Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html ^ | Dr. Bernard Nathanson

Posted on 05/03/2003 5:02:46 PM PDT by cpforlife.org

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 serf-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.]


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionists; bernardnathanson; murder; naral
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Dr. Nathanson's conversion story is testimony that all things are possible with God.

The Hand Of God (Click on “abortion: books” then scroll.)

Item #2000P - Book - "The Hand Of God" Dr. Nathanson's journey from atheist and prominent abortionist to Christianity and the pro-life movement is part autobiography, part spiritual memoir, and part scientific and philosophical treatise. An extraordinary book. 240 pgs, paperback.

1 posted on 05/03/2003 5:02:46 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; Remedy; nickcarraway; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

2 posted on 05/03/2003 5:03:51 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Caught Sleeping

Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life

"I don’t want the Church to be caught sleeping again…"

This is the heartfelt desire which the man who was a key player in bringing us legal abortion, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, has expressed to me regarding the bioethical challenges of the 21st century. Dr. Nathanson maintains that in the '60's, he and his colleagues at NARAL (at that time, the "National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws") literally "stole the issue" from the Church. In speaking to clergy, he says, "We would never have gotten away with what we did if you had been united, purposeful, and strong."

The new bioethical challenges have shaped the news and everyday discourse: embryonic stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and human cloning. Those who want to advance science-fiction agendas will still not get away with what they are doing if the Church is united, purposeful, and strong.

One of the many key insights which Evangelium vitae provides about these issues is a play on words. The English word "matter" and the Latin word "mater" ("mother") express two ways of looking at creation, including human life. The Holy Father writes, "[O]nce all reference to God has been removed, it is not surprising that the meaning of everything else becomes profoundly distorted. Nature itself, from being "mater" (mother), is now reduced to being "matter", and is subjected to every kind of manipulation" (n.22).

To put this another way, we can look at creation and consider how useful it is, or we can look at creation and reverently marvel at it. These two visions are not mutually exclusive. To marvel at the beauty of a tree doesn't mean we can't use it for lumber. But the danger lies in reducing our vision entirely to "matter." This is particularly dangerous when it comes to human life, because a person is not a thing, and is never to be treated as a thing. The drive to "use" embryos and their cells, and to "manipulate" the genetic code, necessarily puts the person in the category of a thing, despite any "good intentions."

The new bioethical challenges do not replace abortion as a central focus, because the assertion in Roe vs. Wade that "the word person…does not include the unborn" provides the foundation for the type of thinking behind these new challenges. As our bishops have pointed out, "Nations are not machines or equations. They are like ecosystems. A people's habits, beliefs, values and institutions intertwine like a root system. Poisoning one part will eventually poison it all... So it is with the legacy of Roe vs. Wade" (Living the Gospel of Life, 1998, n.9).

The way out of this mess is not going to be easy. Sleeping is easy; vigilance has a price. Fundamentally, if the Church is not to be caught asleep again, we have to prioritize our activities, and devote more resources to both education and activism in the defense of life. This work cannot be a hobby; it will require us to give everything. But that should sound familiar to Christians.



3 posted on 05/03/2003 5:05:18 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
bump
4 posted on 05/03/2003 5:08:50 PM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Dr. Bernard Nathanson to the Church: "We would never have gotten away with what we did if you had been united, purposeful, and strong."

Perhaps after 30 years and 42+ million dead--it is time to get united, purposeful, and strong.

5 posted on 05/03/2003 5:10:16 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions.

What a burden to bear. I hope he found peace.

6 posted on 05/03/2003 5:11:27 PM PDT by Fzob (Why does this tag line keep showing up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
One would have to wonder if the good doctor and his brethern will work as feverishly to abort this horrible law as they did to give it birth. I doubt it.
7 posted on 05/03/2003 5:14:57 PM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
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.
8 posted on 05/03/2003 5:17:05 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
BUMP
BOOKMARK
9 posted on 05/03/2003 5:27:08 PM PDT by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
On this issue, it was being said by Dr. F. Schaeffer as well...just a bit earlier. Truth is, through the millenia, many have been voices crying in the wilderness for unification in the LORD, for His purposes, and in His strength.
10 posted on 05/03/2003 5:29:56 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
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 serf-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.

My Lord, they lied their heads off, and there was no factual correction or counter-attack.

11 posted on 05/03/2003 5:33:51 PM PDT by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Please add me to your ping list. Thanks
12 posted on 05/03/2003 5:43:51 PM PDT by 2timothy3.16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
This book was published 2 years ago, and it appears the article was writen much before that -

Does news/activism now allow advertising ?
13 posted on 05/03/2003 5:44:05 PM PDT by RS (nc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Please add me to your ping list.

Thanks.
14 posted on 05/03/2003 5:45:08 PM PDT by Beth (God bless Pres. GW Bush, our troops, and Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xJones
My Lord, they lied their heads off, and there was no factual correction or counter-attack.

... and they keep lying, "polling" on other subjects, fabricating figures of convenience to support their "facts" about guns, gays, PC, history, AIDS, Hillary, .... you name it. They have no shame or scrupules. Time to vote decent people into government and dump the scumbags to the trash bin of history.

Freep & Roll!

15 posted on 05/03/2003 5:49:56 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Knither
Pinging you on this because it's interesting. :-)
16 posted on 05/03/2003 5:56:37 PM PDT by arasina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xJones
It is astonishing to me that the SCOTUS will not revisit their ruling of 1973, despite the facts proving the case was based entirely of lies and fabrications of data that led to the ruling. THAT is the horror of SCOTUS activism that not has been responsible for tens of millions of slaughtered unborn and counting.
17 posted on 05/03/2003 5:57:47 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All
"Never, never will we desist till we. . . extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country"

William Wilberforce:
Member of Parliament who led the fight for the abolition of slavery in Great Britain.

18 posted on 05/03/2003 6:01:09 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xJones
Thankfully, the left no longer controls the media. We are speaking up against their injustices and we are holding them accountable.
19 posted on 05/03/2003 6:01:21 PM PDT by LoveBushLongTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All
Who are the unborn?


I AM:

A CHILD OF GOD

THE HEART OF A MARRIAGE

THE FOUNDATION OF A FAMILY

THE FUTURE OF OUR REPUBLIC

A CITIZEN--WAITING AND WANTING TO BE BORN

A PERSON

DESTROY ME--AND YOU DESTROY THE FUTURE


20 posted on 05/03/2003 6:03:56 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions

"Doctor" Nathanson should do the honorable thing, and eat a bullet.

21 posted on 05/03/2003 6:04:53 PM PDT by Alain2112 (This Space Intentionally Left Blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
read later
22 posted on 05/03/2003 6:05:09 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Interesting. I know a nurse who became pro-life after seeing ultrasound scans of fetuses when assigned to the obstetrics unit of his hospital. He never had anything to do with abortions, but he had previously been "pro-choice".

To those who object to the use of the term "fetus", let me say that whatever monkeying around with terminology the pro-aborts may do, it is a legitimate term. It doesn't mean an undifferentiated tissue mass.

"Fetus" is Latin for "little one" and in modern medical terminology is the name for a particular phase of development. A human fetus is a human. It's not a man or woman. It's not a child. It's not a baby. It's still a human.

23 posted on 05/03/2003 6:12:31 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Thoughts of a Baby in the womb
by "Rachel Burns"


Mommy keep me safe,
Mommy keep me warm,
Handle me with all your love,
Mommy keep me from harm.

I'm only six weeks old today,
This birthday gift to me,
A pair of bright blue eyes,
That someday you will see.
I've barely got ears,
A little puppy nose,
and at the end of my feet,
Little things called toes.
Looking forward to my life,
toys, teddy bears, snails,
and long fairy tales.

Where are we going mommy,
in a bath, on a bus ride or,
perhaps far away.
Where are we going being pushed
at all force.
How funny it feels passing through
doors,
people dressed in green,
if they hurt you mommy just scream.

What's happening mommy,
I'm starting to cry,
Mommy come quickly,
they're making me die,
Killing me slowly,
Pulling me apart,
everything inside of me
even my heart,
Bye mommy, good-bye
But how I wanted to see
the grass, the trees,
hear a sweet song,
feel a sweet breeze.

Bye mommy
good-bye
I love you
I really do
.
.
.
.
I just wish you could have loved me too.



No, it's not a choice,

it is a baby!



For ACP's Pro-Life center, click here.










On September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacked the USA killing 2500 men, women, and children.
Everyday, mothers in the USA kill over 5,000 of their babies. They kill their babies using pills and surgery.
They kill these little ones while their baby sleeps in the supposed safety of her womb.
The baby is trapped, the baby has no where to run, no where to hide, and the only person in the world that can help him or her is the one that takes the pill or takes him or her to a butcher to be slaughtered, ripped apart and sold for body parts.
Before you kill your baby, ask yourself this:
What did the baby do?
Why am I killing my baby?
What did he do that is so bad that I am going to kill him?

It's sad, but in the last 360 days since Sept. 11-2001, terrorist have killed 3008 men, women and children in the USA and while serving in the military of the USA. But, in that same 360 days, 1,505,000 babies have been murdered by abortion, while they were trapped in their mothers wombs. Some of the babies where killed by pills in the first thirty days of pregnancy, others were killed by partial birth abortions in the last thrity days of her pregnacy.
I have to ask, what did those babies do that caused them to be killed? What was their crime? What did they do that they were punished by being ripped apart or slowly destroyed by being eaten up with a saline solution?

They say, "be pro-choice" well, I say you have a choice.

Below are two pictures, they will show the results of the choice you make concerning the life of your baby:


This is what your baby will look like thirty days after he or she is born, if you choose to let him life.


Below is what your baby will look like if you choose to have him or her aborted.

As the mom, it is your choice:

The abortionist makes a lot of money off of your dead baby, it sells the parts of your baby piece by piece, here is a not to graphic idea of what is done to your baby. Keep in mind, the baby was yours, it is you that will be haunted by what you have done to your baby till the day you die, but, the profits are the abortionist. Vaccines made from your aborted baby, and then forced on children.


24 posted on 05/03/2003 6:12:51 PM PDT by 2timothy3.16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2timothy3.16
GREAT JOB!
25 posted on 05/03/2003 6:21:06 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
One would have to wonder if the good doctor and his brethern will work as feverishly to abort this horrible law as they did to give it birth. I doubt it.

This good doctor has worked very feverishly to try to atone for his mistakes. I attended a RTL convention back in the early 80's where he was the keynote speaker. He also produced the very contraversial film, 'Silent Scream'.

26 posted on 05/03/2003 6:26:03 PM PDT by fellowpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
" Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public."

That is the way the liberals approach everything they want to shove at us.

27 posted on 05/03/2003 6:30:51 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Not mine, one of Bob's
28 posted on 05/03/2003 6:40:02 PM PDT by 2timothy3.16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
The Hand of God book

In this book, Nathanson mentions a pro-life event in 1989 south of L.A. that was a key catalyst in moving him to the Christian faith (he became pro-life before he became a Christian). That event was a rescue at a abortion clinic. As pro-life folks were singing & praying while sitting down all around a Cyprus, CA, Nathanson came around the back door and sat down for a while next to me--temporarily risking arrest w/the rest of us.

He had to catch a flight...and the police were taking their time before deciding to arrest us--thus keeping the clinic shut down for the entire day. The police detained us (hundreds) at a local tennis court.

We eventually wound up paying a fine. It was good to read in Nathanson's book that the event impacted his faith walk!

On that day, God was not only saving babies physically, but Dr. Nathanson spiritually

29 posted on 05/03/2003 7:15:15 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
bump
30 posted on 05/03/2003 7:34:25 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman; cpforlife.org; Remedy; rhema
"Fetus" is Latin for "little one" and in modern medical terminology is the name for a particular phase of development. A human fetus is a human. It's not a man or woman. It's not a child. It's not a baby. It's still a human. 'IT' is a fellow human being from conception onward. The utility of killing some to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood appears to still influence the acceptance quotient of the American people.

I'm trying to raise the consciousness of Americans to the truth of human individuality from conception (whether in vitro or in a body) onward. It may not seem so important, especially when men like Orrin Hatch insist that en embryo in a petrti dish isn't a human, but if we Americans don't soon get a handle on the reality that even a human embryo is a unique individual, we will be conceiving for cannibalizing of younger individual human beings to treat older individual human beings ... we will be embracing cannibalism for its utilitarian value.

The slide down the slippery slope was slow at first, embracing forms of contraception that also worked to end early conceived life (as with IUDs and the first contraceptive pills), picked up some degree of slope with in vitro fertilization, then became a precipitous decline toward the pit with Roe v Wade.

We have slipped so far down and are now on such a steep incline, sliding toward the open maw of the pit, that we cannot bring ourselves to look at the truth of our dehumanization and instead focus upon the 'great medical marvels' to be found/discovered in cannibalism.

31 posted on 05/03/2003 8:34:35 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alain2112
'""Doctor" Nathanson should do the honorable thing, and eat a bullet.'

Truly the words of satan himself. Bad job, Alain2112.

32 posted on 05/03/2003 9:25:14 PM PDT by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Remedy; All
MHGinTN & ALL:

Just two points.

(1)Contraceptives like the pill can and do cause chemical abortions.

See How The "The Pill" Works

In fact there are SEVERAL more abortions from the secondary "back-up" effects of contraceptives than surgical abortion.

See Chemical abortions in the United States

Before 1930 ALL Christian churches openly condemned contraceptives. Why? Because it leads to abortion. Abortion and Contraception are from the same poisoned tree.

(2) I believe we past the open maw of the pit (ref to your last para.) in 1973. When Roe happened, ANYTHING then became possible.

Chemical abortions in the United States (1965-1996)

Because many contraceptive measures are abortifacients (drugs that induce or cause abortions), it is important not to overlook the number of children killed by chemical abortions. Since 1965, an average of 11 million women have used abortifacient methods of birth control in the United States at any given time. This means about 14 million chemical abortions are committed in the United States each year, giving a total of 450 million chemical abortions between 1965 and 1996. **

THE PILL

The "birth control pill" is also not merely a contraceptive. Although it is designed primarily as a contraceptive, it is not always effective as such . . . and when it is not effective, it has a "back-up" mechanism that is clearly abortifacient! The "pill" has three mechanisms of action. You can easily look them up in the Physician's Desk Reference.

It attempts to suppress ovulation. When successful in this action, an egg is not released and conception, of course, cannot occur.

It thickens the woman's cervical mucus. Thus, the sperm are restricted from moving up the reproductive tract. This is also contraceptive.

However, the "pill" causes certain changes in the uterine lining so that if conception does occur, the new life meets a hostile environment when it arrives in the uterus 6 to 10 days later. It cannot implant. It dies. This is abortifacient. As you see, this is similar to the IUD. Why, then, do some Christians continue to accept the "pill" as a morally acceptable choice in planning families? One attempted justification centers upon the uncertainty of just how often the "pill" works as an abortifacient. Unlike the IUD, such persons might argue, the "pill" is primarily contraceptive since it suppresses ovulation most of the time. (The most obvious exceptions here are the "mini-pills" which have no estrogen and allow ovulation to take place 40-60% of the time. This is published in Emory University's Contraceptive Technology.)

Initial studies showed that even the early "pill" formulations (which were much more likely to suppress ovulation due to their higher doses of estrogen) still allowed "breakthrough ovulation" to occur 13% of the time! An award-winning study by the Dutch gynecologist Dr. Nine Van der Vange presented at the Second International Conference of the Society for Advancement in Contraception (SAC) in Jakarta showed that low-dose contraceptive pills do not always suppress ovulation. In follicular ultrasound measurements she found detectable follicular growth in 52 to 56% of the cycles investigated, and preovulatory size follicles in at least 30% of the cycles. Proof of ovulation based on ultrasound exams and hormonal indicators occurred in about 4% of the cycles studied. In summarizing her presentation before the Society, Dr. Van der Vange remarked, "We conclude that the contraceptive preparations are more complex than has been thought. They are not only based on inhibition of ovulation." Dr. Ronald Chez, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), publicly stated that the "pills" of today, with their lower estrogen dose, allow ovulation up to 50% of the time! Dr. Thomas Hilgers, the renowned fertility expert who is currently the Director of the Pope Paul VI Research Institute, was present when this statement was made but the NIH has never published this information. In fact, the NIH has been more than a little hesitant to publish specific data in the medical journals to which private MDs have access. The drug companies are similarly reticent to provide such data. Nevertheless, the scientist mentioned above was at that time the head of the pregnancy re-search development branch of the NIH, itself the spearhead for contemporary medical research!

So, then, just how often does the "pill" have to rely on this abortive "backup" mechanism? No one can tell you with certainty. Perhaps it is as seldom as 12% of the time; but perhaps it is as frequently as 50% of the time. Does it matter?

The clear conclusion is that it is impossible for any woman on the "pill" in any given month to know exactly which mechanism is in effect. In other words, the "pill" always carries with it the potential to act as an abortifacient! In light of these realities, can Christian couples truly neglect the disturbing ramifications that use of either the IUD or the various "birth control pills" create? Those Christians who are sincerely committed to God and His Word must strictly obey His clear mandate ----"Thou shalt not kill." This is a most important message, involving human lives and loyalty to the commands of Holy Scripture, which Christian couples must hear and heed.

David Sterns, M.D., is a graduate of the University of Nebraska School of Medicine, and is Board Certified in internal medicine and electrocardiology. His wife, Gina Sterns, R.N., holds a Bachelor of Science degree in nursing from Biola University. Dave and Gina have two children. They attend Harvest Community Church in Omaha, Nebraska.

Pam Yaksich, a high school principal and teacher of science, biology and theology, has worked as a medical researcher with the physicians of the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction. Pam is also the Chairman of the Vital Signs Ministries Board.

For further information and documentation, order the eight-page booklet The Birth Control Game

Available for $2.00 from: American Life League P.O. Box 1350 Stafford, VA 22555 (703) 659-4171 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vital Signs Ministries vitalsigns@vitalsignsministries.org P. O. Box 3826 Omaha, NE 68103 (402) 341-8886

33 posted on 05/03/2003 9:31:17 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Salman
"Fetus" is Latin for "little one" and in modern medical terminology is the name for a particular phase of development. A human fetus is a human. It's not a man or woman. It's not a child. It's not a baby. It's still a human.

I never have objected to the word "fetus" being used, as it perfectly accurate -- but on what basis do you claim that a fetus cannot be properly referred to as a child or a baby?

34 posted on 05/03/2003 9:38:15 PM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
In light of these realities, can Christian couples truly neglect the disturbing ramifications that use of either the IUD or the various "birth control pills" create? Those Christians who are sincerely committed to God and His Word must strictly obey His clear mandate ----"Thou shalt not kill."

Depending on the actual statistics, the same could be said for simply having sex. Sex results in a certain number of miscarriages, so to be 100% certain of not causing an infant's death, one would have to be celibate.

35 posted on 05/03/2003 9:42:46 PM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Permit me to offer the following regarding the continuum of individual human life, the huamn lifetime: with conception, a new individual human being comes to exist; there are distinct stages or ages along the lifetime continuum of an individual human being, conceptus, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn, prepubescent, etc. When the individual human being is a zygote, they are not yet a fetus; when the individual is in early fetus age, they are not yet a fully constructed, organ by organ organism, yet they are already and have been since conception an individual human being.

Perhaps it is good to notice the effort by defenders of the indefensible to dehumanize the unborn, as in 'not yet fully human'; Salman was addressing this specious approach to trying to establish a 'reasonable doubt' that the unborn are not quite individual human beings. Science proves and relies on the truth that from conception onward, as long as the individual organism remains alive, that human organism is a human being, albeit an individual human being at earliest ages along its unique continuum of life.

36 posted on 05/03/2003 9:50:07 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
"... to be 100% certain of not causing an infant's death, one would have to be celibate." Nonsensical, since the age of the individual defined as infant isn't reached until birth, rgardless of the number of months since conception.
37 posted on 05/03/2003 9:52:35 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Yes, I understood that & agree... but Salman said that a fetus is *not* a child or a baby, implying that "child" and "baby" are strictly defined terms related to stages of development (like embryo), which they aren't. I am 28 years old, but I am still my parents' child. I was also their child at 10 weeks gestation.
38 posted on 05/03/2003 9:54:35 PM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Fine, replace the word "infant" with "human".
39 posted on 05/03/2003 9:56:17 PM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
I agree with you. In fact, if my two years of Latin in Middle School still serve (decades ago), 'foetus' is translated 'little child' rather than little one.
40 posted on 05/03/2003 9:57:14 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Your question, re abstinence so as to not cause the death of a fellow human needs to be viewed through the lens of purposely causing the death of as opposed to not purposing to cause the death of.
41 posted on 05/03/2003 10:04:00 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Sloth,

It’s unbelievable how people will try to confuse the subject with such ridiculous and irrelevant nonsense.

A miscarriage is natural, a chemical abortion from the pill willfully kills a person out of convenience. The two are not even remotely similar. And now that you know, you are held responsible.

You can try to rationalize all you want. The truth never changes.
42 posted on 05/03/2003 10:06:14 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
A miscarriage is natural, but it is still avoidable. By choosing to have sex, one willfully decides that the potential benefits of sex (pleasure, reproduction, fulfillment of spousal responsibility, etc.) outweigh the potential risks (in this instance, miscarriage).

There's nothing wrong with that. But it is not fundamentally different from the cost/benefit balance used by the person who takes birth control pills. They willfully decide that the potential benefits (prevention of pregnancy, hormonal regulation, treatment of endometriosis, etc.) outweigh the potential risks (in this instance, unintended abortion).

That is totally different from intentional killing, though certainly the reasonability of that decision depends in part on the actual quantifiable risks. Some women act irresponsibly while pregnant -- excessive smoking, drinking and so forth -- and needlessly present a threat to their unborn offspring. While these women are careless, arguably to the point of criminality, if one of them loses a child it is not a case of murder so much as negligent homicide.
43 posted on 05/03/2003 10:40:30 PM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
With all due respect, your points are the same ones that got the nation weak enough to tolerate the sexual revolution and moral relativism of the 60's. The next "logical" step was abortion in "rare emergencies" then abortion in "real bad situations" then Roe v Wade.

Once it starts it never stops. Please study the history; you have repeated the same mistakes.
44 posted on 05/03/2003 11:11:05 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
I got to hear Dr. Nathanson speak at a pro-life dinner in the 80's. You are indeed right, with God all things are possible.

When I was pregnant with my first child, I asked my OB (I suspected he was was pro-abortion) if he'd heard of Dr. Nathanson. He wouldn't look me in the eye and gave me a brief, "yes".

Carol Everett is an ex-owner and manager of 4 abortion clinics with an equally powerful testimony. Today she speaks on behalf of the unborn. Her audiotapes (somewhat graphic) made me cry.
45 posted on 05/03/2003 11:41:05 PM PDT by valleygal (Petition for missing adult alerts @www.PetitionOnline.com/adalert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xJones
Most of Roe v. Wade was based on lies. Norma McCorvery (Roe) never had an abortion nor wanted one for that matter.
Sarah Weddington (the lawyer) used her.
46 posted on 05/03/2003 11:43:49 PM PDT by valleygal (Petition for missing adult alerts @www.PetitionOnline.com/adalert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: firebrand; Coleus; nutmeg; RaceBannon; rmlew; Yehuda
ping
47 posted on 05/04/2003 12:14:27 AM PDT by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
I never have objected to the word "fetus" being used, as it perfectly accurate -- but on what basis do you claim that a fetus cannot be properly referred to as a child or a baby?

I don't absolutely insist on a narrow definition. Call a fetus a baby and I won't raise an eyebrow. The problem is that a lot of pro-lifers seem to think that "fetus" is somehow a pro-abort weasel word.

I prefer precision. You wouldn't call a teenager an infant would you?

48 posted on 05/04/2003 7:06:12 AM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Salman
In 1973 the vast majority of Americans were not familiar with Latin to the extent that foetus would immediately cannote 'little child'. The promoters of abortion chose to use that medical term in their public discourse because of the obfuscatory value ... it hid the truth that what was being condemned to slaughter was in fact a little child, a living fellow human being. The methodology continues even today, with different words and changing focus. How obfuscatory is 'pro-choice'? How utterly misdirectional is the mantra 'a woman's right to choose'? Choice to do what?... Hire a serial killer to avoid motherhood. A woman's righ to choose what?... Choose to hrie out the premediated killing of an alive individual human being inconveniencing the woman for a few months, juxtaposed with a lifetime snuffed out for selfish reasons in 99% of the killings.
49 posted on 05/04/2003 7:40:35 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Bumped and bookmarked.
50 posted on 05/04/2003 7:47:02 AM PDT by Skooz (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson