Bernard Nathanson Tells Philippines Not to Legalize Abortion

e3mil.com/Steven Ertelt ^ | 2/21/02

[nickcarraway]

Bernard Nathanson Tells Philippines Not to Legalize Abortion

2/21/02

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion practitioner and head of a pro-abortion organization who later became a pro-life advocate, told residents of the Philippines not to legalize abortion.

Yesterday, he accepted an invitation of pro-life groups in the Philippines to help in their mission to persuade Filipinos "not to follow in the bloody footsteps of the United States and Western Europe with respect to abortion." Dr. Nathanson said there are innumerable alternatives to contraception and abortion, some of which are virtually foolproof. He said natural family planning, if done on a scientific basis, could lower the incidence of failed contraception. "In that case, it becomes a social problem," he said in a press conference at the Manila Hotel.

Nathanson said abortion, or an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy is not a medical problem. "It is a social problem. And to force doctors to become social engineers by doing abortions is totally wrong," he added. If it is a social problem, which it is, Nathanson said it should be dealt with by social, not medical, means.

Nathanson said he was one of the founders and strategists of a pro-abortion movement in the United States, and that one of their tactics was to distort, magnify and fabricate data. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, they claimed that there had been one million legal abortions in the US annually and that 10,000 women died due to abortion every year. Actually, he said, there were only about 200,000 legal abortions and only 200 to 300 women died due to abortion a year. Nathanson doubts pro-abortion groups' claims that there are 300,000 to 500,000 abortions in the Philippines.

Nathanson said he abandoned his work as an abortionist and became a pro-life advocate not because of any religious or theological grounds but due to scientific evidence he had gathered from 1973 to 1977 as obstetrics chief of the St. Luke's Hospital in New York City. He was then doing clinical research on the unborn child using new technologies such as the ultrasound. He said of the unborn child: "It is no different from any of us. It is simply confined to a small area; and it is in a period of development [just] as children and infants are. But it is like any of us, it's a member of the human community."

Nathanson said abortion illustrates the failure of social policy. "That it is up to the government, the provincial level or federal level. But every single abortion represents a social failure," he said. "We are failing our women, our family. The answer is not to destroy innocent human beings. That is too easy. Why stop there? Why not kill all the people who are inconvenience society?" he said.

[nickcarraway]

Bump

[Lorianne]

Nathanson said abortion, or an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy is not a medical problem. "It is a social problem. ..... If it is a social problem, which it is, Nathanson said it should be dealt with by social, not medical, means. br> I agree. Except I would add that "pregnancy" is not the problem period. Unplanned/unwanted conception is. But using the word "pregnancy" he is focussing "the problem" unilaterally on women instead of on both partners where it belongs .... and undermining his own point that it is social problems which lead people to create unwanted/unintended new life.

[nickcarraway]

I don't think he would focus the problem unilaterally on women, after reading his book, Hand of God. Not only was he a prolific abortionist at one time, but he performed an abortion on his own then-girlfriend.

[Lorianne]

Well I'm a stickler for correct terminology. Abortionists aren't really "the problem" either. Nor is the pysiological state of pregnancy.

Once a conception is initiated, it then turns into a pregnancy which then can turn into a social/economic "problem" either for the mother or the father or both. (Most men are a party to an abortion decision). The abortionist being there or not is not going to solve or unsolve "the problem". Even if abortion doesn't take place and after pregnancy has ended, there is often still a social "problem" for the mother, child, father, and society with an unplanned/unintended child. Therefore, the social problem which exists at various stages along the way started at the beginning, at conception.

By stating the problem is "pregnancy" it is a forgone conclusion that the pregnancy must be ended to end the problem, since the problem is not correctly frameworked as social/economic ostracism for the mother, hardship in raising children etc.

I respect Dr Nathanson's work but he falls too easily into the lexiconical trap of mis-identifying the problem so that it cannot be correctly addressed. That's why I applauded him for the phrase that unwanted/unplanned [I would use the word conception] is a SOCIAL problem. He is right in this. I was quibbling with the word "pregnancy" which makes the woman and the physiological state the foci.

[Khepera]

Blimp

[Brad’s Gramma]

And a bloop to you! Hmmmmm.....wonder if THIS thread will bring out any pro-killers-of-babies?

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

""And a bloop to you! Hmmmmm.....wonder if THIS thread will bring out any pro-killers-of-babies?""

NAH!!.........................we'll squish em with logic if it does

[John O]

Hmmmmm.....wonder if THIS thread will bring out any pro-killers-of-babies?

Speaking of pro-baby killers. What ever happened to bethanie (?) I understand she was banned but did she ever get reincarnated as a new name?

Maybe the PETA 'animals are good, people are evil' types would join us in discussion?

God Save America (Please)