How do non-deists frame opinions about abortion vs. women's choice?

tmarie64 wrote:I support abortion WHEN THE WOMAN WANTS IT. What I THINK is irrelevant. What part of MY vagina, MY uterus, MY choice... is not clear? That "MY" applies to EVERY woman, not just me.

I take it you believe that YOU have a right to make choices for people other than yourself. Why? What qualifies you to make decisions for people you have never, and will never, meet? Are you willing to pay for the children who are born because some morons decided that every zygote should be carried until it HAPPENS to be born? Are you willing to accept responsibility for the dramatic increase in childhood deaths due to murder? Are you going to be one of those assholes who bitches and moans about single mothers on welfare?

I don't think I have made any judgements about people's choices; certainly did not intend to. I thought I had politely posed questions in search of a reasoned debate and shared my ideas about how I would form my own opinion in a quest for a reasonable compromise. I really did not expect such a vehement response here.

tmarie64, you overestimate my interest in your vagina. Also, I don't think having a vagina absolves anyone of social responsibility.

I'm only asking a what point a child's right to life takes precedence over a mother's choice and for the reasoned argument for that position. But no one has ventured anything definitive, except me.

It looks like some on this thread think right to life never takes precedence over choice. Suppose a woman wants an abortion during delivery? Or the day before her due date? What about the day after delivery? No line at all? C'mon, I don't believe that.

But if exploring this topic only breeds unpleasantness, it's not worth it to me.

Ok... At what point does the person who needs a kidney get to say, "YOU are a match. You have to donate a kidney to me"...? Same principal.
At what point does someone get to say, "My 14 year old needs a heart transplant. She has YEARS ahead of her and could become a great person. There are felons in prison who will never contribute to society...Let's take a heart from one of them..."
At what point are YOU willing to give up control of your body?

If by unpleasantness, you mean, "This thread breeds people telling me to mind my own business. It's not my place to decide for anyone but me"... then yes, you are right. You keep asking us when it's ok to make a decision for someone else, and it's NEVER your decision. Well, scratch that.... It is MY place to make medical decisions for my children, until they were old enough to understand what was going on and have some input. Now that they are both old enough to help/make those decisions, I still have some say in it, I AM supporting them, but I don't have SOLE decision. My husband and I try to do what they want. AND I will support both my daughters in their decision if one of them got pregnant and wanted an abortion.
My mother, a Catholic woman born in 1925, supported me totally in my decision. She did not hesitate, and I will do the same for my daughters.

The scenarios you present are just silly...extreme. Scenarios used by right wing nuts who think that they should regulate WOMEN but not gun sales. You have not presented a "reasoned argument". You just keep bleating "What if she wants it at delivery?" And what kind of moron uses "abortion" for the day after. You can't abort a pregnancy that is no longer a pregnancy. Histrionics do NOT help your case. They only make you look like a hysterical little girl.

Okay, let's see if I have this right. "There shouldn't be any law about limiting abortions. Each woman should be free to choose termination, right up until the baby's feet pass through the birth canal." That's your line. Thanks again for the civil discourse.

Yes, that is it. It is difficult to make a law that covers every situation but I personally value the living over the unborn. If one wishes to prevent abortions (for any reason) then the best way (IMO) is to improve sex education, access to birth control and give pregnant and new mothers and babies lots of governmental support in the way of child care, medical care and baby supplies and support.

Judgmental much, there Prudence? Your attitude about the opinions that you don't like is anything BUT civil. Condescension will not win any points in this group.

I wish abortions would cease... But UNTIL rape is treated as the crime that it is and people STOP blaming women... UNTIL girls/women are NOT molested by pervert "family" and "friends"... UNTIL sex education is realistic... UNTIL birth control is easily accessible to ALL girls/women who are of child bearing "age" (which means EVERY female who has started her period) without parental consent being necessary... Abortions will continue.

And... You ASSume a lot from what I said. What part of "WHAT I THINK IS IRRELEVANT" are you incapable of understanding? Get off your goddam high horse and NEVER assume you know what someone else is thinking.

Tina, I want it clear that abortions sometimes are performed because the mother's life is in danger or because the fetus is developing with serious defects.

Oh, and For the record... Re. the title of this post...
I'm not a non theist so I can't say unequivocally and can't speak for them. But I can say what I feel...

How do non-deists frame opinions about abortion vs. women's choice?

They use their MORAL COMPASS. Morals is not about God or gods or religion. Hell some of the MOST IMMORAL behavior has come out of religious institutions...

gillyflower wrote:Tina, I want it clear that abortions sometimes are performed because the mother's life is in danger or because the fetus is developing with serious defects.

Yes, and those, too, are abortions I wish could be eliminated. But, because nothing in this world is perfect, and every pregnancy is unpredictable, they are going to be a "necessary evil". And, in reality, the abortions you speak of are not the most common.

Yes, I know. I know people who have chosen to have an abortion. Many, I think, from are getting drunk and not using birth control and I'm not judging them. I've done things that I wouldn't have done sober, too. Or from using birth control methods that failed. I personally have gotten pregnant even though I used birth control methods, several kinds! It happens.

Woman's power to control her fertility has changed the world.

My sister got pregnant twice on birth control. She was actually almost 7 months pregnant the first time before she even suspected it. She went to the doctor because of a UTI, and almost fainted when he said, "Well, uti's are rather common in pregnant women"... LOL I mean, literally, almost fainted. She had not gained any weight, actually LOST it, and had had regular periods. Her period never actually stopped. Her doctor said it was "the weirdest" thing.
I was four months along, every time I was ever pregnant, before they stopped. Well, except for one...I was 6 weeks when I had an abortion.
An abortion, which I will say to the day I die, saved my life. I KNOW how hard an unwanted pregnancy is, firsthand, and will support the right of any woman to get one. It's not my right to question or judge. Just to say, "Your body..Your decision".

What's next? Women prosecuted for miscarriages? For not obtaining "proper" prenatal care? For not eating "right" while pregnant? Restaurants refusing to serve certain foods or alcohol to pregnant women?

Prudence... Where do you draw the line?

tmarie64 wrote:Judgmental much, there Prudence? Your attitude about the opinions that you don't like is anything BUT civil. Condescension will not win any points in this group.

I wish abortions would cease... But UNTIL rape is treated as the crime that it is and people STOP blaming women... UNTIL girls/women are NOT molested by pervert "family" and "friends"... UNTIL sex education is realistic... UNTIL birth control is easily accessible to ALL girls/women who are of child bearing "age" (which means EVERY female who has started her period) without parental consent being necessary... Abortions will continue.

And... You ASSume a lot from what I said. What part of "WHAT I THINK IS IRRELEVANT" are you incapable of understanding? Get off your goddam high horse and NEVER assume you know what someone else is thinking.

I never judged anyone's opinion that I am aware of. I only offered a differing opinion - in the form of a question, not an endorsement - and then fell subject to attack for expressing it. As for ASSuming what someone else is thinking...

tmarie64 wrote:I take it you believe that YOU have a right to make choices for people other than yourself. Why? What qualifies you to make decisions for people you have never, and will never, meet?

Please note that ALL laws are supposed to be applicable to everyone, regardless of whether you or I have ever met them. It seems to me that what we think DOES matter, including both you and me. It is what you and I and everyone else thinks that drives the laws we expect to apply to everyone.

I only opened this thread to examine how secular folks, like myself, might (hopefully) apply reason, facts, and compassion to develop ethical laws applying to abortion and someday resolve the ongoing controversy, if possible, avoiding the sometimes violent encounters it fosters. My main interest is in finding a way to establish ethical laws in a way that keeps religion outside the legislative process.

I think I overtly stated my intentions at the outset, asking for ideas on how to draw a line between religious zealots who insist on protecting life from the unknowable moment of conception, and others (whom I did not characterize in any way) who believe it is okay to put off the decision to abort until the very last second. I had no idea at that time that there was such passionate support for the latter position.

I expected to elicit cogent ideas backed by sound reasoning. What I learned is that at least two people here apparently think that it should be okay to terminate a pregnancy halfway through the delivery process if the mother so chooses - and that they seem vehemently opposed to being asked to say so explicitly.

For the record, I disagree with protecting life from the moment of conception since the "human life" test would also apply to a live ovum or sperm cell. I also oppose permitting abortion when the fetus could reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb, I just don't know exactly when that is. I am also open to the idea that protects the safety of a fetus that can feel pain - depending on the argument to support that position.

I would like to hear from smart people about this subject if they can engage the issue without getting pissed off and accusing me of loaded questions to advance an agenda or pushing to control vaginas.

Maybe the best-informed position stated thus far has been:

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:It is my understanding that on this and other hot topic issues, the sides involved have become so polarized that there can be no such thing as "reasonable compromise".

Prudence6 wrote:

tmarie64 wrote:Judgmental much, there Prudence? Your attitude about the opinions that you don't like is anything BUT civil. Condescension will not win any points in this group.

I wish abortions would cease... But UNTIL rape is treated as the crime that it is and people STOP blaming women... UNTIL girls/women are NOT molested by pervert "family" and "friends"... UNTIL sex education is realistic... UNTIL birth control is easily accessible to ALL girls/women who are of child bearing "age" (which means EVERY female who has started her period) without parental consent being necessary... Abortions will continue.

And... You ASSume a lot from what I said. What part of "WHAT I THINK IS IRRELEVANT" are you incapable of understanding? Get off your goddam high horse and NEVER assume you know what someone else is thinking.

I never judged anyone's opinion that I am aware of. I only offered a differing opinion - in the form of a question, not an endorsement - and then fell subject to attack for expressing it. As for ASSuming what someone else is thinking...

tmarie64 wrote:I take it you believe that YOU have a right to make choices for people other than yourself. Why? What qualifies you to make decisions for people you have never, and will never, meet?

Please note that ALL laws are supposed to be applicable to everyone, regardless of whether you or I have ever met them. It seems to me that what we think DOES matter, including both you and me. It is what you and I and everyone else thinks that drives the laws we expect to apply to everyone.

I only opened this thread to examine how secular folks, like myself, might (hopefully) apply reason, facts, and compassion to develop ethical laws applying to abortion and someday resolve the ongoing controversy, if possible, avoiding the sometimes violent encounters it fosters. My main interest is in finding a way to establish ethical laws in a way that keeps religion outside the legislative process.

I think I overtly stated my intentions at the outset, asking for ideas on how to draw a line between religious zealots who insist on protecting life from the unknowable moment of conception, and others (whom I did not characterize in any way) who believe it is okay to put off the decision to abort until the very last second. I had no idea at that time that there was such passionate support for the latter position.

I expected to elicit cogent ideas backed by sound reasoning. What I learned is that at least two people here apparently think that it should be okay to terminate a pregnancy halfway through the delivery process if the mother so chooses - and that they seem vehemently opposed to being asked to say so explicitly.

For the record, I disagree with protecting life from the moment of conception since the "human life" test would also apply to a live ovum or sperm cell. I also oppose permitting abortion when the fetus could reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb, I just don't know exactly when that is. I am also open to the idea that protects the safety of a fetus that can feel pain - depending on the argument to support that position.

I would like to hear from smart people about this subject if they can engage the issue without getting pissed off and accusing me of loaded questions to advance an agenda or pushing to control vaginas.

Maybe the best-informed position stated thus far has been:

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:It is my understanding that on this and other hot topic issues, the sides involved have become so polarized that there can be no such thing as "reasonable compromise".

Prudence, when you use language like "baby's feet enter the birth canal" you are using emotionally charged words, rather than non-judgemental words. And for the record, usually it is the baby's head that comes out first at birth. If a baby is born alive - the very last second as you say - then I do not nor do I know of anyone who suggests killing the baby. If a baby can survive on its own, that is a live birth and handled differently. Just ask those of us who have had babies earlier than the due date. but sometimes that is necessary for the baby's health or the health of the mother.

You are wrong about "all laws apply to everyone." It simply isn't true. There are mitigating circumstances and sometimes these are taken into account. It makes the newspaper when they are not. Also, I hope you are aware that economics makes a difference, too, or if you are rich enough, you can simply remove to a place where the law you don't like, doesn't apply.

You aren't going to be able to create a law that everyone can live with. It is an emotional subject that depends on too many factors. It makes sense to me to have different states with different laws, although still poor women are penalized.

"I expected to elicit cogent ideas backed by sound reasoning. What I learned is that at least two people here apparently think that it should be okay to terminate a pregnancy halfway through the delivery process if the mother so chooses - and that they seem vehemently opposed to being asked to say so explicitly."

Lets look at this a little more carefully. Reasonably, as you say. What you are talking about is killing a baby at birth. I know no one who has suggested that but you.

You need to look at the things you say more carefully. And think about the things that are said in reply.

A lot of us are mothers here, am I wrong in thinking you are not?

I know a lot of things can go wrong during pregnancy and babies don't go to full term. 7 months on, sometimes even earlier, babies can survive although some don't. If a woman must have an abortion - give birth early, which you clearly are calling the same thing - at that point, the doctors make a real effort to save the baby. I know. It happened to me. So yes, I am for abortions up the the due date and past it - that is what you are calling inducing labor/ the baby, correct?

Edited to add: I am a smart person. I just disagree with you. Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a dumb person.

"I expected to elicit cogent ideas backed by sound reasoning. What I
learned is that at least two people here apparently think that it should
be okay to terminate a pregnancy halfway through the delivery process
if the mother so chooses - and that they seem vehemently opposed to
being asked to say so explicitly."

No, you wanted people to agree with you. You want to make assumptions based on the fact that no one will tell you what you want to hear. Guess what! You don't get to DEMAND more answers simply because you don't like the answers you are getting. LOL
No one said anything about abortion during labor, but you. Refusing to address an asinine suggestion does not mean we support the idiotic theory you present. It means we think it's asinine.

And, trust me, sweetie, if you think you've been "attacked" here, then you have lived a very sheltered life. Disagreeing with you and getting angry because YOU SAY I THINK A BORN BABY SHOULD BE KILLED is not an attack. YOU said that, not me.

tmarie64 wrote:I support abortion WHEN THE WOMAN WANTS IT.

No qualification. No mention of any trimester or other physiological conditions. Later, tmarie64 seems to equate a fetus to a kidney:

tmarie64 wrote: Ok... At what point does the person who needs a kidney get to say, "YOU are a match. You have to donate a kidney to me"...? Same principal.

So I made this attempt to check and see if I understood correctly:

Prudence6 wrote: Okay, let's see if I have this right. "There shouldn't be any law about limiting abortions. Each woman should be free to choose termination, right up until the baby's feet pass through the birth canal."

Please note that I said, "pass through" not "enter" the birth canal. I am familiar with the normal vs. breach birth process. Then gillyflower seems to confirm that, for her, this "birth canal" rule is accurate.

gillyflower wrote: Yes, that is it. It is difficult to make a law that covers every situation but I personally value the living over the unborn.

Later gillyflower clarifies that her position is that she does not support killing a born alive baby - a point on which I think we all agree! So there is some common ground

gillyflower wrote: If a baby is born alive - the very last second as you say - then I do not nor do I know of anyone who suggests killing the baby.

However, for gillyflower, and, unless I misunderstand, tmarie64 and maybe allthegood, as near as I can tell, the birth canal seems to remain the gateway to vesting a baby with human rights as a person. However, most contributors here have avoided specifically identifying any point prior to delivery when an abortion should be considered immoral or unethical.

I regret if I have misunderstood anyone, but it sounds like as long as the baby is not yet delivered, the consensus of participants here is that a baby has no human rights. I'm not judging; I just disagree.

It is only now becoming clear to me that the only purpose for this line of questioning is to identify when, if ever, an unborn baby is entitled to protection under the law as a human individual.

If no one in this group recognizes any such point prior to delivery, then there is nothing to discuss, although I remain clinically interested in the reasoned arguments to support that moral/ethical position.

gillyflower wrote:Lets look at this a little more carefully. Reasonably, as you say. What you are talking about is killing a baby at birth. I know no one who has suggested that but you.

This is a misunderstanding; I'm glad we are checking our messaging.

gillyflower wrote:If a woman must have an abortion - give birth early, which you clearly are calling the same thing - at that point, the doctors make a real effort to save the baby. I know. It happened to me. So yes, I am for abortions up the the due date and past it - that is what you are calling inducing labor/ the baby, correct?

I do not consider an abortion a premature delivery. I don't know anyone who makes that mistaken equation. They are completely different procedures, as far as I know. Abortion terminates, then removes dead tissue. Premature delivery attempts to save the unborn life.

gillyflower wrote:I am a smart person. I just disagree with you. Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a dumb person.

You seem like a smart person. I did not intend to imply otherwise. I was only stating that I expected to find smart people here saying smart things, but what I found was a lot of defensive presumption and venom, which seems to be subsiding. And for that I am very grateful.

Prudence6 wrote:

gillyflower wrote:Lets look at this a little more carefully. Reasonably, as you say. What you are talking about is killing a baby at birth. I know no one who has suggested that but you.

This is a misunderstanding; I'm glad we are checking our messaging.

gillyflower wrote:If a woman must have an abortion - give birth early, which you clearly are calling the same thing - at that point, the doctors make a real effort to save the baby. I know. It happened to me. So yes, I am for abortions up the the due date and past it - that is what you are calling inducing labor/ the baby, correct?

I do not consider an abortion a premature delivery. I don't know anyone who makes that mistaken equation. They are completely different procedures, as far as I know. Abortion terminates, then removes dead tissue. Premature delivery attempts to save the unborn life.

gillyflower wrote:I am a smart person. I just disagree with you. Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a dumb person.

You seem like a smart person. I did not intend to imply otherwise. I was only stating that I expected to find smart people here saying smart things, but what I found was a lot of defensive presumption and venom, which seems to be subsiding. And for that I am very grateful.

I find that you are using less emotionally charged terminology too.

Abortion

1. The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.
2. A miscarriage.

From Googles dictionary online

What is the difference between a premature delivery and an abortion? Passing through the birth canal is involved with both, correct? In both, the intent is to remove the fetus. So you tell me when it is an abortion and when is inducing premature delivery not an abortion. One definition I saw from Merriam-Webster suggested the quick death of the fetus. Well, I've had that happen, a deliberate termination of a human pregnancy and a miscarriage as well. I'd hate to be prosecuted for abortion several times over.

It isn't always to save the baby, sometimes it is done to save the mother's life, not save the baby's life. The baby may die and everyone knows it. There is always a risk with every premature birth.

Prudence6 wrote:However, for gillyflower, and, unless I misunderstand, tmarie64 and maybe allthegood, as near as I can tell, the birth canal seems to remain the gateway to vesting a baby with human rights as a person. However, most contributors here have avoided specifically identifying any point prior to delivery when an abortion should be considered immoral or unethical.

I regret if I have misunderstood anyone, but it sounds like as long as the baby is not yet delivered, the consensus of participants here is that a baby has no human rights. I'm not judging; I just disagree.

It is only now becoming clear to me that the only purpose for this line of questioning is to identify when, if ever, an unborn baby is entitled to protection under the law as a human individual.

If no one in this group recognizes any such point prior to delivery, then there is nothing to discuss, although I remain clinically interested in the reasoned arguments to support that moral/ethical position.

No, I can't say that an unborn baby is entitled to equal protection under the law especially from its mother. That really is a slippery slope. If the mother has a drink and someone thinks that will hurt her child, can she be prosecuted for attempting to harm it?

As for ethical, what I consider ethical for myself is one thing. I'm not willing to force my ethics about fetuses on anyone else.

You're the one who KEEPS presuming. And if you think you've seen venom, you better stay off the net, cuz you ain't seen nothin' yet. LOL Gilly and I could rip you to shreds, she's more tactful than I am, but trust me, she's not one to be reckoned with.
1. I do not equate anything. I ask if YOU are willing to GIVE UP control of YOUR body. If we start with letting YOU decide what happens with anyone's uterus but your own, then the next step is kidneys, eyes, heart... Trying to take over someone else's rights to their own body is the same... period. Doesn't matter WHAT parts you are talking about seizing rights to, it can eventually lead to ALL parts.

2. No one said ANYTHING about feet, but you. You ASSumed facts not in evidence. What Gilly wants, what I want, what you want...TOTALLY irrelevant to the lady 300 miles away. What you want or believe or agree with--TOTALLY irrelevant to me and my daughters. As I said, if you don't think abortions should happen...Don't have one.

And 3. In MY opinion, The living breathing mother takes priority at all times. The fetus is a fetus until birth.
If you give a fetus "equal protection", then you open the door to prosecuting full grown adult women for having a drink or smoking a cigarette, speeding, eating poorly... No, equal protection is not an option.

Like Gilly, I feel that my ethics are mine. I choose them, I live with and by them. I don't expect anyone else to do so. I would MUCH rather someone abort than carry to term then abuse and make the child's life a living hell.

Wow, yall have been busy. If you're past me, and don't care to talk about what I bring up just ignore.
Anyway......

Scenarios used by right wing nuts who think that they should regulate WOMEN but not gun sales.

I have always found this interesting. It was tmarie that posted this. I think one of the things that started me down the whole path away from supporting our dual party system of government is that no matter what, who it is, or what side they are on, there will be a mis-mash of topics that I believe in, or don't believe in. Regardless of which side they are on, they want to control some aspect of human life, whether it is what god one follows, the foods they eat, what they do with their bodies, or what hobbies they have. There is always something. It's all about control. I had high hopes for the tea party when they started, but they are even more brainless and easily led (I wouldn't have thought that was even possible until I saw it for myself) than the rest of the traveling circus of politics.

gillyflower wrote:


You are wrong about "all laws apply to everyone." It simply isn't true. There are mitigating circumstances and sometimes these are taken into account. It makes the newspaper when they are not. Also, I hope you are aware that economics makes a difference, too, or if you are rich enough, you can simply remove to a place where the law you don't like, doesn't apply.

You aren't going to be able to create a law that everyone can live with. It is an emotional subject that depends on too many factors. It makes sense to me to have different states with different laws, although still poor women are penalized.

There is also what is known as the doctrine of competing harms, where it's not to say that the law doesn't apply, but transgression of it is deemed understandable by the circumstances.

All, the picture doesn't show up for me.

Control of what other people do is not always a bad thing IMO when it impacts you.

For example, someone else having an abortion or sex with someone of the same sex doesn't impact me directly.

The man who peed in the library chair on Monday impacted the staff, the cleaners and everyone who has to sit there or smell it. I want him controlled so he doesn't do that.

I want to through out another idea here, to muddy the waters a bit....

It seems like on all these hot topic issues that people seem to think that if they just make the law, people are going to abide by it. Almost like a contented resignation to the situation. "Well, it's decided now, I'd like to get an abortion, transfat fried food, 106 oz big gulp, gun, but the law says I can't, so I guess that's that". Nothing is further from the truth. Sure, there will be some superficial compliance, but, for the most part, people are going to do what they want anyway.

If the female (and I say female because many of the women this affects are little more than children themselves) are scared enough and see no way out they will go so far as to commit suicide to not have the baby. It's not right, but we all have to understand that kids, normal healthy kids, involve a large investment of time and finances. Even if they are put up for adoption. Who are we to tell people that they absolutely have to make that sacrifice?

Thank you for bringing that up. None of you are old enough to remember the bad old days. I do! No one seems to remember that Rowe vs. Wade was haled for saving women's lives. It wasn't that no one had an abortion and suddenly they could - no!

It was that women and girls went to people who weren't qualified, weren't safe - they killed women or left them unable to ever have another child! - to get an abortion. Women tried all sorts of dangerous things they heard would get rid of the fetus. People who feel they have to have an abortion will find a way - even if it killed them which is sometimes did.

I do not want it to go back to that.

gillyflower wrote:All, the picture doesn't show up for me.

Yeah it does, it's just an all black screen. I was looking for a pic of a black flag that didn't have goofy pirate stuff, or childish sex pistols punk rock symbols on it.

gillyflower wrote:
Control of what other people do is not always a bad thing IMO when it impacts you.

I agree. It is the "one's right to swing their fist ends at my nose" argument. It's easy in the example you gave later.

I would argue that someone having an abortion, having sex with someone else of consent, driving a motorcycle without a helmet, what they think, what they feel, does not affect me. I would also argue that the gun discussion we are having, albeit on another thread falls into that. My choice to own guns doesn't affect you, but that is another thread.

I've seen both sides argue a different level of affected. What worries me is that the common belief anymore is that we should be able to go through life un-offended. This I don't agree with. There are going to be fat people, smokers, crazy drivers, people of every stripe that offend us, disagree with us, or raise our on insurance or call out racial slurs over the walmart intercom system. There are going to be people that have abortions. There are going to be people that have sex with all manner of people or things. That's 90% of the 'hot topics" now. Stuff that doesn't affect us, but we all get worked up anyway.