One basic fact is undeniable by the "pro-lifers"....if they got their wish and

you are right...no way to know for sure. In abortion deaths...most cases are settled before even going to court..for all the obvious reasons. Families don't want womans name revealed, doctors don't want to be sued and exposed.
Women after getting abortions...don't want anyone to know so they are less than eager coming forward. They lie about the abortions, how many abortions they have had. No way to tell how many women suffer from depression because they hide it.
Illegal abortions are covered up....they are exposed when clinics are closed down and abortionists arrested.

 

Yes he lied to cover up abortion. He was on your side at that time. But then had a change of heart because he had a heart.

 

The percentage of abortions was not much different in fact it may have been higher prior to the introduction of contraception. Certainly abortion attempts were common - the utilisation of herbs such as Pennyroyal have been known for centuries

 

For your information, here is some history from the 1930's. Abortion was common.

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpress...chunk.id=d0e2767&toc.id=d0e2767&brand=ucpress

Abortion was not extraordinary, but ordinary. The proverbial "back-alley butcher" story, of abortion over-emphasizes fatalities and limits our understanding of the history of illegal abortion.[4] Case studies of the "professional abortionists" and their practices in the 1930s provide a unique opportunity to analyze the experiences of the tens of thousands of women who went to physician-abortionists. Many women had abortions in a setting nearly identical to the doctors' offices where they received other medical care. These doctors specialized in a single procedure, abortion. They used standard medical procedures to perform safe abortions routinely and ran what may be called abortion clinics. Furthermore, abortion specialists were an integral part of regular medicine, as the network of physicians who referred patients to these physician-abortionists demonstrates. The physician-abortionists represent the expansion of abortion during the Depression decade.

 

All you know for a fact is that Nathanson was a liar. You don't know which of his statements were lies, or how much he profited from being a pro-life spokeman.

 

honestly anyone with half a brain would realize that abortion laws effect the number of abortions that happen

 

HOW??

I am telling you that I live in a state that has very tough abortion laws and they mean diddly squat

All any woman has to do to procure an abortion here is to walk into a clinic and claim she is vastly depressed. Because the "health and wellbeing" caveat exists and peri-natal depression is a real but hard to diagnose definitively, condition they have to believe her.

How are you going to prevent that from happening?

 

I suspect that's true for those with "half a brain", however those with a whole brain can reason the matter.

 

You have no basis to say this. If abortion was illegal....how do you know there were just as many abortions? LMAO

I mean am I hearing you right? LOL

 

And who was this bit of history written by? It is opinion...just like you tell me I post.

You have no way of knowing how many abortions were done illegally...BECAUSE THEY WERE ILLEGAL. Today we don't even know if the numbers are right for crying out loud.

You people have no clue whatsoever about this topic.

 

What was his motivation? He certainly did not make money on the pro-life side?LMAO

The money is on the pro-abort side. Watch the Lincolns, Cadillacs, BMW's and Mercedes pull into the pro-choice celebration every year where I live. LOL

Why would Nathanson expose himself as one of the biggest abortionists of his day....even today? Hell women don't talk about it because they are humiliated and embarrassed...he killed thousands.

No...he saw what he was doing and what science was proving especially what he saw in the ultrasound. Why don't you think pro-choicers are against ultrasounds? Even Norma McCorvey had a change of heart. Why would she do this? What was the motive?

What he did was to come clean...an admit he was a liar. The statistics were not true.

There are people who stop working in abortion clinics and facilities that finally come to see and realize what is happening.

You think working on the pro-life side pays well? LMAO

 

...but have no heart...no compassion and no value and love of life at all....they care about themselves and the power they have. They champion abortion...and its their aphrodisiac.

 

Your premise here seems to be nothing but "this guy changed his mind so abortion is bad".

I used to like corn on the cob. Now I don't.

CORN ON THE COB IS BAD!

 

"I am one of those who helped usher in this barbaric age."

Bernard Nathanson

 

It's not opinion, it's a carefully researched book. It's not that hard to figure out how many abortions occurred when you know how many women died. Of course, it is highly likely that more abortions were done and more women died from them than we know about. But it is extremely unlikely that there were less.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/abortion.htm

Opponents often argue as if the widespread use of abortion were a modern innovation, the consequence of some aspect of contemporary life of which they disapprove (feminism, promiscuity, consumerism, Godlessness, permissiveness, individualism), and as if making it illegal would make it go away. What if none of this is true? In When Abortion Was a Crime, Leslie J. Reagan demonstrates that abortion has been a common procedure -- "part of life" -- in America since the eighteenth century, both during the slightly more than half of our history as a nation when it has been legal and during the slightly less than half when it was not. Important and original, vigorously written even down to the footnotes, When Abortion Was a Crime manages with apparent ease to combine serious scholarship (it won a President's Book Award from the Social Science History Association) and broad appeal to the general reader.
Some of the story of illegal abortion has been told by other historians: Linda Gordon, Rickie Solinger, James C. Mohr. But Reagan, who is an assistant professor of history, medicine, and women's studies at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is the first to span the whole period of criminalization and to cover the subject in such depth. Moving skillfully between a nationwide perspective and a detailed study of Chicago, Reagan draws on a wide variety of primary documents, many never before examined. Using patient records, transcripts of trials and inquests into abortion-related deaths, medical-society proceedings, and reports in the popular press, she reconstructs the complex, shifting network of arrangements and understandings that enabled illegal abortion to persist, and sometimes even to flourish, for more than a hundred years. In doing so she not only brilliantly illuminates a hitherto shadowy aspect of American life but also raises crucial questions about the relationship between official mores and the values by which people -- including the promulgators of those official mores -- make the decisions that shape their lives.

 

I cannot understand why anyone would see abortion as an "aphrodisiac", but since you thought of the weird idea, it must be true of you. No normal person would even come up with such a thought.

 

I have to echo Granny on this - to equate a stance on pro-choice with and "aphrodisiac" is to go beyond debate and denigrate the opponent because it gives validation to oneself for one's own beliefs

When someone has to continually seek validation for what they believe i.e. the preacher constantly trying to "convert" others - it leads you to wonder if deep down there is a degree of self doubt about the stance they have taken

 

Try reading my posts she states dryly

We know the statistics because of a peculiar circumstance - Medicare (federal government) funds the procedure even while the states may have legislation banning the procedure)

http://www.fpq.com.au/pdf/abortion_statistics.pdf
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...plication/pdf#search="abortion publications"

This will be about the third or fourth time I have posted these statistics for you

 

honestly if you dont value all innocent children's lives you value NONE of them. thats the sad truth of it.

 

So let me get this straight......EVERYTHING YOU POST...is reliable and the truth...even when it comes from a biased site...and everything any one of us pro-lifers would post is not. LMAO

 

I can't put this any better than Mark Crutcher said....

"To begin with, gaining full access to accurate data would require the cooperation of the abortion industry as well as the state and local government agencies responsible for compiling such data. Unfortunately, due to their political agendas, they have little interest in reporting abortion industry disasters, and lots of interest in covering them up. Since the mainline media, as well as some elements within the medical establishment, are participants in the cover-up, all research in this field becomes totally dependent on whether abortion-injured women seek redress in the legal system. When they don't which is usually the case, they become invisible to researchers and eliminate the only reliable source of data about abortion injuries. ...If the woman involved did not file a suit, report it to the medical licensing board, or call the police, we didn't even keep a record of it much less consider it for the book.

We were also hampered because attorneys are understandably reluctant to talk about ongoing cases or cases that have not yet been filed. Malpractice cases take an average of two to five years to get to trial, and during that time it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get details from them.

Another factor limiting research into this field is that the majority of these cases are settled before trial. That's a problem for two reasons. First, most abortionists demand a confidentiality agreement as part of their willingness to settle a case. Second, legal research services track only cases that actually go to trial. So, except in those rare instances in which a settled case is sensational enough to be covered by the media, there is little chance that we could even find out it exists.


You will notice in this book that there are no statistics about how often a particular injury occurs, or what percentage of women get raped while having an abortion, or how many die, etc. That was not an oversight. When the media refuses to talk about abortion injuries, the abortion industry uses raw political power to cover its tracks, an intellectually dishonest medical community is willing to look the other way, and the U.S. government is actively involved in a cover-up, publishing statistics about how often something does or does not happen during an abortion would be a joke. If you believe nothing else in this book, believe this: Anytime you see a statistical chart about abortion injury, sexual assault, or death, the person who compiled that chart either is very misinformed or lying. Under the current system, there is absolutely no definitive way to have accurate information on this subject, and without profound systemic changes there will never be.

Another problem with abortion statistics is that, even if they were accurate, they invite unreasonable comparisons. Abortion advocates try to claim that abortion is safer than other common forms of surgery. However , they ignore that the patients are different, making the comparison irrelevant. In other surgical procedures, the patient may be old and/or deathly ill or injured, while abortion patients are always relatively young and normally in good health. In fact, it has often been observed that a woman is never more healthy in her life than when she is pregnant. Additionally, other forms of surgery can often be very complicated, while even the abortion industry touts abortion as a very quick and very simple procedure. So by any criterion, it is clearly unreasonable to draw comparisons between abortion and other surgical procedures. . The circumstances under which they occur are completely different."

Mark Crutcher, author LIME 5.

 

No, that is a horrific oversimplification of stances which are often far more completely thought out

My stance as I have said comes from working in a health care facility with pregnant patients in health crisis and realising that no-one has the "right" to dictate to that patient that she should risk her life and health for a baby that might never be. I have seen the cases where intervention has been held off, at the patient wishes and then the patient has crashed badly and we have nearly lost them - not blaming the patient because it was THEIR choice.

So, unless you walk a mile in another's shoes you cannot make the determinations of what drives them

 

Wow! in one paragraph he lists at least two conspiracy theories - WITH NO VALIDATION OF THE SUPPOSITIONS UNDERPINNING THEM!

So why not look at settled cases?

Except of course the data IS collected and always will be - by the CDC under the maternal mortality statistics

The rest of this conspiracy driven drivel I will not bother about because it is not answering Granny's point. OKgranny is talking about the incidence of abortion not the incidence of adverse outcomes associated with abortion

 

i dont see you volunteering yourself to be aborted so you can walk in their shoes....

 

Neither do I see you offering to learn about embryology and causative factors driving abortion. Too many respondents from the "pro-life" camp are woefully ignorant about the actual reasons women abort, the ways of reducing the incidence of abortion and finally the medical underpinning of abortion