Lunch Break: Bernard Nathanson
In honor of Sanctity of Human Life Month…
During a period of roughly 20 years, abortion director Bernard Nathanson performed over 75,000 abortions. But through the grace of God, Nathanson had a moral conversion which then led him to be one of the leaders of the U.S. pro-life movement.
The video below contains non-graphic excerpts from The Silent Scream.
I also recommend learning more about Nathanson in a book he wrote which is part spiritual autobiography, part political stance, and part historical regarding his involvement in the abortion industry. Nathanson recounts in “The Hand of God” the moral hollowness he felt and how he treated women during his early years. At his lowest point, he even aborted his own child.
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
By pro-life standards, didn’t this man essentially commit 75,000 murders? And now he’s accepted as a leader of the movement because he converted and said “oops, sorry!”? I think this demonstrates that there’s a disconnect between pro-life rhetoric–abortion is murder–and reality: a movement devoted to stopping abortion is accepting, as one of its leading lights, a man that the movement’s prevailing logic would necessarily dictate is a mass murderer on par with some of history’s greatest monsters. It would be like Idi Amin renouncing the genocide he’s responsible for and being accepted as a major figure in the Ugandan human rights movement.
Hi Joan.
“By pro-life standards, didn’t this man essentially commit 75,000 murders? And now he’s accepted as a leader of the movement because he converted and said “oops, sorry!”?”
Yes and yes. I don’t see what the problem with forgiveness is. He has changed his ways and now speaks up in defense of those he once killed. He has repented.
“It would be like Idi Amin renouncing the genocide he’s responsible for and being accepted as a major figure in the Ugandan human rights movement.”
Indeed, and I don’t see a problem with that either. Why is it so absurd to embrace someone who has seen the error of his ways and support his new-found purpose to spread the word about the evil he once was a part of and perpetuated? I don’t think this at all works as some sort of reductio ad absurdum argument against the pro-life movement because there is nothing absurd about forgiveness and healing.
I guess Joan does not fully understand the concept of forgiveness and repentance.
When Dr. Nathanson witnessed ultrasound technology for the first time, he came to the intellectually honest conclusion that he had, in fact, murdered at least 75,000 human beings. For anyone to look at the evidence available to us today and STILL support the slaughter of one class of human beings requires a seared conscience, a reprobate mind, and a hardened heart.
The enemy would like nothing better that for people to believe there is no hope of redemption for certain sins. The fact is that Jesus paid for all of it, and as horrific as what has been done to the unborn in the last decades, the price paid was still higher. It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around, too, but I will rightly esteem His sacrifice. “Paid in full” meant just that. Even for this? Yes. Redemption is available to anyone who will humble themselves enough to recognize his/her need for it. Those who continue to reject the free gift of God do so at their own peril.
1 John 2:2 And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
So you don’t think there’s some kind of earthly punishment in order that must occur before a person responsible for a grave crime against humanity can be said to have fully expiated for his wrongdoing? I believe in forgiveness and redemption too, but accepting a person as being in good standing with society simply because he has apologized and repented for his previous evils really does not satisfy what we recognize as the demand for justice. I can’t imagine that there is anyone here who would advocate turning lose an unpunished murderer because he has demonstrated genuine remorse for his crime, even if there is absolutely no concern whatsoever that he will kill again.
Joan, what he did was legal at the time so no, there is not jail time (despite your apt description “grave crime against humanity”). Read The Hand of God if you want a more accurate picture than the “oops, sorry” your post suggests was his attitude.
Joan,
What kind of earthly punishment would you have prolifers mete out against a former abortionist? Since the judicial system does not recognize abortion as a crime, and citizens cannot and should not form an extra-societal judiciary/penal system, what earthly punishment would you have us prolifers perform? Any violent or non-violent detention outside the legal system would be rightly denounced. The pro-life movement has no judge/jury/executioner powers, and you know it.
Should Dr. Nathanson be shunned? Well, I’m sure he was at times, and may still be. And certainly he will have to answer for himself before the throne of the Most Just Judge. However, he is attempting to atone for the evil he performed by good works. That is what is lauded by prolifers.
I suspect that you object to Dr. Nathanson’s acceptance by prolifers for the same reason you object to CPCs- they hurt the abortion industry. They weaken the caricature of prolifers as ignorant rubes who don’t care about a child or a mother after birth. Former abortionists testify about the evil that they performed and lies that they participated in to promote abortion, and that convinces another young woman or young man that abortion is wrong. Dr. Nathanson hurts your cause, Joan, and that is why you wish us to deny him.
“What kind of earthly punishment would you have prolifers mete out against a former abortionist?”
None at all, and I never suggested that he should face earthly punishment. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of accepting into a position of authority a man who has essentially escaped any punishment whatsoever despite committing an act of mass murder. The Nazi war criminals weren’t doing anything in contravention of German law at the time either, but I don’t think a simple renunciation of Hitler and an apology would have been enough to get someone responsible for operating a concentration camp, for example, accepted as a post-war advocate for Holocaust survivors.
There’s nothing simple about what Dr. Nathanson did. He left his livelihood when he turned away from abortion. He could still be making a lot of money from it. He made enemies of people who could still do him a lot of harm, professionally and personally, when he became pro-life. It took courage for him to admit to himself what he was doing and to leave.
Contrast this to your example of the Nazi war criminal. Was operating a concentration camp still a possibility? Nope, those careers pretty much ended when the Allies overran Axis land. Would renouncing Hitler carry any personal dangers or possibilities of career black-listing? No again, Hitler had other things on (in) his mind. Did the Nazi criminal choose to leave while the murders were still going on or due to a personal conviction against the Holocaust? Hmm, answer begins with an “N” and ends with an “o”. Finally, was there anything that a Nazi could do to prevent further slaughter after the war ended that showed it was true remorse? Not really.
Joan, you really do have an issue with the prolife community’s capability to forgive. What’s more, I’ll take up your challenge from before:
“I can’t imagine that there is anyone here who would advocate turning lose an unpunished murderer because he has demonstrated genuine remorse for his crime, even if there is absolutely no concern whatsoever that he will kill again.”
Here’s one. Let’s say a young man in his early twenties has been running with the wrong crowds, joins a gang. He spies a rival visiting a home in his turf repeatedly. So, he hides one night and attacks this rival, killing him. However, this event shakes the young man, drives him from one coast to the other, where he dedicates his life to youth mentoring, charitable acts for the poor, and violence prevention efforts. He donates extensively to bury those cut down by gang violence. Decades later, when receiving a lifetime award from the mayor, the man breaks down and confesses to this murder that has driven him all of his life. He can provide names, details, specifics that only the killer could have known and that have tormented him all of his life. What is the just punishment for such a man? There is no statute of limitations for first degree murder. From the man’s actions, he’s shown definite remorse; he’s no threat to kill again. What justice interest does it serve to lock him up for the last decade or two of his life? Let him receive probation, pay restitution to the victim’s family and/or perform community service in the community where the violence took place, but don’t lock him up. The prison of his own life is far more severe than anything the state can impose on him.
Would a case like this be unique, rare, and atypical? Yes. But so is Dr. Nathanson’s.
Actually, for once Joan does have a point. The unborn human rights movement is a bit schizophrenic in this area. We rightly call prenatal homicide an unspeakable crime which has killed a billion human beings around the world in the last twenty years or so.
Then when former criminal abortionists see the evil of their ways and repent and work to end violence against the unborn, we embrace them wholeheartedly and, to my mind, too quickly and easily. Certainly, we should be glad they have stopped killing and have come over to the side which is right and now support human rights. However, no matter the number of years they may live and however much good they may do, they cannot ever erase the evil they did or the crimes they committed.
We have the same problem with Abby Johnson, as with Bernard Nathanson, and all other former criminal abortionists. Many in our movement do not want to hold mothers and fathers accountable for the crimes they commit against their unborn children. If we do not even hold criminal abortionists accountable, then who is responsible for the vast number of our children who have died? At some point we have to decide if we really consider the killing of unborn children to be a crime or not. If it is, and it is, then I think that we will just have to treat it like any other crime.
If we welcome former abortionists into our movement, as we should, let us at least demand of them a public statement to the effect that they understand the gravity of the crimes they committed and that they fully understand if many people in our movement cannot fully accept them, given their awful histories.
Joan, beware, you’ve just broken the no. 1 rule of the pro-abort canon: Never compare abortion to the Holocaust. I think I can safely predict that Bloggers for Choice will come down on you hard. Better hide while you still can!
Seriously, the reason why pro-aborts are afraid of the comparison is because it carries so much truth. Particuarly in regard to the legality of the actions. If German had simply lost the war and everyone had gone home to their own countries, the Nazi leaders and death camp commandants were most likely never have been prosecuted, even if the laws were rescinded. It took an international tribunal to try, convict and execute them. Most of today’s abortionists will probably never suffer for their crimes here in the U.S. even if the laws are someday changed.
As for your absurd charge that our acceptance of Dr. Nathanson means that we don’t really believe abortion is murder: most pro-lifers would like to see abortionists punished by law. I don’t believe in capital punishment, but I certainly hope that psychopath Dr. Gosnell is thrown in solitary confinement for life for murder – not only for women and born chidren, but all the unborn children he killed as well. Hopefully, when the humanity of the unborn child is recognized, all abortionists will be punished as murderers.
Most pro-aborts would roundly condemn me for the above statement, I’m sure. So which is it to be, joan? If we forgive and accept an abortionist, we are condemned by our side. If we say they should be punished we are condemned. Inconsistency, thy name is pro-abort!
In regard to Dr. Nathanson, he has done an enormous amount more than just “apologize.” He has given his whole life to repairing the wrong he has done. He did a valuble service in helping to demonstrate what abortion really is. He blew the lid off New York City’s abortuaries in the early to mid 70’s. Have you ever read his book? The story is horrific and shows just how little care for women’s lives there is even in legal abortion. He showed how abortions are performed and how the unborn child suffers (The Silent Scream). And many other things. I am sure that pro-lifers are not acting rashly in accepting him. If anyone does what he does, I believe in his change of heart.
Why do you find that so hard to believe? Possibly because everything he is and does destroys your pro-abortion case?
I think the acceptance of former pro-choicers is one of the strengths of the pro-life movement. If we didn’t accept them, we’d be saying that we don’t really believe that hearts and minds can be changed when it comes to abortion. Bernard Nathanson has devoted decades of his life to exposing the truth behind abortion, and doing so at great personal risk. What else do you want from the guy? He can’t go back and undo what he did in the past.
Even Judas would have been welcomed into heaven if only he had accepted the possibility of forgiveness. Judas didn’t believe God would forgive him, so he gave up and took his own life. How sad. Dr. Nathanson, even before he converted, spent years of his life working to earn the grace that God had already given him by his repentence. I think it’s awesome when pro-lifers gladly accept a person who decides to switch teams. He’s on our side now, hallelujah hallelujah! And Joan, you are welcome too. Any time. If someday, on an ordinary day, you see abortion for what it is, and silently ask God to forgive you, I think he will hear. Formal confession is beneficial too, but God hears you before the priest sees you. Joan, Jesus holds his arms open for you – go ahead and trust Him!
We humans hold grudges. God does not.
Exactly, ninek. And for that, we PRAISE Him! :D
Wow, I’m glad Joan’s decided to see it our way! Only problem is, it was legal at the time, Joan. But hey, if you want to join with us and help make it illegal so we can enact “earthly penalties” and help prevent things like this from happening in the future, let’s do it! ^_^
”help prevent things like this from happening in the future, let’s do it! ^_^”
Actually, if abortion is criminalized (and it won’t be in the increasingly secular northeast and Pacific coast), the “earthly penalites” won’t do diddly. They’ll just drive the abortion business underground. But let’s talk penalties for those women who are murderers. What do you say – execution? Maybe life? And while enacting those draconian penalites what say we have mandates that every woman, of child bearing age, bear a requisite number of babies to keep the population stable. And any woman caught using birth control will be thrown in jail ASAP. Right? I know that this is straight out of “The Handmaidens Tale” but that’s the way things outta be. Right?
BTW. Nathanson was coverted to the RC (the “true church”) by the Opus Dei priest Father McCloskey who has quite the knack for bringing in Jews – Robert Novack, journalist, Mark Belnick (Tyco), and Larry Kudlow (financial media contributor). Not that it means anything but it’s interesting that Nathanson would be part of what is considered a cult and something that provided the basis for a good book and not so good movie.
Joan, beware, you’ve just broken the no. 1 rule of the pro-abort canon: Never compare abortion to the Holocaust.
Actually the ADL has issued statements about this – not that you care….Oh, right. The ADL represent secular, pro-choice Jews who aren’t really Jews, right?
$76
The only people who call for putting post-abortive women in prison are (drumroll please) abortion advocates! Coinky-dink? I think not.
Your attempts at discouraging pro-lifers by saying that it will never be illegal again are really working…if your aim is to reassure yourself, :>) !
Your attempts at discouraging pro-lifers by saying that it will never be illegal again are really working…if your aim is to reassure yourself
You don’t live in New England. Do you? And putting “post abortive women in jail” – uh, that’s your thing not ours. Actually, the new PA Catholic Senator (who spent time in RI) Pat Toomey has gone on record as saying that he advocates criminal penalties for women who have had abortion.
And why would “abortion advocates,” who believe in a woman’s right to an abortion, want to put “post abortive women” in jail. C’mon that makes no sense.
So Lori Pieper. You must be the PhD in history. Interesting. My undergrad major was history and I was “Phi Alpha Theta” – and that was totally by accident as I spent most of my time as an advocate of Dionysius, if you know what I’m saying. (Late 60’s, sex and drugs and rock and roll and all that). Interesting taste in movies including “Prime of Miss Jean Brodie” which has a lesbian subtext – not that there’s anything wrong with that. Too bad you’re not in academia as you do seem like quite the intellect. Looking forward to your documentary of St. Elizabeth of Hungary although I find Elizabeth Bathory so much more interesting. Love your facebook pic. Didn’t picture you as zaftig, but go figure.
But do say a Novena (or whatever Catholics say) for my lost soul. LOL!
I read his first book on his turnaround years ago.
This shows the maddening nature of this issue. Most women have been pro-life because they’ve always been more intimate with children. You’d expect the same with the medical profession, but that pro-choice “kaleidoscope” is what they see through.
Medical students study the anatomy of pig fetuses because of similarities to human fetuses. But many will still look at their patients like a grouping of parts. Like an auto mechanic. It took sonograms to change that kaleidoscope viewing for Dr. Nathanson.
joan, you need to read Acts of the Apostles, specifically the passages about Saul/Paul and his conversion.
I see Dr Nathanson as sort of a Saint Paul type conversion.
joan says:
January 19, 2011 at 1:06 pm
So you don’t think there’s some kind of earthly punishment in order that must occur before a person responsible for a grave crime against humanity can be said to have fully expiated for his wrongdoing? I believe in forgiveness and redemption too, but accepting a person as being in good standing with society simply because he has apologized and repented for his previous evils really does not satisfy what we recognize as the demand for justice. I can’t imagine that there is anyone here who would advocate turning lose an unpunished murderer because he has demonstrated genuine remorse for his crime, even if there is absolutely no concern whatsoever that he will kill again.
Well the earthly punishment would happen IF there was a law against abortion (which there should be but isn’t). He would have been jailed and stripped of his medical license and so forth. But there is no law.
But what should we then do about the thousands of women who have aborted their own children and have changed their minds on abortion and sought forgiveness? We have taken these women into the fold willingly too.
At this point in the prolife struggle, with no law, we do embrace those who have seen the humanity of the unborn and changed their minds.
I had the opportunity of meeting Dr. Nathanson very soon after his conversion many years ago. I must say that at first I was very dubious about his change of heart. He seemed very cold and clinical.
Well, as time has shown, his conversion was for real. I am thankful for that. The ways of God are certainly inscrutable.
Boy, you guys sure love to cite that paranoid fantasy known as The Handmaid’s Tale, but you’re forgetting one very important fact: THAT IS A FREAKING MADE-UP STORY. See, pro-lifers prefer to go by something we like to call “history”, and the fact that ABORTION HASN’T ALWAYS BEEN LEGAL, DUH. Instead of some paranoid delusion, why not crack open an actual history book some time (instead of that tripe the PP manipulators fed you).
I see Dr. Nathanson as a kind of Oskar Schindler figure: someone who initially exploited a horrible situation, but later repented and worked to amend that situation. We could not imprison Dr. Nathanson any more than we could imprison Schindler for having once exploited his workers. Each of them has saved many lives by taking advantage of their former life (Dr. Nathanson’s inside knowledge of the abortion industry, and Schindler’s charm and connections within the Nazi party) in order to atone for their previous sins.
Changing from sin to virtue is no easy task, and Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, has worked hard to bring people to the truth. He was hardened at one time, and now he is trying to lead people to the compassionate choice: life.
What I find interesting is that all the exaggeration of the numbers of women killed in botched abortions sited, in order to help Roe vs. Wade to come to fruition, just kept getting repeated as truth, even though it was fiction. And the ‘back-alley’ abortionists just stepped up and put up a shingle when the legislation was passed. The standards were not better. The doctors were not different. They just got paid on the table instead of under it.
The biggest obstacle to medical standards in an abortion clinic? Planned Parenthood, abortionists (and their supporters). People who make the most from abortion? Planned Parenthood and abortionists.
Repentant sinners have always lead others to safety, supernaturally and otherwise.
Abortion advocates use the “they want to put all post abortive women in jail!” cry to rally you with fear. Youtube’s got some nice shots of Bill Clinton saying it and he’s pro-abortion. Hmm, I do wonder how both elder Clinton’s will feel when/if Chelsea gets pregnant and gets one of those fancy new ultrasounds. Honestly, if going to jail would bring my child’s life back, I’d do it yesterday. Sadly, nothing will return our lost children to us. There is no time machine. There are no do-overs in real life. Fortunately, humans are very resilient. I know I like to promote religious-based healing, but basically humans can and will heal, even those that don’t join up with any particular religious group. I will say a Novena for you CC, if you don’t mind me also putting Joan, Cecile and Nancy P in the Novena boat with you. Though you might not believe, we cat’licks believe the Gospel: Jesus didn’t heal anyone against their will, they had to ask or be asked for. More than once, people approached Jesus to heal someone else, and he did it. Why, once a woman was healed of incessant bleeding without even asking him; she merely touched his clothes as he walked past. We actually believe this really took place in the early first century. When we pray for others, even if the others don’t believe, we still have confidence. A Novena is work; it’s 9 days of morning prayer, and more ‘Hail, Mary’s’ than you can shake a stick at. I best sign off and get started. :>)!
I spent most of my time as an advocate of Dionysius, if you know what I’m saying. (Late 60?s, sex and drugs and rock and roll and all that).
Yes, CC, I can certainly see what the drugs did to you.
By the way, I don’t have any pictures at all of myself either up on my blog or on my facebook page, so I don’t know what you’re talking about there. Maybe you did a wider internet search on me? There might be pictures out there of me I can’t remember. The whole idea of you researching me is kind of creepy, but thanks for caring.
Since you think I’m quite the intellect, maybe you’d be willing to give up your idea that all we pro-life types are dumb hicks? Some of us are indeed college graduates.
And since you didn’t even have your basic facts and chronology on Dr. Nathanson right the other day, why should I think you are any more well informed now?
I will pray for you, in fact I’m already doing so.
Joan, beware, you’ve just broken the no. 1 rule of the pro-abort canon: Never compare abortion to the Holocaust.
Actually the ADL has issued statements about this – not that you care….Oh, right. The ADL represent secular, pro-choice Jews who aren’t really Jews, right?
……
CC, when on earth have I ever said pro-abortion Jews aren’t real Jews? You are confusing me with someone else here who said that. Must be the drugs again. . .
You, on the other hand, can barely even be forced to recognize the existence of Orthodox Jews who are pro-life. They certainly get short shrift when you discuss the Jewish position on abortion. Are Orthodox pro-life Jews real Jews to you are not?
Why the obsession with penalties for mothers who kill their unborn children? After all, we have penalties only to enforce every law in existence. Why should laws against prenatal homicide be any different?
Opponents of unborn human rights like to complain that supporters of human rights would have penalties to enforce laws against prenatal homicide. Duh.
The pathetic intellectual dishonesty and absolute deceit of the human being killing movement is always on display, but never more so than when they are engaging in fearmongering regarding needed penalties to enforce needed laws against child killing. If abortionists actually believe that it is wrong to have any penalties to enforce any laws let them come out and say so publicly.
Otherwise, if they continue with the fearmongering in this area, they will just make themselves look even more deceitful, dishonest and ridiculous than they already do.
There is no question that there must be penalties for mothers, fathers, criminal abortionists and anyone else involved in the violent crime of killing a human being in the unborn stage. Allowing this crime is completely ludicrous. Having no penalties to enforce a law against child killing is also ridiculous.
Hi Joe,
Please explain what you think will happen to myself and the thousands of post abortive mothers when abortion becomes illegal again.
Would you see me in jail?
No, there are tens of millions of people who have committed prenatal homicide. It would be impossible to prosecute them all.
Prosecution should be reserved for those (mothers, fathers, criminal abortionists and others who aid and abet) who commit the crime in the future, after the law protecting unborn human rights goes into effect.
Do you not favor laws protecting unborn children from EVERYONE who wishes or tries to harm them? Do you not think mothers and fathers, as well as criminal abortionists, should be deterred from killing or trying to kill unborn children? How do we stop them killing their children if we can neither deter them, nor apprehend them if and when they try to kill their children? Just how do you propose we protect our children?
Do you support penalties to enforce other laws and stop other crimes? I am simply proposing to treat the killing of unborn children like any other crime. I don’t know how else to stop this violence against human beings.
I have to pipe in here b/c I’ve seen this misconception in 2 different threads now. Our constitution forbids the passage of laws that retroactively criminalize previously legal behavior. It’s a fundamental tenet of our notions of justice that you should not be able to turn legal behavior into punishable behavior with the stroke of a pen. Women who have had abortions during these 30+ dark years (and however many are left ahead of us) CAN NEVER GO TO JAIL FOR HAVING A LEGAL ABORTION. NEVER. That subject is a non-starter.
What there is a legitimate debate about is what penalties (if any) would be imposed and on whom in a future world where abortion was illegal. Carla, when you asked the question “what would happen to me” in previous threads on this topic, I understood you to mean what would have happened to someone like you had you procured an abortion in a system in which it was criminalized, not what would happen to you now, years after the fact. I apologize if I misunderstood your question before.
In an ideal world, I favor a more restorative model of justice than the one we currently have, but that’s a debate for a different day. If abortion is ever criminalized, I would support the gradual inclusion of penalties on abortionists as well as women and men who procure abortions. There is not a single criminal law on our books that completely excuses some participants from accountability. Obviously the 30 year propaganda machine telling women that abortion is good/a right must be taken into account. To Joan’s point, yes, if abortion was illegal – there should be statutory punishments in place for abortionists like Dr. Nathanson. But there is nothing inconsistent believing he should be punished for his actions, and embracing a changed man in a spirit of forgiveness. As I said, in an ideal world, these two things would not be relegated to completely separate spheres the way they are now, but the world is not ideal as we well know.
Prosecution should be reserved for those (mothers, fathers, criminal abortionists and others who aid and abet) who commit the crime in the future, after the law protecting unborn human rights goes into effect.
That is all I really wanted to know, Joe.
Thank you, CT.
And I would think that if we were to punish women who get abortions, they would be able to take into account mitigating circumstances, just as any other defendant would. If she were forced, if she were lied to, etc. In that instance those forcing her/lying to her would also be punished.