making and the link is available for anyone who wants to review context. Not to mention, I fail to see how context would change the fact that you are citing privacy restrictions as a hurdle to reporting.

do you care to explain?
 
Well, I am editing it above because I am citing specific statements you denied making and the link is available for anyone who wants to review context. Not to mention, I fail to see how context would change the fact that you are citing privacy restrictions as a hurdle to reporting.

do you care to explain?

another lie, i dint deny making them can you qoute me on that too, why do you lie and make stuff up???? :laughat:

THIS is what i said "can you point out where i said that privacy had anything to do with this case?"

see this bolded and underline part, this is why you fail AGAIN, and have egg all over your face LMAO

so yes i will explain, you made it up,it you assuming stuff in your head again
i never denied talking about privicy, i said i did not bring it up and relate it to this case which is a FACT that your broken logic can comprehend but would be easy to understand if you qouted my whole post instead of making things up :laughat:

you lose again, please go back to post 384, read ut again and you will see how factually wrong you are . . . . again LMAO

I never one time cited privacy as a hurdle that is a bold face LIE, again lol

so do you care to explain why you keep making stuff up? LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom