Theses on abortion

29 03 2011

1. To settle the issue of ensoulment using modern science is solving a perennial metaphysical question with a very contemporary physical insight. It is intellectually lazy to say the least, and in a hundred years, we may be eating our own words.

2. I do not believe abortion is murder because no one else really does. This is because many want to villify, jail, and even kill abortionists, but no one wants to kill or jail the mother who destroyed the life of her own child. That is like wanting to try and execute the assassin, but not the person who hired him. The Mafia, I am sure, would have loved that logic.

3. Pretending Planned Parenthood is a nefarious organization because it works to make a profit is hypocrisy in its highest form in the context of American late capitalism. How many insurance and other medical institutions drive people into six figure debt in order to treat life-threatening illnesses yet are never condemned for their greed? From what I can tell, Planned Parenthood’s rates are pretty darn reasonable by comparison.

4. The comparison between abortion and the Holocaust is silly and seems to function in lieu of an actual argument. After all, the government doesn’t “kill babies”. There are no brown shirted thugs going into private homes and bashing childrens’ heads against the wall. Women hire a doctor to do so. But again, if you want to absolve the person who hires the assassin, then you can disregard this point.

5. Those who would absolve these women and call them victims seem to want to rob women of any real moral agency. For them, they are the proverbial “damsels in distress” who need rescuing from the “bad guys”. If I were a woman, I would feel insulted. If I have to end the life of someone, and did it in a more standard manner, I would fess up to it, even if I felt he needed killing (to use a Southern euphemism).

6. When I was a monk, our monastery had a (failed) bakery. During that time, one of our employees in a conversation while working told me she had had an abortion some years earlier. She felt bad about it. I neither outed her to my superiors nor judged her to be a horrible person, and I do not to this day.

7. Those who oppose abortion seem to want to make it a non-negotiable issue. If it is so darn non-negotiable, I would be advocating that the government start massive orphanages to take care of all of those unwanted children, and pay the woman a handsome sum, say $50,000, for the right to use their womb for the nine months needed for the full gestation of the baby (apart from the free healthcare). When it comes to the life of innocent babies, who gives a damn about moral arguments, fiscal responsibility, or forcing people to keep it in their pants? We could send all of the babies to re-populate Europe.

8. Similarly, why do we force women, especially single mothers, to work in the first place? They should be given a stipend by the government to take care of their unwanted children, or free government childcare. Again, when faced with saving and preserving an innocent life, who gives a damn about fiscal responsibility?

9. Archbishop Camara of Brazil once asked why if he fed the poor, he was considered a saint, but when he asked why the poor had no food, he was considered a communist. Similarly, one could ask: why is it that if I say abortion is wrong, I am considered pro-life, but if I ask why women have abortions, I am considered a “baby-killer”? Is it not more important to address why a woman would want to abort her child in the first place than to try to win a legal or metaphysical argument that may or may not actually stop an abortion or two?

About these ads

Actions

Information

44 responses

29 03 2011
Turmarion

Amen, huzzah, alleluia, and you tell ‘em, brother! This is one of the best posts of late.

Point 2 is the lynchpin, I think. Eleven years ago James K. Fitzpatrick wrote an article in First Things, available here, in which he laid out the same points and asked if it made pro-lifers hypocritical to claim that abortion is murder while condemning the murder of abortionists. Having raised the issue, he proceeds to be a hypocrite himself by dodging the issue of the mother’s responsibility altogether, aside from a brief mention of “charging” her, and by giving a mealy-mouthed excuse along the lines of, “Well, we don’t all agree yet about abortion, so killing abortionists is the wrong way to go.” As if everyone agreed about slavery in the antebellum South!

In any case, I concluded long ago that abortion, while unpleasant and less than optimal, cannot logically be murder; and as you say, no one else, even on the pro-life side (save for a few true nutcase fanatics) believes it, either.

Points 7 and 8 ought to be blazoned in six-foot high letters outside the houses and offices of all ostensibly pro-life politicians, activists, etc., especially Republicans. Never want to put their money where their mouths are, do they?

Your last point pretty much sums it up. Once more, fantastic post.

29 03 2011
Lotar

A few years ago my wife and I were up in Big Bear, and stopped by at some shitty parking lot flea-market that was calling itself a Farmer’s Market. We saw one of your old monk buddies there selling bread and putting off an uninviting air. Not surprising it didn’t work out.

29 03 2011
rr

Your #2 doesn’t make sense. As individuals, abortionists make good money and kill thousands and thousands of babies over the course of their careers. Moreover, they generally see the mangled results of their actions and thus know exactly what they are doing.

On the other hand, as individuals, women who obtain abortions generally only have one or at most a few in their lifetimes. Some women are more or less pressured into an abortion and aren’t fully aware of what the procedure does. Others know damn well what they are doing. The degree of agency and culpability varies greatly from individual to individual.

Considering the number of women who get abortions in America, it would be impossible for the state to prosecute and jail them all, much less execute them. That certainly isn’t the case with respect to abortionists. And as abortionists have much, much more blood on their hands than any individual women who has had an abortion, it makes sense for both moral and practical reasons to go after them harder.

Of course, the state still, and in fact probably, might not have the ability to end abortion by outlawing it and focusing on abortionists. But what the state does or does not do or can or cannot do has no bearing on the question of whether or not abortion takes human life.

29 03 2011
Arturo Vasquez

Seems like an example of bad cases making bad laws. Make laws that are unenforceable so we can all feel better about ourselves.

Also, I am sure that the Mafia is disappointed that the FBI didn’t just go after the paid assassins, but went after those who were paying them the money to kill. Not a perfect analogy, but the doctor in this case is the instrumental cause, not the primary one. If this were China, perhaps the argument would be a different one. There, the government drives women into abortion; here, it’s the economy that thinks a fast food job is a living wage, and childcare is a privilege, not a right.

29 03 2011
Turmarion

Remember a few years ago the woman who drowned all six (I think that’s the number) of her children? She was obviously unbalanced, and she had “less blood on her hands” than a typical abortionist, but they sent her to jail. If abortion is exactly the same as murder, then why not send a woman who’s had six abortions (or even one) to jail, too? And is law necessarily based on what the state “can and cannot do”? Does the moral imperative mean nothing, if one’s going to be consistent about it?

Arturo’s not defending abortion (neither am I), just pointing out how hopelessly muddled, inconsistent, and often hypocritical the rhetoric on it is these days.

29 03 2011
rr

By the way, much of your logic could be used against those on the left who decry global warming as a major threat to the planet as they do so while continuing to engage in all kinds of carbon emitting activities such as driving cars, flying, etc. Does this mean that they don’t believe what they say about environmentalism either?

29 03 2011
Arturo Vasquez

Damn bourgeois liberals.

29 03 2011
Turmarion

I guess the only decriers of global warning whom we should take seriously are those living as subsistence farmers in the wilderness of Colorado, rr?

If our beliefs were determined solely by their consistency with our actions, we’d all be in trouble, I suspect. Mindlessly flaunting a lifestyle contradicting one’s values is one thing; but doing one’s best when enmeshed in a system that forces us to make immoral choices by just getting up in the morning is another.

29 03 2011
Jason

Abortion is a sin so heinous that the word “murder” doesn’t quite do it justice. Abortion is more like blasphemy. It is a corruption of something holy and innocent. It’s not just the abortion itself, but the audacity to de-mystify the womb.

Part of the blame goes to Christians themselves, who have turned the mystery of the womb into this “thing” called “a life.” In old-fashioned language mothers are said to be “expecting.” There is a sense of mystery in that word. But both sides of the abortion fight have destroyed this mystery. All this talk about “rights” and “choice” has turned the womb into a public spectacle.

Criminalizing abortion is not going to solve the problem (criminalizing sin always to corrupt the Christians doing the criminalizing). Certainly, abortion is blasphemy. A society that approves of abortion is a society with a perverse moral sickness. But how do Christians respond? The first step is to respect the pregnant womb as a zone of mystery, from which we “expect” a gift from God.

That’s what’s so sad about women who have abortions. They have become blasphemers. It’s a deep moral sickness that many of them have inherited from the society they live in.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

29 03 2011
Chris

Apparently, Deus sive Natura doesn’t attach as much importance to this “mystery” as you seem to think, since most concoepti are either miscarried or pass through the womb without implanting.

29 03 2011
Jason

Every man dies. That doesn’t destroy the mystery of man’s dignity. Neither do miscarriages destroy the mystery of the womb.

29 03 2011
Jason

*I should add that I think laws can be made against hospitals and doctors. Abortion perhaps must be criminalized to that extent. But to criminalize the mothers serves no purpose, I think.

29 03 2011
Manuel

The overall point is true. The “pro-life” movement is a joke as the last Republican in the White House showed. Was funding for PP cut off? Has the Supreme Court or any state managed to ban it? Like so many other evil and unpleasant things, it is just not going away. It sucks, but just keep yourselves and your own to truth as much as possible.

29 03 2011
Ariston

I bring up point #1 tirelessly. One thing the Orthodox in the movement bring up a lot is the line from St Basil where he decries baseless suppositions about when the child is formed or unformed, reading “life starts at conception” into it, but I always point out that it seems to mean that abortion is wrong whether or not the fetus is actually a full human being. It seems to me that the “life begins at conception” stuff is an attempt to try to give moral teaching the form of scientific certainty.

As for abortion as murder, I also agree. I had a huge crisis about this a few years after I became a Christian. Before that point, I had never given abortion much thought, except in a snarky way—laughing about people with anti–dairy and NARAL bumper stickers—so it was one of the things I had to sort of slowly work around. However, I realized there was some seriously radical stuff implied by the idea that abortion was the same as murdering your four–year–old or something like that, and then realized that the world implied by this was so insane that there was something wrong with my moral reasoning. Some are quick to point out that abortion was given the penalty and penances of murder in the early Church… but so was miscarriage.

29 03 2011
Sam Urfer

“then realized that the world implied by this was so insane that there was something wrong with my moral reasoning.”

You say that as if the world is not, in fact, morally insane. On what basis?

29 03 2011
sortacatholic

Arturo: 4. The comparison between abortion and the Holocaust is silly and seems to function in lieu of an actual argument

Right on. Last year the pro-life group on my campus hired (okay, “gave a honorarium”, whatever) to this total gonzo pro-lifer. He’s a Canadian rep for the “Genocide Awareness Project”, whose sole argument is that abortion = Holocaust = Rwanda = (name genocide). Well, the presenter didn’t have time to open his mouth before a posse of pro-choice activists started screaming and singing. Campus security, metro police, arrests, the whole bit.

GAP organizers contend that the abortion = Holocaust argument is necessary because college students know that the Holocaust is bad. If Holocaust = bad, abortion = bad. This is the most facile crap argument I’ve ever encountered. Theocide and genocide are just not the same issue as a woman who willfully choses to murder her child. Yes, I believe abortion is murder, but not all murders have the same ideological genesis and immediate motives. This is the one crucial bit that the pro-life movement just can’t figure out.

So many pro-life tactics are self-defeating. I’m sure Reditus readers could make a huge list of pointless pro-life non-arguments. Question is: why does the pro-life moment persist with arguments that are simplistic at best and baldly fallacious at worst? Just don’t get it. This is why I’ve stopped joining pro-life clubs and going on marches. I don’t see any intellectual breakthroughs on this front.

29 03 2011
Turmarion

If Holocaust = bad, abortion = bad. This is the most facile crap argument I’ve ever encountered.

Agree, but where did the “theocide” come from? Wouldn’t that mean killing God?

Question is: why does the pro-life moment persist with arguments that are simplistic at best and baldly fallacious at worst?

Because almost all discourse on all topics in contemporary America is based on “arguments that are simplistic at best and baldly fallacious at worst”. Sad but true–just look around.

29 03 2011
sortacatholic

Theocide: the Nazi Final Solution wasn’t just anti-Semitic, it was also anti-Jewish.

29 03 2011
Stanislaus

It always baffeled me how some conservative Catholics take abortion in isolation, as though issues such as the economy and unemployment have no effect on the number of abortions. In college I had friends who played a drinking game with EWTN shows where abortion = 1 shot and same-sex marriage = 2 shots.

29 03 2011
Turmarion

ROFLMAO!!! I guess the winner gets a plenary indulgence? ;)

29 03 2011
Stanislaus

It’s always baffled me how some conservative Catholics take abortion in isolation, as though issues such as the economy and unemployment have no effect on the number of abortions. In college I had friends who played a drinking game with EWTN shows where abortion = 1 shot and same-sex marriage = 2 shots.

30 03 2011
Paul

As a college student, I think that I will add this game come this weekend. We had a Benny Hinn one, where whenever he said touch, we’d drink. Why not party with Mother Angelica?

29 03 2011
The Western Confucian

Baby killer!

No, seriously, your best point is the last one, referencing Archbishop Camara of Brazil, but I might add that there are more than economic reasons for a woman to abort, and if one alludes to the cultural or societal reasons, one is considered a “reactionary” or a “neanderthal,” or both. There was, after all, a time, not so long ago, that the very idea of abortion was so abhorent, that Leo Tolstoy, no right-wing nutjob, could not even mention it directly in Anna Karenina.

As to your first thesis, Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk explained that “the wrongness of destroying a human embryo does not ultimately depend on when that embryo might become a person, or when he or she might receive a soul from God” — Do Embryos Have Souls?

29 03 2011
Sam Urfer

John Paul II made the same argument, that it really doesn’t matter whether the fetus is a rational soul yet, abortion is still wrong. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

As to points 6, 8, 9: I have actually noticed that a lot of recent pro-life activity has centered on helping the women who find themselves in hard situations, emotionally and economically. Hope springs eternal.

29 03 2011
29 03 2011
Lasorda

There is a lot here. I’d like more discussion about the “why do we force women to go to work” bit. It’s a huge question that no one ever asks. Talk about damned bourgeois liberalism.

29 03 2011
M.Z.

Some brief comments:
#1 causes as many problems as it solves. If we had say 5 million 5-year-olds suffering accidental deaths each year, we would not content ourselves with claims of that just being nature taking its course. We would intervene to reduce the incidence.

I think you can find people that behave and act as if #2 were true. The weaker claim that abortion is morally wrong is certainly believed by many people who would describe themselves as pro-choice. I think you get at something here with what I would call the greater interest principle, something that has more applicability than abortion. People are quite reticent to place judgment on those that have taken on the care of others, because the implicit argument is that they should then assume the burden. You saw this quite a bit with the disabled before the State started assuming a greater financial burden. You don’t hear too many stories about mentally ill relatives locked up in the attic during the day anymore.

#5 is right on.

#8 was pretty much Wisconsin’s attempt at welfare reform. Poverty status with welfare was living too high on the hog, so Wisconsin forced the women to work. Now we increasingly see stories of children home alone – can’t afford daycare – not being cared for.

29 03 2011
E

So your coming into the mainstream? Well these anti-abortionists, who believe in the constitution, should believe in the strict separation of church and state. I am a Marxist, not that anti-religious, like those mainstream atheists, who have this nihilist streak. All they do is oppose religion, some with racist overtures, like opposing Islamic Fundamentalism but supporting Israel in everything it does to Palestine. I still believe of course for state funded abortions on demand as well as birth control on demand. But I want universal health care, Medicare for all at least, I am not a Malthusian leftist. And nobody in this country or in the World should go hungry to pay Wall Street their derivatives.

29 03 2011
Dianne

You make many very strong points, and I’d like to see your theses discussed widely. Trouble is, it would never happen without the predictable hysteria from the right. Still, it’s about time pro-lifers were called on their use of the Holocaust and slavery as analogies to abortion. There are too many problems with those comparisons, and after all, they’re certainly not working, are they? Except they do serve to make those using them feel awfully good about themselves as righteous crusaders. That’s about it.

29 03 2011
sortacatholic

The pro-choice activist community isn’t taking the Holocaust = slavery = abortion bit at face value. At least on my campus, leftist groups have done a remarkably good job at tearing pro-life straw men down. As I’ve said, the pro-lifers just keep at it, blindly swinging, hoping that they’ll bludgeon their way onto the discursive stage.

Dianne, I think you’re on to something with “righteous crusaders”. It’s almost as if abortion = American slavery will engender in the general public the notion that pro-lifers are on the right side of history. However, most, if not all, pro-life activists using the “abortion = American slavery” argument are white upper-middle college students. Where’s the African-American take on comparing slavery to abortion? The African-American pro-life groups that I’ve read about focus more on single motherhood, young motherhood, lack of paternal guidance, and economic issues as the real anthropological vectors behind abortion. That pragmatic approach is infinitely more productive than abstract arguments about servitude that are completely hypothetical to privileged college students. Not surprisingly, African-American pro-life activists rarely get the press coverage and TV time to promote their more realistic approach to reducing abortion. Their community is most impacted by abortion — they should be out front, not whimpled and habited Franciscan monks and nuns who’ve had their entire lives and fundamentalicious programming bankrolled for them.

30 03 2011
Sam Urfer

I don’t know where you are writing from, but in the Oakland area, there is a healthy African-American pro-life scene, and man, it can be *angry*. Beyond comparing abortion to slavery, I’ve heard it trotted out as “Plan B” to Jim Crow, a sort of anti-black final solution. You may have heard white middle class kids mildly make genocide/slavery comparisons, but I’ve heard prominent local black preachers screaming about the active attempt to wipe out the African-American people and culture. Can’t see as how they are wrong, from my own middle-class white perspective.

30 03 2011
sortacatholic

Thanks, Sam. I’m American, but I’m living in Canada for now. Maybe I haven’t been paying attention, listening to the wrong people, or (probably) both.

Abortion _is_ black genocide — it’s all in the numbers. I’m glad to see the African-American community getting involved with this issue. I heard a few African-American preachers speak out against abortion as a genocide, but not to the level you describe. Still, I don’t know if it’s latent racism or simply who’s got more money, but the hands-in-the-GOP pockets, “vote pro-life only” rhetoric still has prominence, even if it’s been worn threadbare years ago. It’s time for that latter approach to give way to more potent yet non-violent rhetoric.

30 03 2011
Stanislaus

Does anyone know about the practice of priests wearing black vestments and using unbleached candles for the baptism of bastards? My grandmother in Poland said that it was common when she was a child. Did it take place anywhere else and was it ever an official practice? I think the church is in denial about how the practice of shaming women and children for life in Catholic societies influenced the demand for abortion. Somehow that never makes it into ‘culture of death’ rhetoric.

30 03 2011
sortacatholic

I encourage everyone here to watch Maafa 21 (serialized on YouTube). This is a documentary, written and directed from an African American perspective, on the link between slavery, institutionalized discrimination, the early 20th century eugenics movement, Planned Parenthood, and the impact of abortion on the African American community. Apologies to Arturo if this has already been posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASrFufnMNDg

30 03 2011
Leah

For at least twenty years (1946 to sometime in the 60s), Planned Parenthood held a Marriage Institute at Morehouse College, a liberal arts college for black men in Atlanta. The thing that’s noteworthy about it is that there doesn’t seem like anything objectionable was said during the conference. Sessions had titles like “Marriage and Family Problems of Veterans,” “Stresses and Strains of Family Life Today,” and “Religion in the Family.” It’s completely wholesome, probably far more so than all but the most conservative of “purity” curriculums. So my question is if Planned Parenthood is the great organized evil of our time, why wasn’t the Church out hosting marriage institutes and doing other things to cultivate good will among minorities? In Atlanta, at least the Church would have been in a position to do so; the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament had a parish and school on Auburn Avenue (Our Lady of Lourdes) and for many years the only hospital that would accept black patients was run by a Catholic order. Was PP really just flying under the Catholic radar until Roe v. Wade (PP was actually opposed to abortion until it became legal, because they said that effective contraception would prevent abortions from being needed) made it public enemy #1? I’m confused.

In any event, I think once you bring slavery and/or the Holocaust into the picture, you’ve lost the argument, because you probably aren’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you. As I’ve said before, the main problem with the pro-life movement (aside from being chronically deluded concerning the importance of abortion in the public’s mind) is that it is too intertwined with right-wing culture war rhetoric. There’s no reason why a radical feminist, an atheist, or a gay person can’t be prolife. I suspect many are, but don’t tell anyone. The problem is that too many people think that anti-abortion means having to sign on to a host of other political propositions that they might not nessesarily share. Detangle the pro-life movement from American conservatism and reframe it in terms of human rights and then we might get somewhere.

All in all, I thought this post was awesome.

30 03 2011
Dianne

You might be surprised. I’ve seen web sites for pro-life groups of all the non-right-wing types you mention, and more. There’s Feminists for Life, the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, pro-life pagan groups, and so on.

But generally, you are of course correct that most of the public image of pro-lifers is tied up with the right-wing culture wars.

30 03 2011
Paul

I am black and I really disliked this film. It was long, repetitive, and dry. I could have written a better script. Aside from its aesthetic value, the information that the writers presented may have indeed been factual, but it seemed like a Zeitgeist film. The only reason I finished till the end was so not to disappoint a friend who leads the pro-life group at my university.

I agree with Leah’s assessment of the pro-life movement, “that it is too intertwined with right-wing culture war rhetoric.” I reluctantly mc’ed for our local march. My first questions were, “what politicians might I be introducing?” and “what organizations might be represented?” I didn’t want to be pictured with right-wing, pseudo-Constitutionalists.

30 03 2011
Kevin J. Jones

“I do not believe abortion is murder because no one else really does. This is because many want to villify, jail, and even kill abortionists, but no one wants to kill or jail the mother who destroyed the life of her own child. That is like wanting to try and execute the assassin, but not the person who hired him.”

In the US it was impossible to prosecute abortionists if the woman were considered an accomplice to a crime, because her testimony would require her to incriminate herself. This is a legal fiction to some extent, but it provided minimal justice.

Legal abortion is one of the root causes for why women have abortions, so it’s relevant to point #9 too.

It’s also sly to complain about abortion being co-opted by right-wing culture war rhetoric when the career of almost every left-wing anti-abortion leader has been aborted in the U.S.

I’d love to hear more liberal Democrats depict abortion as part of a class/race war, or a safety valve on a dysfunctional capitalist society, it’s just they can’t get elected.

2 04 2011
James Kabala

True destitution such as our ancestors commonly knew and Third Worlders (or Global Southers if you prefer a more up-to-date and pc term) still know is almost unknown in the United States. Yet it is now, not in the days of our ancestors, that we are told that we cannot be against abortion unless prepared to go to to Herculean lengths to eliminate any economic distress whatsoever. Why is that?

2 04 2011
A.S.

“I do not believe abortion is murder because no one else really does. This is because many want to villify, jail, and even kill abortionists, but no one wants to kill or jail the mother who destroyed the life of her own child. That is like wanting to try and execute the assassin, but not the person who hired him.”

Except, it seems, most mothers don’t have “killing” the child as their moral object. Oh, they let it happen, no doubt. But really, unlike the abortionist, most mothers seem to just want the pregnancy to end, for the baby to be “removed.” She usually doesn’t care if that means dead or alive, and probably if babies could just be “transferred” to artificial wombs at the same convenience as abortion, most of these women would choose that. As such, there is a difference in intent and directness of the moral object that I think most people feel intuitively even if they don’t verbalize it directly.

2 04 2011
Chris

Everything you just said about the mother could also be said about the “abortionists,” who might very well prefer to transfer the fetus to an artificial womb were such a thing available too. You could say that their “primary intention” is, first and foremost, to carry out the will of the woman to end her pregnancy, which, given the current state of things, involves the death of the fetus. You could, of course, refuse to see them as anything other than maniacal blood-thirsty demons with a wish to kill as many babies as possible, but then there’s hardly a point in even discussing this issue.

2 04 2011
Pinoy power

You are wrong on so many levels with this posting.

Many pro-lifers do a lot materially for mothers and children. I could list all the ways but for those who are deaf they can’t hear anyway. This is a terrible post but I lack the energy to argue every one of your points. I will pray for you and the mothers and unborn children and hope you re-think this position.

7 04 2011
The 27th Comrade

Whoever takes part in an ortion, from the mother, to those who pressure or encourage her, to the doctors, to the society that permits it: all are guilty of murder. Or, as Isaiah 6 says, paraphrased, “I am a man of murdering hands, who lives among a people of murdering hands.” And elsewhere, again, in the Bible: “God looks down from Heaven to see if there is anyone who has not murdered … There is none righteous; no, not even one.”
It is why I think it is a failure of Christians (they always fail at shit) when the Christian world can even dare to think, America having passed 50 million abortions last year, that there nevertheless remains anyone who can even dare to call himself “holy” legitimately.

28 11 2013
immerblog

I love a helpful information anyone supply for the articles or blog posts. I’m going to take a note of your current blog page and check yet again the following usually. I’m just very positive I am educated several new stuff the following! All the best . for the next!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers

%d bloggers like this: