- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
moral fascist?
are you not a moral fascist, since you support laws based on morality
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
I support laws which are based on the constitution.
The constitution does not give the govt the power to ban abortion.
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?
the constitution does give government the power to protect life though.
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"
nothing... if you read them, it was for your viewing pleasure...i made no comments enforcing them or disavowing them.
That's the DOI, which has no legal force.
Don't you know the difference between the DOI and the Constitution?
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
: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 know them both very well, and the founders say are rights are self-evident, and they are natural after the constitution was ratified.
well everyone translates it different, i saw an admission and a denied by PP.
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
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
also currently, we have ZERO proof of PP knowing anything besides woman had complaints
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.)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.)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
PP was not an eyewitness
I have seen no evidence that they were under any obligation to report anything
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?