I am a substitute teacher at a local high school and over the years I have gotten to know a young man named Carlos. He is generally a good kid, very shy, pretty smart. He doesn’t know who is father is, lives with his aunt and has been practically forced to run with the wrong crowd. As a result, he has had a few brushes with the law. He is not into school. When I talk to him, I want to hug him and slap him on the head at the same time. So much potential.
I hadn’t seen Carlos in about six months but this weekend, as I was driving to Home Depot, I noticed him sitting at a bus stop. I yelled over to him, he waved enthusiastically and I told him to jump in my car so I could give him a ride home. We hit a bunch of traffic so we had time to catch up. He told me how he was working two jobs at two fast food restaurants but was looking elsewhere because he was “getting tired of food places.” He continues to send money to his mother who lives about 50 miles away. He doesn’t get excited about much but he beamed when he told me he was attending a “junior police academy” sponsored by the high school.
I asked him where he had been before I saw him at the bus stop and his already soft voice got even softer and he mumbled “I was visiting my baby’s momma.”
Incredulous, certain that I hadn’t heard right, I looked at him and said “What???”
“Oh, yeah, well, uh…I’m gonna be a Daddy.”
His friendly demeanor has always made it difficult for me to get mad at him but this time I wanted to slap him in the head.
“Are you kidding me? You got a girl pregnant? Are you out of your fucking mind?”
The minute I said it, I wanted to take it back but it was too late. We talked about how it happened, who the girl was (his girlfriend since the 8th grade), what his plans were, etc. He said he would probably have to drop out of school to get a full time job, deferring his dream of entering the police force. Then, I threw out the bombshell.
“Did you two consider an abortion?” The tension in the car rose palpably.
“Well, we’re both Catholic. We talked about it once but we know that God would not be happy if we did that and we would go to Hell.” I thought of making a quick detour to his church to confront the head priest or whatever he is called, but I again held back.
So, these two kids originally defied their church when they had sex before getting married but when that act produced a fetus, they could not defy their church again. And now they were stuck because their church had indoctrinated them for who knows how many years about the “evils” of abortion. And now they were going to be parents.
But not to worry! Things will be fine because their church will no doubt be there for them when the bills start coming in, right? That priest will certainly organize fundraising drives for Carlos and his new family to pay for the clothes, the food, the sport uniforms, the field trips. I mean, they are good Christians so they’ll be there every step of the way, right? Of course they will be there to help because, after all, they were the ones who convinced these two kids that that oh-so-precious life inside that girl must be protected at all costs.
We all know that there are many Catholics out there that ultimately have abortions. But think about the incredible guilt they will carry with them for the rest of their lives because the Church – the male dominated Church – has deemed that that little thing that is in the woman’s body is a “life” that needs protecting.
So, because the church basically forces pregnant Catholics to give birth, Carlos and his girlfriend will go through the drill. You can tell he is not excited, but he wants to do the responsible thing. She will have the baby, they will break up within a few years, he will send her money, never see his child and the mother and child will enter that never ending cycle of poverty.
Does the Church not see what they are doing? Is it so damned important to protect that “life” and practically destroy these two kid’s lives in the process?



March 30, 2011 at 12:16 pm
This article was ridiculous. It was one persons opinion of what he believed should be done. The author believes that the kid will be poor and in a never ending cycle of poverty. How does the author know this is so? Because he hears stories. I to know stories of success as well as failures. But do I concentrate on the negative said as this author did? NO. Some of you who speak in these comments have no idea what you are talking about. I mean “Catholics killed more people….” where is your proof? I can name many people who killed in the name of nothing. Just because they wanted to rid the world of this or that. Why don’t Carlos put the baby for adoption? People want to adopt children but there is so much red tape blocking adoption it is almost not even with it. So please think through your responses before you initiate a fallacy.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Derrick,
Do you deny the Catholic Church’s
1) Early Agreements with Hitler?
2) Actions during The Plague
3) The Witch Burnings?
4) The centuries of Inquisitions?
5) The Crusades?
There is a lot more.
Just add up all those murders.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Derrick, at 50, Carlos will be embarrassed to think of the ignorance in which he made many of his choices as a teenager. Even sooner that that, at 28 he’s going to hate being harassed for child support, no matter which state he lives in. He is going to live in semi-poverty until that kids turns 18. As for adoption, look up the number adopted annually and the volume of abortions.
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 8:48 am
Derrick: You are totally right, Carlos could wind up being rich and his kid could become the next President. But there is the proven “cycle of poverty” that still exists and the thought of Carlos and his child becoming just one more statistic made me very sad. And I know Carlos was sad as well, he definitely wasn’t excited about what had happened. But now I want to try to help so I have anonymously sent him money and will continue to do so. And dont get me started on adoption – it just ain’t as easy as one might think…
LikeLike
April 2, 2011 at 2:11 pm
i think that is a wonderful gesture, apt.
the golden rule is always applicable.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Here’s what Dr. Ian Mitroff says about mass psychosis. It’s amazing how it seems to apply to the so-called “pro-life” movement:
“Splitting does not apply only to young children. Indeed, it occurs throughout all of life. For instance, we regularly split the world into “good guys” and “bad guys,” “friends” versus “foes.” As a result, from time to time, our projections get seriously out of hand as when, for example, one views all Muslims and immigrants as inherently dangerous, and far worse, as evil. For another, we constantly project our unconscious dreams, hopes, fears, and fantasies onto our leaders. To live up to the projections of others is one of the most difficult demands of being a leader.
. . .”Stronger still, projections are highly contagious. To be a member of a group is to share its mutual projections, positive and negative.. . . From the standpoint of psychoanalysis, how then should any . . .[one] . . .respond to raw and hateful projections?
. . . “Psychotics literally hate reason and thought for if one has to engage in rational thought, one then has to face the true, underlying reasons for one’s immense psychological pain. As a result, they choose unconsciously to run away from pain by avoiding thought altogether. This helps to explain why facts alone are insufficient to dislodge someone from strongly held positions. Without dealing with the underlying emotions that undergird our beliefs, facts and counter-arguments only serve to strengthen a person’s beliefs. . . .
“This doesn’t mean that . . . [we] shouldn’t attempt to reason with those who disagree with . . .[us]. It means that reason devoid of emotion won’t even persuade those who are in fundamental agreement with someone to begin with. The task of {pro-choicers] is not merely to seek out and reason with those who can bear rational thought but also — much more taxing — to live up to our [own] positive projections.
Projections are never stable. They are not only exceedingly fragile, but constantly in flux. If a leader does not constantly live up to our initial positive projections, then they can quickly turn negative. When this happens, we feel betrayed to our core. The feelings of betrayal are so deep that we are unable to articulate clearly why we feel betrayed.”
“When Facts Are Not Enough– Treating Mass Psychosis”
–AlterNet
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Help! Kate! Tear this guy apart for me will ya? I can’t deal with it!
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 8:39 am
OMG, Chuckles has gone off the deep end!
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 3:44 pm
What’s true for the teabaggers is true for the so-called “pro-lifers.”
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 5:20 pm
The bible says if you commit one of the commandments you are guilty of them all so, it doesn’t matter if they just slept together and created the baby. All we know here on earth is that God is the only one to judge and forgive us what they chose to do God judge them on what they chose.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 7:35 pm
I can see why some people are “Anonymous.”
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 9:14 pm
All I have to say is that I see a lot of “poop slinging” by the pro-choice crowd as well…a lot of judgement, which seems to be what the majority of the pro-choice crowd condemns. Why is it OK for a pro-choice person to judge a pro-life person?
Not only that, but I see a lot of people calling “pro-lifers” ignorant. At the same time, I see a lot of pro-choice people using the term “the catholic church” and “the church” interchangeably. This however, is done in ignorance, as they are certainly NOT the same. Just as you can’t judge an entire person based on their stance on abortion, you cannot judge the Church (which includes all Christians, Catholic and otherwise), or all Christians off of your experience with the Catholic Church. Admittedly, people of power within the Catholic church have messed up, in some cases horridly, and being a Christian, it is painful to watch someone damage Christians’ reputation as a whole. But these people in power don’t represent the whole of Christianity, especially outside the Catholic circle.
The reality is, we as Christians DON’T all believe that all who get an abortion go to hell no matter what.
We as Christians DO provide support to families with single parents if they seek it and accept it. Can I say that every church does so? No. There is no excuse for hypocritical behavior; however, it doesn’t give anyone the right to condemn all Christians as ignorant promoters of double standards.
My church DOES provide much aid to local pregnancy centers. Couples or singles that have had children out of wedlock are welcome, and are given much help where possible. And I have given much thought to my stance on abortion; it was not taken in ignorance.
But my question is this: Can those that condemn pro-life people for taking their stance in ignorance, and accuse them of being blind and having double standards see their own double standards and at least accept my own position with sincere respect?
I certainly don’t agree with abortion; I think the act itself is evil. But I do not, and never will judge a person based on his or her stance on abortion. I respect each one and give each the benefit of the doubt that a good amount of thought has been put into his/her stance on the issue. I would simply ask for the same respect.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 7:38 am
I applaud your statement, Will. I too get very frustrated with broad, unsubstantiated comments (“pro-lifers are less educated than pro-choicers” or all PLers are “ignorant”). Comments like that – unless proven – contribute nothing to the conversation.
One thing that struck me is how you think abortion is “evil.” That’s a strong word. Since it is the woman who takes the action (via the doctor) are you saying she is doing something “evil”?
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Thank-you! It’s great to see civility in this response (I was worried that no one would respond meaningfully)!
As I see it, the act of an abortion, or ending a baby’s life, is an evil. But I will not say that I can know that this evil is unnecessary in some cases, such as when it is certain that the mother will die if an abortion is not performed. In this case, when an abortion could be justified in such a way, the abortion is evil in the sense that it is a tragedy.
I’ll be the first to admit that the problem here confuses me, and I cannot say confidently one way or the other whether the abortion should be performed.
However, over 90% of abortions are performed for reasons other than rape/sexual assault or medical conditions; over 90% of abortions are for “convenience’s sake”.
(http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Why Abortions Are Performed)
Is the mother who is having an abortion for convenience’s sake doing something ‘evil’ in a sense that it’s a sin? The simple answer is yes. HOWEVER, I will in the same breath point out that I do evil every day. I too sin unfortunately, and as a Christian, no sin is ‘better’ than another; I am certainly no better of a person than the mother who has an abortion. So I do not consider the mother to be “uniquely” sinful — no more than any other human, whether Christian, pro-choice, pro-life, or otherwise. I’m not here “judging” the mother who has an abortion, as some would claim I am at first glance. But yes, I do consider abortion to be an evil act.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 7:39 am
Well, Will, you just gave me an idea for a new post! Having represented clinics for many years and having talked to probably hundreds of women in the waiting room, I am always taken aback when someone says a woman got an abortion for “convenience’s sake.” It makes it sound like when a woman decides to on the spur of the moment get her nails done. There is nothing “convenient” about the process, Will. It hurts, it is sad, it can tear a family apart and, YES, it destroys a life. How someone can call that “convenient” I just dont know. To me, the woman who ran her car off the bridge with her three children performed an “evil” act. IN the case of abortion, I just can’t go that far…
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Pat, I a going to write my reply in a fresh thread, as this one is getting too skinny for me. Please see below.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 4:32 am
Fair ’nuff, Will G, but only one of all those Christian and otherwise churches says “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Guess which one.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 7:39 am
The Church of Donald Trump?
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 8:08 am
He’s Catholic?
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 7:41 am
I dont know what he is. All I know is that now he is trying to get the Republican nomination for President, he is suddenly pro-life…..As much as I disagree with you, John, at least you’re not Pro-Life for political reasons…
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 8:05 am
You’re right there. I’m a liberal, well, damn near a communist, on everything else.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 4:56 am
Will G, do you vote for so-called “pro-life” candidates?
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 2:52 pm
I fail to see how this question even relates to my comments above. But just for the sake of not side-stepping what I think you’re getting at, the people I tend to vote for tend to be pro-life. However, I do not vote for a candidate simply because he/she is pro-life, nor do I even vote a candidate simply because he/she is involved with any specific party.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 6:56 pm
I’m just curious about how much thought you give to the possibility that the candidate you vote for would actually be “pro-life” in the way that runs counter to your own philosophy– voting to deny women the right to bear only as many children as they know they want, when you personally understand a monolithic approach is wrong. How do you feel about voting for someone who would put into place practices that would violate your standards of behavior toward pregnant women, and how can you possibly screen a candidate for signs of that sort of behavior?
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 8:32 pm
The assumption that I see in your post, though, is that your philosophy, as opposed to my philosophy, on being pro-life is inherently correct.
I could tweak phrasing, too, and ask if you would vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, but in a different way…if he would allow the child, at a certain age, to make the choice for himself whether or not he should live.
All you’re doing is implying a pro-choice stance on abortion, and calling it pro-life. I would be less inclined to vote for the candidate supporting abortion, but I would have to look into the candidate’s track record: Does the candidate say one thing and do another? Does the candidate claim a stance on life (abortion, but also other issues as well), but not ever put it to practical use? And the list would go on. Like I said, I would not vote for a candidate solely based on one issue, whether it’s abortion or something else.
As for a monolithic approach, please see my response above to the author’s reply. I don’t claim a one-size-fits-all stance. But I do believe that the vast majority of abortions (90%+) end a life unnecessarily, and are therefore an assault on life.
But let’s even put the issue of voting aside just for now. Voting is an important right and responsibility of citizens, but let’s be honest, voting only goes so far. It’s like asking someone to do a certain task for you. In the government, that’s a good start. In the rest of life, what do you do to support life, what ever your stance is? I’m not asking for a response from you, because it’s not my concern. But I would like to point out that a stance is, or at least should be, manifested in many more ways than voting alone.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 8:41 pm
“End a life unnecessarily.” You can write a book on that one, if you’re ready to face brickbats!
I believe there should be a congruence between what one says one believes and what one does. I am appalled at the incongruity manifest in the so-called “pro-life’ movement. You could look it up.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Yes, I could write a book on my opinion on the matter, but as you asserted, it would probably have a polarizing effect.
Referring back to my original post, I was simply asking that pro-choice supporters step back and realize that many pro-life people, including myself, put serious thought into their position regarding the issue. To simply write them off as “ignorant,” or state “I am appalled at the incongruity manifest in the so-called ‘pro-life’ movement. You could look it up.” are two actions not entirely different; they are neither respectful nor productive.
I too see a lot of “appalling incongruity” in the pro-choice movement, but to say so doesn’t really add a whole lot the the conversation or debate.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 7:44 am
I totally agree, Will. To be honest, when someone starts getting personal I tune them out. And, yes, the pro-choice community often faces incongruities. As I’ve written before, e.g., they dont know what the hell to call that “thing” inside the woman!
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 1:00 pm
i agree will.
but by the same token, there are many lifers who mistreat choicers.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Certainly. In either case it is wrong.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 1:41 am
So, how do your actions regarding care for human life match your conclusions about the need of others to care for it? I think it’s at the very heart of this discussion. What does a fetus need beyond simply continuing to exist to arrive at a human level of function, and how do you provide it for those you want brought to term?
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 4:56 am
Here’s my question: “What does Chuckles need beyond simply continuing to exist to arrive at a human level of function?”
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 8:11 am
“And how do I provide that for him just because I want him to continue to life?”
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 8:13 am
I mean, to live.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 7:17 pm
We’ll continue this discussion after you tell me what has been learned about feral children at some time in the last 1,000 years.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Pat, when you finish your next post, let me know. I’m interested in reading your thoughts on the issue in a more robust form.
I will definitely give you that no abortion is convenient; the term is perhaps not the best in the context of a debate. But the fact is, over 90% of abortions are performed to avoid incurring the many costs of having a child, both before birth and after. It seems best to me to spare the child’s life at the expense of incurring these costs.
Not that I think for a second that the choice or process will ever be easy. But it just doesn’t seem to be logical or a right inherent to women, to be able to end her child’s life because not doing so would either:
a) drastically change her life, or
b) potentially place the child in a position where his own quality of life would be less than ideal.
I’ve heard arguments from both a) and b), that the absence of a “right to abortion” is an infringement on a woman’s rights. However, I do not believe a woman’s right to pregnancy, or non-pregnancy, supersedes another human’s, whether fetus or not, right to live.
Take for example, a person diagnosed with cancer. Would it make sense to end this person’s life — without his consent — because his life probably will not be as good anymore, or because treating him would be too costly? Not treating him would be one thing; it would allow the natural course of events to eventually end this person’s life. But ending his life unnaturally, without his consent, would be murder and an injustice. Similarly, ending a baby’s life because it will cost the mother too much — whether in reputation, or monetarily, or otherwise — does not seem to be a just or fair resolution to a very tough situation.
That still leaves argument a), the mother’s way of life. True, an unplanned pregnancy and child can and will dramatically change a woman’s life. But does that cost merit ending a life? Even in an extreme case, where a criminal purposefully does something destructive to another’s person or way of life, the law does not call for the death sentence of that criminal unless he has actually ended another’s life. In the case of the pregnancy, the baby has not even come into being by his own volition; the mother chose to have sex with someone else (remember, right now we’re focusing on the 90% of abortions that occur outside the context of grave medical issues and rape/sexual assault).
Does the mother have the right to have sex with whomever she pleases? Absolutely. But all rights come with responsibilities. There are ways of preventing pregnancy: birth control, condoms, and the like. Of course, these do not always work; one can never be absolutely certain that she will not become pregnant after sex (unless she’s medically proven to be sterile). But that is the risk of exercising her right to have sex: creating a life even in non-ideal circumstances.
Certainly no woman who does have an abortion looks forward to the procedure, or takes it lightly. And do any women go into an abortion clinic hoping to do evil? No. But the abortion, albeit an excruciating process, ends a life without consent from both parties — the baby and the mother. Requiring consent from the baby may sound absurd to some, but legalizing and facilitating a procedure (the abortion) to end his life, when no other life is medically at stake, is not just, but actually absurd.
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 6:32 am
Is abortion ever OK Will?
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 10:18 pm
I’m not going to comment on whether I think it’s right or wrong in the case of rape and when the mother’s life is at risk — it’s a different matter. But 90+ percent of the time, no, it is not okay.
LikeLike
April 25, 2011 at 6:03 am
Why is abortion “not okay 90% of the tinme,” Will?
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 2:51 pm
In Post #3, Julie says: “Who are you to say what the outcome of the child’s life will be? The point is not to punish the kids who had sex, the point is that it is unacceptable to punish the unborn child. Who is to say that child wouldn’t grow up, overcome obstacles, and contribute to society, rather than end up on welfare?”
*****
Abortion is not punishing an “unborn child.” Abortion is a process undertaken whereby a woman, a couple and/or a family can marshal and conserve the resources they have to provide a chance for a better life for herself and themselves.
In 1983 or thereabouts– the specifics are mentioned at the Site That Dares Not Speak Its Name– the State of Michigan outlawed state funding for abortion. Eighteen months later, the welfare rolls had jumped 40%. The rise was directly due to the reduced availability of abortion. Protecting so-called “unborn innocents” resulted in hardships for tens of thousands of people. None of those who proclaimed themselves to be “respecters of human life” shared in the descent into poverty. For them, it was another win-win situation.
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 3:16 pm
“Abortion is a process undertaken whereby a woman, a couple and/or a family can marshal and conserve the resources they have to provide a chance for a better life for herself and themselves.”
Chuck, did you read Mein Kampf? You’ve changed some nouns and pronouns; otherwise, this is a direct quote!
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Serve up the direct quote and please cite the publisher, edition and page. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to charges of lying in the name of your cause.
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 7:36 pm
You find it. I don’t have the time.
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 6:02 am
It’s on the same page where you left your credibility.
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 6:25 am
Aborticentrism,
I’m glad you take the time to respond to the uneducated.
They cannot perceive your superior intellect.
For all of us that read your comments, it is an educational experience and is actually spreading around our campus, invigorating the pro choice forces.
Among people in my demographic, young and voting age, there are almost no anti abortionist.
The old AAs are going to die of old age soon, and everything will be fine.
Thanks again!
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 10:51 am
It ain’t a superior intellect at all, Ariel. It’s just an awareness that there’s a gap between what they proclaim about their care for human life and how little they actually do. Whatever you do, DO NOT tell your friends of the Site That Dares Not Speak Its Name. It will give them the wrong ideas.
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 11:03 am
John,
If you do not have the time, then how do you have time to be reading books by Hitler!
You could use that time to save souls and lives, but instead you choose to read Hitler?
Help me understand that?
LikeLike
April 25, 2011 at 7:46 am
Maria, you’re beyond help, at least from me, a mere mortal. But keep praying.
LikeLike
April 25, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Maria, he didn’t read “Mein Kampf.” He made up the quote. Five big clues to its fakery: 1) the phrasing too closely matches my original; 2) Hitler never used “country” when he could use “volk” to talk about racial purity or eugenics;
3) he didn’t cite the publisher or edition; 4) that whole chapter on either side of the cited page deals not with biology of any sort, but “War Propanganda.” Which means 5) the supposed quote isn’t to be found on that page.
So, if he’s a Christian and a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer,” why does he lie? To find out, visit the site that Dares Not Speak Its Name….
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 6:29 am
He can’t.
Doesn’t have the time!
True,
1) He will be dead of old age soon, and
2) he is to busy harassing innocent women and worshipping murderers. When one worships murderers, it takes a lot of their free time to actually help children.
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 6:01 am
The “Mein Kampf” allusion above, with its collapse in the face of a challenge, shows the emotion-based reality of the so-called “pro-life” movement.
Two things we can learn from this are:
1. The movement addresses its own emotional needs rather than the real needs of either children or fetuses.
2. Since emotional needs cannot be met by the employment of discursive reason, the movement will not be satisfied or mollifed by appeals to rational thought.
This suggests that to get them to think about changing their mindset, you have to address their wallet. How vociferously “pro-life” will they be when they start having to pay lawyers to defend them from assault charges or when the government imposes on them a $50,000 tax for the birth of every “unborn innocent” they’ve “rescued’?
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 6:16 am
Found it: “Ethnic cleansing is a process undertaken whereby a country can marshal and conserve the resources they have to provide a chance for a better life for themselves.”
(p. 182, fourteenth edition)
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 10:59 am
Aborto guy,
You are one smart dude!
You demolish that Dumbo Dunkle on every single comment.
It’s incredible that guy isn’t embarrassed by how dumb he appears…. AND he keeps coming back for more intellectual spankings!
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 11:13 am
“intellectual spankings” Hmmm
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 10:45 am
Dunkle, above:
Give your naughty research department a spanking. That entire chapter is “War Propaganda” from his Vol. 1, “A Reckoning.” They should be ashamed of themselves.
I was rather astounded to find that Hitler had even used the term “ethnic cleansing, since it seems not to have been used before 1952. The appendix of Manheim’s translation (Houghton Miflin, 1943, reprinted as Mariner Books edition 1999) doesn’t even list the term.
I am glad to see that your research department thinks highly enough of me to impute my literary style to der Fuehrer. Might I help further your cause in the same spirit by closing with something else he never said:
“Fetus Heil!”
A sentiment we both agree with, but in vastly different ways….
LikeLike
May 27, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Before we lose this one, I want to comment on the cartoon. It’s not anti-Catholic for sure; otherwise, a little boy, not a nun, would be holding Father’s hand.
LikeLike
November 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm
chronic appendicitis…
[…]Carlos Says “No” to Abortion « Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information[…]…
LikeLike
November 25, 2011 at 8:32 am
its awesome how exciting it is for me to celebrate access to Abortion services
LikeLike
December 26, 2011 at 1:04 pm
maroc annonces | annonces maroc | offre d’emploi…
[…]Carlos Says “No” to Abortion « Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information[…]…
LikeLike
April 24, 2012 at 9:21 am
annonce gratuite…
[…]Carlos Says “No” to Abortion « Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information[…]…
LikeLike
October 11, 2013 at 12:47 am
I am really glad to read this web site posts which
consists of tons of useful facts, thanks for providing such data.
LikeLike