- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 12,895
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Im looking for factual proof that PP FACTUALLY knew of ILLEGAL things happening
Did you not say that morals are "subjective" and that the law shouldn't enforce morals?
Yes or no??
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.
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.
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.
At the Gosnell facility? Geeze, take your pic
Wouldn't pp having multiple patiant complaints about Gosnell be actually knowing something about his practice?s
Nice dodge. Maybe someday, you'll actually tell us what PP should have specifically complained about.
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
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
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
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
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
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
So PP couldn't even file a complaint if they wanted to? That seems more a failure of state services than one of PP
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.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
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.
It would be against the law for PP to report anything about the treatment and observations of its' patients
And you continue to refuse specifying exactly what PP should have complained about.
PP wasn't an eyewitness. They only had second hand accounts.
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"
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.
Actually HIPAA individual identities and personal health information. Passing along such a complaint needs not include anything that endangers such privacy rights
We have heard multiple complaints about the Gosnell facility concerning "fill in the blank"
he called the eyewitness complaints to PP "hearsay"
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
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.
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
PP has never said it knew of anything illegal with Gosnells practice
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?