Philadelphia Abortion Doctor

[JoltinJoe]

http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST
By Dr. Bernard Nathanson


I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials
to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the
National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968.
A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against
permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court
to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced
virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand
the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world
with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false
figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to
crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that
legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then
be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of
birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since
legalisation.

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and
picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was
played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as "we all know that opposition to abortion
comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics" and "Polls prove time and again
that most Catholics want abortion law reform". And the media drum-fired all this into the
American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under
the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are
enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-
Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian
religions were {and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly
suppressed, along with pro-life atheists' opinions.

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist
to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New
York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new
technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro-
abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that
the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific
one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires
all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some
American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by
carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an
industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the
physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful
destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly
violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma,
but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast
resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic
utilitarian answer to social problems.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a
divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this
infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.



[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]


Apology accepted.

[Chizzang]

My point was that JoltinJoe made a ridiculous assumption based on no real information
So I created one too
It garnered the same types of responses

(that's all)

I don't care about abortion
It has ZERO effect on me and never will

I didn't make any assumption, let alone a ridiculous assumption.

You should read the writings of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was once the most prolific abortionist in this country and a leading and early advocate of the abortion-on-demand "right." My statements about the goals and tactics of the "pro-choice" movement are accurate in fact.

Right...
and the majority of Pro-Life supporters are actually for the murder of abortion doctors
it all works out in the end

[JoltinJoe]

I didn't make any assumption, let alone a ridiculous assumption.

You should read the writings of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was once the most prolific abortionist in this country and a leading and early advocate of the abortion-on-demand "right." My statements about the goals and tactics of the "pro-choice" movement are accurate in fact.

Right...
and the majority of Pro-Life supporters are actually for the murder of abortion doctors
it all works out in the end

I love the way you can pretend that you didn't getting owned.

[Chizzang]

Right...
and the majority of Pro-Life supporters are actually for the murder of abortion doctors
it all works out in the end

I love the way you can pretend that you didn't getting owned.

You'll have to explain to me how I got owned...
I'm sure I must have (somewhere back there)
Sincerely this topic doesn't really matter to me - sure it's fun and always heated and intense
but ultimately I see the world a little differently than you do
although I think we both might have some corresponding similarities

[89Hen]

The nonsense isn't as strong as you think. I know plenty of Catholics who use birth control and I know plenty of Catholics who I'm sure don't use birth control and don't get pregnant.

Good for them. It doesn't work for everybody.

So what do you guess is the percentage of abortions that are for Catholic women who didn't use birth control because the Church told them no to?

[89Hen]

Huh? Where did this come from? Where have you seen evidence that any, let alone half of the people who consider themselves pro-life on this message board, are "fine" with murdering doctors or bombing clinics? Unless you can back it up, it just sounds completely made up.

Do you recall the thread where catamount posted about a doctor getting shot...
on this board many of the posters stated something to the effect: Live by the sword die by the sword... and displayed an "oh well, he asked for it" kind of attitude

Let me pull a Joltin' Joe here:
No I don't have any detailed findings about this site and it's users - but - I have a suspicion that if most pro-lifers were honest (completely honest) they would admit it doesn't bother them at all when abortion doctors are killed... and that's not a shocking reach or assumption because when people being polled are allowed to remain anonymous the numbers show that to be the case...

It's the old "fight fire with fire" attitude... and it's not uncommon or unusual

Pretty much ruins Cleets' credibility.

[89Hen]

If there are abortions they should be regulated to prevent stuff like this from happening, I'm not that loony. I'm just skeptical that the government can be capable of regulating anything at all on a large scale

They are legal now, and yet, this happened.

[Chizzang]

Do you recall the thread where catamount posted about a doctor getting shot...
on this board many of the posters stated something to the effect: Live by the sword die by the sword... and displayed an "oh well, he asked for it" kind of attitude

Let me pull a Joltin' Joe here:
No I don't have any detailed findings about this site and it's users - but - I have a suspicion that if most pro-lifers were honest (completely honest) they would admit it doesn't bother them at all when abortion doctors are killed... and that's not a shocking reach or assumption because when people being polled are allowed to remain anonymous the numbers show that to be the case...

It's the old "fight fire with fire" attitude... and it's not uncommon or unusual

Pretty much ruins Cleets' credibility.

Oh yeah since "credibility" is such a HUGE part of CS.com Political forum... (I forgot about credibility)
and if you actually cared to read on you'd see the game that was afoot
The game is called "make crazy assertions with no evidence" and pretend like they are fact


But I did forget that we were all going to save the world here on our computers - thanks for reminding me how important this was

[89Hen]

Oh yeah since "credibility" is such a HUGE part of CS.com Political forum... (I forgot about credibility)
and if you actually cared to read on you'd see the game that was afoot
The game is called "make crazy assertions with no evidence" and pretend like they are fact


But I did forget that we were all going to save the world here on our computers - thanks for reminding me how important this was

You portray yourself as an educated and mostly impartial guy. You threw out a horrible generalization, got called on it, and then tried to pass it off as just joking. I'm just glad to see you had to lower yourself.

[Chizzang]

Oh yeah since "credibility" is such a HUGE part of CS.com Political forum... (I forgot about credibility)
and if you actually cared to read on you'd see the game that was afoot
The game is called "make crazy assertions with no evidence" and pretend like they are fact


But I did forget that we were all going to save the world here on our computers - thanks for reminding me how important this was

You portray yourself as an educated and mostly impartial guy. You threw out a horrible generalization, got called on it, and then tried to pass it off as just joking. I'm just glad to see you had to lower yourself.

You'll want to check with Ursus on you assumption....

and there might be nobody more full of themselves on this forum than yourself
Try to lighten up Francis

[Pwns]

Do you have a law mandated waiting period on most other medical procedures? Are doctors required to provide specific information that isn't actually needed to perform the procedure?

Why treat it differently?

Easy. Most other medical procedures don't have a sticky ethical issue surrounding them and are almost always elective procedures.

[JMU DJ]

JJ, I can't speak for anyone else but I will tell you this. There is not a **** thing you can label me as that would make a difference to me in the decisions I make. I'm not driven in one direction or the other by you or Pro lifers. You can call me "pro vacuuming little legs out of a pussy" if you want to.

I come to my own conclusions on things through discussions and a little learning. I am happy to learn perspectives and facts from you. I don't even mind getting your opinion on things. The thing is that people are less receptive when you purposely use the language you do as if you are really telling it like it is. You can think what you want but the spiteful nature of pro lifers like yourself completely works against your stated goal. IT IS people that act as you do that hurt your numbers with people like me that are truly of two sides on the matter.

I would think you would know something about trying to persuade someone to your way of thinking and in spite of that you make the mistake of a rube. That leads me to believe that you just want to argue it from a philosophical standpoint instead of working towards your stated goal. Good luck, it'll be interesting to watch.

I don't think I'm spiteful. I've never said, "abortion is murder," or "abortionists are murderers," etc. But to me "pro choice" is a euphemism. Really, taking out all the loaded language (and perhaps "pro life" is, at least politically, a loaded term too), you are either "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion." I really believe, at least on a personal level, that most people anti-abortion. I'm just trying to say that it's ok to acknowledge what you believe and that you should be comfortable identifying yourself as such.

Why does it have to be so "black" or "white" Joe? I don't like abortion, but I'm not going to sit here in an ivory tower and pretend like it's my way or the highway and that my life choices should be imposed on the rest of the general population. You can find it as morally reprehensible as the sweet lord baby jebus tells you it should be, but in the end, it's not your choice what someone does with their body, whichever way they decide to go. Do we need a law/supreme court ruling that says abortion is legal? Do we need a law/supreme court ruling that says it's illegal? Personally, I don't think you or I or the government has the right to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their own body.

[kalm]

Oh yeah since "credibility" is such a HUGE part of CS.com Political forum... (I forgot about credibility)
and if you actually cared to read on you'd see the game that was afoot
The game is called "make crazy assertions with no evidence" and pretend like they are fact


But I did forget that we were all going to save the world here on our computers - thanks for reminding me how important this was

You portray yourself as an educated and mostly impartial guy. You threw out a horrible generalization, got called on it, and then tried to pass it off as just joking. I'm just glad to see you had to lower yourself.

Cleets layed a fairly obvious satirical trap. In fact, it was so obvious, I'm guessing he didn't even intend for it to be a trap at all. And yet here we are. Thank you.

[Col Hogan]

I don't think I'm spiteful. I've never said, "abortion is murder," or "abortionists are murderers," etc. But to me "pro choice" is a euphemism. Really, taking out all the loaded language (and perhaps "pro life" is, at least politically, a loaded term too), you are either "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion." I really believe, at least on a personal level, that most people anti-abortion. I'm just trying to say that it's ok to acknowledge what you believe and that you should be comfortable identifying yourself as such.

Why does it have to be so "black" or "white" Joe? I don't like abortion, but I'm not going to sit here in an ivory tower and pretend like it's my way or the highway and that my life choices should be imposed on the rest of the general population. You can find it as morally reprehensible as the sweet lord baby jebus tells you it should be, but in the end, it's not your choice what someone does with their body, whichever way they decide to go. Do we need a law/supreme court ruling that says abortion is legal? Do we need a law/supreme court ruling that says it's illegal? Personally, I don't think you or I or the government has the right to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their own body.

What about the body of the baby that is killed in the abortion...doesn't that child have a right...

If you want to so something to your body, I have no problem with that...it's when your action impacts someone else that I think we must take a stand...

[89Hen]

and there might be nobody more full of themselves on this forum than yourself
Try to lighten up Francis

Bullshit. Have you seen a picture of me with my latest girlfriend? Did I tell you recently how I don't have to work and just travel around hanging out?

[89Hen]

it's not your choice what someone does with their body

If it were that simple, there'd be no discussion.

[89Hen]

I'm guessing he didn't even intend for it to be a trap at all. And yet here we are. Thank you.

That is funny. Thank you.

[Cap'n Cat]

Shame on all of you fvckheads in this thread.



On one hand, you have reasonable, sane, high-order thinking people in this debate who believe that a woman's body is hers and hers alone and she should not be at the wrong end of both barrels of the state or religious organizations' wrath for making any reproductive decision.

On the other hand, you have a world full of brain-dead Conk zealots.

[89Hen]

On one hand, you have reasonable, sane, high-order thinking people in this debate who believe that a woman's body is hers and hers alone and she should not be at the wrong end of both barrels of the state or religious organizations' wrath for making any reproductive decision.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Cap'n Cat]

On one hand, you have reasonable, sane, high-order thinking people in this debate who believe that a woman's body is hers and hers alone and she should not be at the wrong end of both barrels of the state or religious organizations' wrath for making any reproductive decision.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Chizzang]

and there might be nobody more full of themselves on this forum than yourself
Try to lighten up Francis

Bullshit. Have you seen a picture of me with my latest girlfriend? Did I tell you recently how I don't have to work and just travel around hanging out?

I'm excited to see a picture of you and your girlfriend...
And You're lucky that you don't have to work very much right now I have two jobs


Maybe we should be BFF - you seem like such a charming guy with loads of personality

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

JJ, I can't speak for anyone else but I will tell you this. There is not a **** thing you can label me as that would make a difference to me in the decisions I make. I'm not driven in one direction or the other by you or Pro lifers. You can call me "pro vacuuming little legs out of a pussy" if you want to.

I come to my own conclusions on things through discussions and a little learning. I am happy to learn perspectives and facts from you. I don't even mind getting your opinion on things. The thing is that people are less receptive when you purposely use the language you do as if you are really telling it like it is. You can think what you want but the spiteful nature of pro lifers like yourself completely works against your stated goal. IT IS people that act as you do that hurt your numbers with people like me that are truly of two sides on the matter.

I would think you would know something about trying to persuade someone to your way of thinking and in spite of that you make the mistake of a rube. That leads me to believe that you just want to argue it from a philosophical standpoint instead of working towards your stated goal. Good luck, it'll be interesting to watch.

So I take it you also condemn the use of the term "anti-choice" by groups like NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood? And I'm not just talking about fringe elements, you don't have to look very long to find the term used on their websites.

I for one don't think "pro-choice" folks (at least their top organizations) are really all that interested in reducing the numbers of abortions, and there are some good reasons for that.

1) More than half of women who have had at least one abortion have had multiple abortions. Yet they tell us it's a decision that no one takes lightly, or that it just happens when the condom and pill fail concurrently, or they're all rare cases where medical conditions made the abortion necessary.

2) PP, NARAL, NOW, et al do nothing for pregnant women who don't want to get an abortion but don't want cannot keep the baby. They don't help them find adoptive families. They don't advocate making the adoption process easier which keeps many capable people from adopting American babies. They would rather complain about the foster care system and use it as a reason why abortion is better option than having women simple give up the babies after birth. They claim to be about reducing child poverty and maximizing the number of kids living in stable homes but don't act like it.

3) They fight any and all restrictions on abortions, even those that are perfectly reasonable. A 14-year-old can't get many medical procedures without parental consent, but the militant pro-abortion crowd thinks they should be able to get abortions. They b*tch and moan at simple waiting periods (I thought it was a big decision?) or any requirement for doctors to tell the truth about the physiology of their developing baby. They claim to oppose the born-alive protection act because of what it could lead to yet want to pass the freedom of choice act which is very vague and would give the pro-abortion side more leverage than the born-alive act would the pro-life side.

All this while they not only don't try to find any common ground with the pro-life side. All they can do is play the gender card (even though there's very little of an opinion gap between the sexes on abortion) and say that this isn't a conflict of one human right versus another but rather human rights versus religious beliefs. The "pro-choice" movement needs to get off their high horses and do some soul-searching.

Anti choice? I've never even heard it before. You have wildly missed the mark on what I'm saying here looking over your work.
1. I don't give a flying fuck about nor do I support any of the groups you mentioned. Therefore your laying out of facts of what they have done, in a fashion that looks like you want me to try and defend them is flat out dumb.

2. I am stating what I think. The fact that my thoughts cross paths with others does not mean that I will be here to argue with you over someone else's agenda. Take that up with them.

3. In my discussions on here with the people on this thread I am relaying that if they want to make head way in garnering support for their cause then lumping everybody in with the groups that you are fighting against like you JUST DID is pretty fucking bad strategy.

4. The reason you need to be more persuasive is that your side lost this battle back in 1972 or whenever it was. If you want to bolster your standing and make a more solid case that others can get behind then taking swipes at and marginalizing with silly, pointless names is a fucking losers tactic.

I know that there is good in the hearts of the pro life set on here. I get it. But when this issue comes up you are the most unlikable, pompous mother fuckers I've had the pleasure of talking with.

Except Col. Hogan. He uses simple statements of fact and let's the reader do his own thinking through points that make sense in a back & forth. He does not try and pick a fight with silly bullshit like has been done here by you.

In simple language since it was apparently missed...if you are a door to door salesman don't come in and wipe your ass on my drapes and expect me to listen to your pitch.

[89Hen]

right now I have two jobs

Congrats! Now if we can just get Travis and Jelly jobs, everyone will be employed.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

You portray yourself as an educated and mostly impartial guy. You threw out a horrible generalization, got called on it, and then tried to pass it off as just joking. I'm just glad to see you had to lower yourself.

Cleets layed a fairly obvious satirical trap. In fact, it was so obvious, I'm guessing he didn't even intend for it to be a trap at all. And yet here we are. Thank you.

It did seem really obvious what he was doing there so I'm not sure that a double trap isn't be played out. I hope I don't caught in it.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I'm guessing he didn't even intend for it to be a trap at all. And yet here we are. Thank you.

That is funny. Thank you.