You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

In how many years did he perform those 75,000 abortions? Let's say it was over a 10 year period. Then he performed approximatly 7,500 per year. So then lets say there only 14 other doctors in the WHOLE COUNTRY that perfrom abortions at that same rate. Then you have your 100,000 per year number. Even if it were over a 20 year period then that is saying that there were only 28 other doctors performing abortions at the rate this man was to equal out the 100,000 number he is claiming. Even if this man was the leader in the abortion tallying I find it hard to believe with his doing 75,000 over any period of time of them that there were only 100,000 per year. The numbers just do not add up for me.

You misunderstand the timeline. First of all, abortion was legal in New York before Roe v. Wade was decided (as it was in several other states as well, such as California, Colorado, Hawaii, etc.). So he performed legal abortions in New York while he was working to make abortion legal throughout the US. He operated a clinic in New York called the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, the largest freestanding abortion clinic in the world (at the time). Second, he continued performing and overseeing abortions after Roe. He only changed his mind about the humanity of the unborn after ultrasounds became more prevalent and he was able to see what it was he was aborting.

gadget your last comment defies reason - as do many of your other statements. Think about it, hon. If he was doing abortions, he was perfectly well aware of what came out. Ultrasound didn't reveal anything to him that he wasn't already aware of, unless he was/is a bigger quack than I even thought.

And since his numbers don't add up nor do his stories, then why would you put so much creedence in what he says? I can answer that and it is what you've accused me of - you like what he has to say since it supports your beliefs. You accused me of not wanting to read his stuff because I don't like his politics.

You are perfectly, squarely wrong about that. I read opposing credible sources and listen to the arguments and beliefs of those with differing opinions all the time. But I do not waste my time on people who I know stretch the truth or make up their own truth just to get people to listen to them. There just aren't enough hours in the day to do that.

gadget your last comment defies reason - as do many of your other statements. Think about it, hon. If he was doing abortions, he was perfectly well aware of what came out. Ultrasound didn't reveal anything to him that he wasn't already aware of, unless he was/is a bigger quack than I even thought.

"Hon", this man was the founder of NARAL, along with Betty Friedan and one other abortion doctor. I am astounded that you question his credibility. It is not in dispute. By anyone! Those in the "keep abortion legal" movement don't even dispute him.

Have you never changed your mind on an issue? Certainly, we all come to different realizations at different points in our life. One can be participating in an activity that is of questionable nature and only come to the realization after years of participation that the activity is wrong. Maybe it wasn't a realization -- maybe it was a point of clarity for him. Maybe he suppressed his feelings about the issue because he aborted his own child (his pregnant girlfriend). Maybe, being a doctor, "body parts" didn't have much of an impact on him for a long period of time. I can't concisely explain all of the reasons he changed his mind, but I do know that the visual of an unborn baby on an ultrasound had a profound impact on him.

I'm not making this guy up, and he didn't make himself up. He's real, and his history is real. I know you don't like it, but it's a fact. There are many other former abortionists (for Mark, I mean those who used to perform abortions, own clinics, or work in clinics) who are now pro-life as well. Do you discount all of their experiences because they must have been quacks to change their minds?

No I do not dispute the fact that people change their minds. Sometimes people do a complete one-eighty. Which brings up another good point that might be made in another thread... those killers who do a one-eighty and are very sorry for committing a crime. They can be productive members of society because they have seen the error of their ways and will never commit that crime again. Guess that solves the issue of capital punishment.

Thank God for Betty Friedan! I met her once. She was a very courageous and sharp woman. I'm not so sure about the company she once kept though.

those killers who do a one-eighty and are very sorry for committing a crime. They can be productive members of society because they have seen the error of their ways and will never commit that crime again.

It has been known to happen -- not often, but it's certainly not impossible. I don't at all doubt there are hardened criminals who have been rehabilitated.

Thank God for Betty Friedan! I met her once. She was a very courageous and sharp woman. I'm not so sure about the company she once kept though.

Maybe if she had been in the room watching those 75,000 abortions being performed, she might change her mind, too.

I still can't get over that number you keep quoting. 75,000 abortions. Right. I can't imagine her wanting to witness any abortion for any reason, but that's sure a nice mental image you popped in here.

I still can't get over that number you keep quoting. 75,000 abortions. Right.

It's amazing to me that you have a problem with that number. With over 1.5 million abortions in the US every year, why does it sound so impossible that one abortionist had his hand in 75,000 over the course of many years?

(Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What gets me is when people speak out so hatefully against someone who made a decision that is perfectly legal in our country.)

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral...IMO

(Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What gets me is when people speak out so hatefully against someone who made a decision that is perfectly legal in our country.)

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral...IMO

TracyK, you certainly have the right to your opinion that abortion is immoral. I even believe that you have the right to speak out hatefully toward someone who takes an action that you believe is immoral, if that's what you feel you need to do. But the problem is, many people with your opinion believe that they have the right to pass laws that force everyone else to live by the same moral code that makes sense to you. That's the part I have a problem with. I'm not sure if you are one of those people who believes they have a right to force their own morality on other people, but many of those in the "pro life" movement feel they do have that right. For me, that's the issue here.

And as for the 75,000 abortion thing, here are some numbers on that. Let's say the doctor worked doing nothing but abortions for 50 weeks a year for 20 years. Let's assume 5 work days in a week.

So, 5 work days times 50 weeks equals 250 work days a year.

250 work days a year times 20 years equals 5000 work days.

75,000 abortions divided by 5000 work days equals an average of 15 abortions a day for 20 years.

That means that if the doctor did only 10 abortions on one day, he would have needed to do 20 the next to keep up the average to 15 a day. If he was out sick for a few days, or if he ever took more than two weeks of vacation a year, he would have had to increase the abortions on the days he did work in order to maintain the 15 abortion average.

To me it does not seem like a credible claim that a doctor performed an average of 15 abortions a day, day after day, year after year for 20 years. Perhaps someone else could see it another way.

I think it is important to have credible figures in this debate and not appear to be willing to believe anything in order to forward your argument. Who knows, people may feel that an average of 15 abortions a day for 20 years is a credible claim. It does not appear to me to be credible.

Mark, thanks for that. I wasn't willing to spell it out for those who bought it, I figured it would be good for them to figure it out for themselves. I'm a little disappointed that the person who posted such a figure didn't bother to do the math, but such a sensational figure linked to the guy proved to many of us, that he's a windbag with a right wing agenda. Yawn.

Yah, Green says thanks, too.

To me it does not seem like a credible claim that a doctor performed an average of 15 abortions a day, day after day, year after year for 20 years. Perhaps someone else could see it another way.

I think it is important to have credible figures in this debate and not appear to be willing to believe anything in order to forward your argument. Who knows, people may feel that an average of 15 abortions a day for 20 years is a credible claim. It does not appear to me to be credible.

I have never read that Dr. Nathanson claimed he performed 75,000 abortions. His own words, in everything I have seen personally, say that he was responsible for 75,000 abortions, or that he presided over that many. I have always taken that to mean that he was the physician in charge when these procedures were performed. So, if there were a dozen - or even a half dozen - other doctors working under him, a figure of 75,000 over a 20 year career would be very realistic.

Dr. Nathanson is a board certified obstetrician and gynecologist and also holds a master's degree in bioethics. He is not some nut case, just off the streets, who preaches not so much against abortion, but FOR his own personal belief system. Nathanson has converted to Catholicism (quite recently), but for the biggest part of his anti-abortion career, he was not affiliated with any church or particular dogma.

That must have been not only one clinic that he presided over, but a chain of abortion clinics.

Sorry, I had no idea that he was a converted Catholic. That makes it extremely understandable that he's being very vocal about his change of heart now. :paranoid

Whatever you say, Carlene and gadgetlady. I am sure he's a wonderful man with a heart of pure gold and plenty of statistics to back it up. I am so very over this worn out topic. You haven't convinced me of anything, but I give up on this particular line of discussion. You win, he's a dreamboat of a human being - a veritable saint. Somebody that we should all listen to and follow to his dying day. Hopefully he'll be cannonized in not too many hundreds of years after he dies.

He was vocal about his change of heart when he first changed his heart -- and he was an athiest at the time. So his religion (which, btw, is not mine) has nothing to do with his decision. The decision was made when he was an athiest. But of course, since he's Catholic now we must all disregard his point of view.

So his religion (which, btw, is not mine) has nothing to do with his decision.

Actually, his religion IS yours. A Catholic is a Christian, too. Different denomination, same religion.