Bernard Nathanson, M.D., a cofounder of NARAL, is now a pro-life advocate. He was recently interviewed by The Interim, March 2009:

The Interim: In terms of your own change of heart, can you tell us a little about what prompted that?

Nathanson: It was a strictly scientific excursion into intra-uterine life, which persuaded me that abortion was unacceptable. I started changing my mind in 1973, when advanced technology moved into our hospitals and offices. I speak now of ultrasound imaging, fetal heart monitoring electronically, hysteroscopy, fetoscopy – things that gave us a window into the womb. Over a period of three or four years, I mulled over these technologies and what they revealed … They opened a window into the womb so we could look in it, see the unborn baby and measure it and observe it sleeping, swallowing, urinating and all the things we all do as members of the (human) community. I was finally persuaded that the fetus is a member of the human community, has to be regarded as such and has to be protected as such.

INC on May 15, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Concerned for Life, the blog that reported on the interview with Nathanson, also has this quote from Dr. Nathanson from The Hand of God:

In order to give you some idea of the immense influence of this new techonology on the practice of obstetrics and our knowledge of the fetus, let me tell you that there is a huge book called The Cumulative Index Medicus, which lists every article published in every medical journal in the world. In the l969 edition of the Index under the heading of “fetus, physiology and anatomy of,” there were five articles in the world’s literature. As recently as that, we knew almost nothing of the fetus; when abortion on demand was unleashed in the United States, fetology essentially did not exist. In l979, there were twenty-eight hundred articles, and by l994 there were close to five thousand. This technology had opened a new world to us.

INC on May 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Speedwagon82 on May 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM

I don’t think it’s been the main issue.

I did find this sentence from Gallup interesting:

Similarly, by ideology, all of the increase in pro-life sentiment is seen among self-identified conservatives and moderates; the abortion views of political liberals have not changed.

INC on May 15, 2009 at 4:51 PM

In the Headlines thread on this, I think the three main reasons people conjectured for the movement in the poll were:

Technology

Palin

Obama

I agree. A couple of people said technology had been responsible for their own change of mind.

People have seen their own child (or someone else’s) via sonogram in the context of events–Palin putting the pro-life issue front and center as they have learned more and more of Obama’s radical stance.

INC on May 15, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Jill Stanek had a column up earlier this week on Obama’s effect:

Pro-life Obamanation?

The terms “pro-life” and “Obamanation” would seem incompatible.

But there may be an emerging phenomenon. While President Obama continues to enjoy popular support, his anti-life agenda is enjoying less popularity the more he tries to advance it.

The first sign was public reaction to Obama’s overturning of the Mexico City policy, which reinstated taxpayer funding to international abortion groups. This garnered Obama a 65 percent disapproval rating, according to Gallup, making it the least popular of his first seven decisions as president.

She also quotes a Politico article about the uptick in pro-life activism since Obama took office!

She ironically concludes:

Obama may be winning abortion battles, but a casualty is loss of public support in the abortion war.

Translation: Obama is making abortion unpopular.

If this keeps up, an interesting oxymoron may be that our most recent pro-life president made no noticeable impact on public opinion on abortion while our current pro-abortion president has by his offensive actions helped persuade public opinion toward the sanctity of life.

INC on May 15, 2009 at 5:18 PM