Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST
By Dr. Bernard Nathanson

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.

THERE WAS NO TACTIC TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA
In the Philippines, there was no inch of persuasion for permissive abortion; Nor a fabricated survey about permissive abortion; Nor a fabricated statistics about the number of illegal abortions done annually in the Phils; Nor abortion being permissively used as a primary method of birth control (even for those who opted for the herbal pampa regla sold around churches)

In fact, it is the church and pro-lifers instead who made the key tactic to capture the media (and the internet) by misleadingly equating the use of contraceptives as abortion. they first equate the post-fertilization effects of pills as against their belief of conception. then they equate it to as chemical abortion, thus the birth of their propaganda term "abortifacient contraceptives". then later on, misleadingly equating contraceptives as abortion. and finally, their obra maestra, equating the proposed Reproductive Health Bill as an abortion law. and to further add, they blackmail those supportive of using contraceptives or the RH bill by denying holy communion or threatening w/ excommunication. and one big proof of that is the misleading poll that we have here now and the misleading article u just posted from an ex-abortionist!

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.

THERE WAS NO TACTIC TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD
In the Philippines, the Catholic church was never vilified on their anti-abortion stance. in fact our laws are supportive of that anti-abortion stance. Pinoys are supportive of anti-abortion too.

the church is vilified for their anti-condom stance, anti-contraceptive stance and the anti-RH Bill stance instead. there's a difference there.

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.]

THERE WAS NO TACTIC TO THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
In the Philippines, there is no inch of denigration and suppression of all scientific evidence that life begins at conception. in fact, our Constitution provides "protection of the unborn from moment of conception". In fact, debates are openly welcomed. In fact, religious beliefs are being freely exercised. One proof that there was no suppression or denigration is the fact that we are even openly debating here at istorya.net!

In contrast, it is the church instead ang nag denigrate ug suppress ug scientific evidence. One bishop (i forgot his name) tampered with scientific evidence and made it look like that condoms cannot prevent HIV kay ang virus kno tungod sa kagamay mka lusot kno sa condom. but of course, nasakspan ang iyang fraudulent act. Condoms while not 100% effective, can actually reduce the risk of HIV transmission.

Even did Dr. Nathanson in the article portions u cited didn't say life begins during fertilization. He said "life begins at conception". and that definition of conception can take other definitions too other than fertilization.

and the thinking that "the definition of when life begins is impossible" is nowhere our kind of Pinoy thinking. we all believe life begins at conception. we all believe a fetus is already a live human person; to kill a fetus is murder. the only question is which part of the fetal milestones do we believe is where conception begins gyud. is it during fertilization, or during implantation? AND THAT DEBATE CAN GO ON FOREVER...

[giddyboy]

^^^

this is why this issue is so hard to discuss... mixing church and science...

by the way people this is about the RH Bill and not the Legalization of Abortion.

No, you got it the other way around. This thread is not about the RH Bill (there's another thread for that). It is about legalizing abortion.

It is only when some quarters, by sleigh of hand, who want to misleadingly equate the proposed Reproductive Health Bill as an abortion law mao ilang gisagol diri sa topic. and the effect? maglibog ang mga tawo. magtuo na cla nga ang RH Bill mkapa legalize ug abortion when in fact what they are talking about is only the post-fertilization effects of the pill, and not the entire RH Bill...ANG RESULTA? if one responds to the misleading poll question w/ "NO", he not only said NO to abortion but also said NO to the RH Bill...tanawa unsa ka maau ning mga tawhana...dghan na ang proof ani. just read back previous posts...

tanawa nya later on, they will call the DOH and BFAD as abortionist, just because they dispense artificial contraceptives; they will later call couples who use contraceptives as abortionist pud. mark my words.

[joshua259]

^^^

my bad...

hehehe daghana sad tingali mga Pro-Life couple nga mo kompisal sa pari noh?!?

[giddyboy]

Everybody? What garbage.
I don't have to "get away" with anything.. I never said the fertllized egg was a fetus. Kindly shown me an unequivocal statement where I did. Well? You CAN'T, can you?

I did say the the fertilized egg is an EMBRYO and that is also what is destroyed during an abortion. it is YOU who are trying to "get away" with pretending the two must be taken together to mean the same thing. But they do not. And that is deceptive.

It is an EMBRYO. That is what I sad and it is accurate.

I NEVER said it did. The fertilized egg fits the description of an EMBRYO.

u never said the fertilized egg fits the description of a fetus? whoa, ako na nuon ang deceptive here?

Let's refresh ur memory. u said:

"All of them talk about destroying a fetus or embryo. Well, the fertilized egg fits that description, UNLESS you arbitrarily re-define what it means."

pre, tanan nako kaila nga English grammar teachers ako na gi summon to study ur sentence...and they all agreed w/ me. u just don't want to admit it...

ok, ok, what u implied then is that a fertilized egg is an embryo. no arguments about that. but take note that some definitions of the start of an embryonic stage starts as an implanted fertilized egg called the blastocyst, when it attaches to the host (the mother).

[KASAAC]

PRO-life here...pls check the poll and see the difference

[giddyboy]

^^^

my bad...

hehehe daghana sad tingali mga Pro-Life couple nga mo kompisal sa pari noh?!?

yeah, and ang expected tubag ra sa pari, "IT'S OK. Three hail marys and 3 our fathers will do." just like Gloria's case when she confessed to using birth control pills.

magpatuli sab kog usab kung tanan pro-life members dili tig gamitan ug condoms. hehe

[giddyboy]

this is the messy part. sure about it. religion and constitution well not mix.

family is started in the rite of matrimony in the church.with the teaching of procreation.
yes . women are protected by the right to decide freely... if they think they're right of their choice, have no christian religion then.

well, using condoms as a Catholic is actually accepted by other Catholic churches such as that of Winnepeg declaration. that is the choice im talking about.

[kcgal90]

People make mistakes- if they didn't, there wouldn't be an eraser.

If women are pregnant, they should have the right to choose whether or not they want to keep the baby. I am in not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I believe that it is the woman's body and she should have a choice whether she wants to keep the baby or not. Other people cannot use their body without consent and this is obviously apparent when we see that rape is illegal, therefore the woman should be able to have the choice whether she wants to expel something that is potentially harmful for her body.

[joshua259]

^^^

but pro-life people want you to keep the baby and let you suffer for the unwanted baby for the rest of your life...

[mannyamador]

u never said the fertilized egg fits the description of a fetus?

That's right. I NEVER said the fertilized egg was a fetus.

Here's what I said:

All of them talk about destroying a fetus or embryo. Well, the fertilized egg fits that description, UNLESS you arbitrarily re-define what it means.

The term "all" refers to the various definitions of ABORTION that YOU gave. All the definitions talk about destroying an embryo, destroying a fetus, or both. The embryo is destroyed in abortion, is it not? The fertilized egg is an embryo. It is destroyed in an abortion. So my sentence is accurate. Your attempt to put words in my mouth has been exposed. AGAIN.

pre, tanan nako kaila nga English grammar teachers ako na gi summon to study ur sentence...and they all agreed w/ me.

Yeah, like we should really believe you. You're Elvis too, right?

ok, ok, what u implied then is that a fertilized egg is an embryo. no arguments about that.

That took you a while. I practically had to beat this admission out of you. You really could have saved yourself a lot of trouble and embarrassment.

well, using condoms as a Catholic is actually accepted by other Catholic churches such as that of Winnepeg declaration. that is the choice im talking about.

Local churches cannot make up their own doctrines and remain Catholic. Such church leaders -- and Catholics who do the same -- are UNFAITHFUL Catholics. That's pretty much like saying they aren't real Catholics at all. A Catholic is someone who believes in a certain set teachings, entrusted by Christ to the Catholic Chjurch, Anyone who says they are Catholic but deliberately refuses to believe all of these teachings is really just lying.

Take note that this is different from committing sin. All people sin. But they can also repent. This is about what they choose to believe.

but pro-life people want you to keep the baby and let you suffer for the unwanted baby for the rest of your life.

That's a lot better than MURDERING an innocent person. You don't murder people just because you don't like or want them That's BARBARIC.

An unborn child is NOT the mother's body. It is a separate person with rights. No woman has the right to murder someone else just because she will be inconvenienced by that person.

Take note that there are very few pregnancies where a woman's life is actually in grave danmger. Teh great majority of abortions are NOT done to save the mother. Almost all abortions are done to save her embarrassment or inconvenience. That is a grave INJUSTICE AGAINST THE UNBORN CHILD, who is a totally innocent party. To be pro-choice is to be pro-abortion.