CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html ^ | Dr. Bernard Nathanson

[MHGinTN]

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.

[cpforlife.org]

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.

[Sloth]

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.

[cpforlife.org]

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.

[valleygal]

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.

[valleygal]

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.

[Cacique]

ping

[Salman]

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?

[MHGinTN]

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.

[Skooz]

Bumped and bookmarked.

[firebrand]

Nathanson became a Catholic, and he and his "second wife" now live together as friends, since he understands that his first wife is still his wife.

[Rytwyng]

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions

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

It does not serve the cause of righteousness, for us to *not allow* the bad guys to change sides. Dr. Nathanson has (a) seen the light, (b) STOPPED, and (c) is working to undo the damage he did. Surely this does more good than telling him to kill himself. Give him some credit.

[Rytwyng]

Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life: "I don’t want the Church to be caught sleeping again…"

News flash... the Church HAS been caught sleeping again... with altarboys. With the abortion war virtually lost, homosexuality is now the main point of cultural attack, and that this time the Church has been infiltrated from WITHIN, nullifying its power. Unfortunately, it will probably be generations (if ever) before the Catholic church is ever taken seriously on moral issues. What a devilishly clever way of silencing the most consistent moral voice.

Please don't interpret this as Catholic bashing. I am deeply saddended by the effective neutralization of the Catholic church as a voice of moral authority. Besides, the problem affects all sects. One of my former Protestant churches was also infiltrated by a homopedophile youth minister.

Protestants and Catholics alike need to start following the Biblical command to cast out unrepentant sinners from their fellowships. "If a brother be called a fornicator.... with such a one not to eat." Only when our ranks are pure, will we have the power to bring down the abortion and homosexual abominations (and whatever is coming next.)

Can we start by refusing communion to pro-abortion politicians?

[k2blader]

Pro-Life bump!

[Alain2112]

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

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. After bragging about the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people, the only way Nathanson can wash the blood off his hands is with his own blood.

[TomSmedley]

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

And his sponsor was the Baptist Chuck Colson.

[old-ager]

"I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. After bragging about the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people, the only way Nathanson can wash the blood off his hands is with his own blood. "

Sir or madam, What you say has a definite logic to it, but it's lacking. Nathanson's own blood could never cover over his murders. Only the blood of Jesus Christ, the sinless Lamb of God, can do that.