what the hell is so horrible about believing that abortion should be outlawed? it might not be my point of view, but last time i checked it wasn’t “evil” to believe that something you consider to be the murder of children shouldn’t be allowed.
just because you don’t believe it’s murder doesn’t mean other people don’t have a right to hold and express that opinion.
msrobyn, considering the point of the commercials, i seriously doubt that the shaking was meant to be construed as anything abusive. it seems more like dancing to me.
i don’t understand why the fuck you people are getting so offended that some people believe babies should be kept. regardless of whether you agree with it, it’s not such an evil position.
Because the outlawing of abortion means at least the ruin of the reproductive health, and at worst the death, of women who:
a) don’t want the pregnancy brought to term for whatever reason;
b) can’t afford to leave the country and get an abortion where it may still be legal; and
c) will seek out anyone who will perform the procedure under highly dangerous circumstances.
I don’t deny your right to hold an opinion against abortion, but I will oppose any and all attempts to enforce that opinion on all women, denying them control over their own bodies.
It’s terrible once you consider the number of dead women that result from illegal abortions. It’s also terrible once you consider the babies born into poverty and abusive situations. It’s also terrible when babies are born into families that don’t love them and don’t want them. It’s especially terrible when you consider the number of babies who die after the fact from birth defects and congenital diseases. My cousin died two years ago from cystic fibrosis, a disease that is almost always fatal. Her life was a non-stop medical nightmare. She spent the last year of her life in intensive care hooked up to machines. She was in and out of the hospital several times a year before that. And while she was still a child, she was constantly taking medications to keep her lungs from filling with mucus and to help her body digest food. She left behind two grieving parents when she died.
Did I love my cousin? Yes. Do I think that an abortion would’ve spared her and her family from this? Absolutely. In fact, my aunt said several times that she would’ve aborted and tried again, had that option been available in 1973.
No one’s saying that opposition to abortion is a bad position to take. It’s not, and you’re certainly entitled to it. However, please understand that abortion cannot and must not be re-criminalized. It’s not about cute little babies. It’s about women who are alive now, and who have a myriad of reasons why they choose abortion. No one is saying that any woman should be forced into an abortion, either. This is a free country, we present abortion as a legal option, and those who choose to can use that option.
As for the “Shaking” theme to the campaign, I did not see the commercial, but I did see the website. I don’t think “shaking” belongs in the context of “baby”. I don’t think I overreacted, either.
Although I don’t think anyone came right and asked her directly, she knew what her mother’s position was and had no problems with it. In fact, she often expressed her wish that she’d never been born.
Interesting, Aggie. From the fine, upstanding Aggie alums I work with, I was given to understand that A&M produced well-spoken gentlemen. Somehow, you simply don’t seem the type that they will be terribly proud to count among their number.
Allow me, at the risk of feeding a troll, to retort.
One would surmise that you claim that life begins at the moment of conception, although given your subpar use of language, the utter lack of ability to apply basic punctuation or grammar rules to your writing and the gratuitous use of profanity, your position is a tad difficult to discern.
However, to respond, I ask you: Is the mother then not alive? Or does she somehow lose her value once she is born and becomes nothing more than a breathing girl baby? Is her health then worth nothing? Or are women nothing more than animate uteruses in your world view? I take it that even if a woman’s life is to be lost for the sake of that child, she should just pay that as the price of being a woman and the glory of giving her life for that of her child, whether she wants to or not? In that case, why don’t we just rewrite the laws to say that say it’s perfectly okay to murder adult women if they cannot have children? After all, they’re just a waste of space if they’re not busily gestating, aren’t they?
If so, what an absolutely misogynistic point of view you’ve managed to grow in your brief 19 or so years on this earth. I would not be terribly proud of that achievement. However, if that is not your point of view, please clarify in terms that a reasonably well-educated human being would not mind reading.
As a second point, you imply that all women who become pregnant and wish abortions are, in your decidedly gutter parlance, ‘hoes’.
To correct you on a point of language, a hoe is an implement which is used to grub weeds from unwanted areas. (Also called an idiot stick. I will refrain from commenting on the aptness of that particular bit of archaic slang.) If you intend to slur the morals of all womankind, kindly spell the word right. It is ‘whore’.
Apparently, it is unknown in your world view for a woman to have even a planned and wanted pregnancy by her husband and need, for any reason, an abortion. Due to a lack of space on this entire website, I will not even begin to try to educate you on women’s health issues. Suffice it to say that you could do with a GOOD sexual education course that consisted of more than the single word ‘abstinence’.
Now, if you are implying that all women who become pregnant out of wedlock who wish abortions are whores, I will then ask you: what is your opinion of the man who got her that way? After all, she did not become pregnant on her own. Or is the man culpable for nothing besides spilling his semen in the appropriate orifice? Please do advise.
On a much less sarcastic note: AbuseAngel, speaking as a staunch pro-choice advocate, I assure you it’s not intent of any pro-choicer (and I am very cognizant of the difference between being pro-life and anti-choice, trust me; some of the people I respect most are pro-life and yet also pro-choice) to tell other people they can’t choose to have their children. That’s what choice means. It simply means that we believe that people should be able to make up their own minds on the issue. I don’t know if I could have an abortion myself, to tell you the truth…but damned if I’ll tell any other woman that I’ll make a decision for her that could affect the rest of her life…or cause her death. For that point of view, I have been called a murderer. Twice. Not because I was out picketing, but at work, by a woman who came into my cubicle (on two different occasions) and tried to harangue me into contributing to some anti-choice splinter group of hers. I don’t know about you, but I don’t take kindly to being called a murderer, nor do I appreciate people making unwanted assumptions about me because of my beliefs when I take pains not to do so about them. I think there are more than a few people who share my views out there. Unfortunately, her kind are entirely too common around where I live. I don’t think folks are intending to belittle your point of view; they’re just very, very, very sick and tired of being slandered by idiots. And who can blame them?
So by all means, Angel, please feel free to believe whatever you wish. I fully respect it, and I mean that. All I ask is that my own be equally respected as well, and I not be required to share your belief any more than I expect you to be required to share mine. Fair is fair.
Aggie, on the other hand, I await with bated breath your no-doubt brilliantly worded and reasoned rebuttal.
MsRobyn, am I a ‘pedophillic asscricket’ for being pro-life? The way you describe the commercial, it is more or less pretty accurate despite the fact you hate. you have the right to choose; it doesn’t not obligate those who oppose the choice to make it easier about the choice you make.
My mother had two abortions, and regrets them both, so I can speak from experience.
Capacitor, the commercial is offensive to people for several different reasons. Bear with me for a minute. Again, please note that I take strong exception to lumping ‘pro-life’ and ‘anti-choice’ together. The first indicates that one would personally not get an abortion; the second indicates that one believes that abortions should not be available to anyone, period.
First, it’s one thing to present a point of view in a non-sensationalistic, non-judgmental manner. That commercial certainly doesn’t qualify. It isn’t information; it’s emotionalism. If the people behind this campaign wanted people make a choice, they would give them INFORMATION, not just feel-bad pictures (which are a staple of the anti-choice crowd). Give facts. Give figures. Give sound, non-religion based reasons. But if you want people to make a choice, you can’t feed them emotionalistic tripe and expect them to base a sound decision on it. It’s an insult to their intelligence at the very least, and at the worst, could cause people to make decisions which are life-threatening. This group supporting this commercial clearly does not want people to make a choice, they want people to be brainwashed, and I have a major problem with that.
Secondly, I second Robyn’s point about shaking being a very common form of unintentional injury to babies. There have been a lot of parents (young and otherwise) who have caused serious injury or even death to their babies by shaking them. To have that be a tag line of a commercial which is supposedly to promote a pro-life (and one would assume) anti-abuse standpoint, is tacky, tasteless and not well thought out at all. Further, it’s bad form AND taste to not only imply that no matter what the reason, a woman is a murderer if she’s not willing to sacrifice health and life for the sake of a child (no matter how viable said child might be), but to also use a theme which is a common cause of infant injury by parents.
Me, I actually didn’t have a problem with the “Life, what a beautiful choice,” campaign. It wasn’t sensationalistic, it got the point across, and it did so in a reasonably positive manner.
As far as your mother’s choices go – I am sorry your mother regrets her choices. However, simply because someone takes a course of action and regrets it is not cause for that person or anyone else to decide what someone else can or cannot live with. Part of making a choice is taking the responsibility for your actions and living with them.
However, I know countless more people who had children they did not want and who regret that choice because of what it’s done to their life than I know people who have had abortions who have regretted them. (I’m not saying that these people are wishing their kids away per se; only that if they had it to do over again, they wouldn’t have had the kids.) I have two friends in counseling right now because they can’t come to terms with the fact that they had a child and gave it up for adoption. ***The point is, whether you abort, adopt, keep or even choose not to have any at all, like many other choices in life, chances are you will find yourself looking back and either second-guessing yourself or wishing that you had chosen differently. *** That’s life.
I have a serious problem with the anti-choice crowd acting as if giving away one’s own flesh and blood after such an intense process as labor is nothing more than giving away a puppy or kitten. The fact is, it isn’t. I have an even greater problem with the anti-choice crowd acting as if an abortion is so easy that women just waltz into a clinic and boom! out she comes 5 minutes later, no repercussions. They not only hurt, but they’re frightening and if not done properly, extremely risky. (Yet another reason nobody in their right mind recommends it as a form of birth control.) Childbirth is physically demanding, is NOT the automatic no-fuss procedure that too many people think it is, and can cause long-term health problems for women. And yes, women do still die from childbirth or childbirth complications. NO CHOICE IS EASY.
Instead of “trying to make the choice less easy”, why not bend your efforts to contraception and effective sex education – that is informative education and not a simple diet of abstinence, abstinence, abstinence – instead to prevent this from happening? That would certainly be more useful and prevent the situation from happening at all. Of course, for all I know, you may do that. If you don’t, I’d like to know why.
However, be thankful that your mother is at least alive to regret her procedures. Prior to 1972, there was a very good chance that she would have been sterile for life or dead. My mother lost a friend in her college years to that. (And before you decide she had to be some slut, she was engaged, the boy dumped her when he found out, and her family was so hard-shell fundamentalist she knew she would be disowned if it was found out. So she died instead.)
Younger people (and I speak of those in my generation, incidentally) forget those deaths so very easily. I certainly hope it doesn’t take a rash of back-alley butchery to remind people of just why women demanded this basic medical right in the first place.
It was not my intention to paint anyone with a pro-life position as being bad. I certainly did not use the phrase “pedophilic asscricket” to describe any such people.
My problem lies, as Lionors said, with those who use emotion to push this position, and who use emotion to re-criminalize abortion. This is not about using pictures of cute babies. It’s about saving the lives of women who are already living, functioning members of society.
I myself have had two abortions. I do not for a minute regret my decisions. And when I think about it, I thank God that I had access to safe, clean facilities and professionals who knew what they were doing. If abortion is re-criminalized, that is going to be taken away.
Lionors, I note you’ve been around for a while, but I’ve never seen your name before. Allow me to welcome you back to the boards, and to tip th’ pint at you for some excellent contributions. Thanks!
Aw, shucks, ‘tweren’t nuttin’, Olentzero…but thanks for the compliment and the welcome. And my compliments in turn for your deft turns of phrase; those are some of the best I’ve seen in a while. (Did you send the Maginot Line one to anyone upstairs yet? Cecil’s GOT to see that one – it’s classic.)
It used to be that about the only time I had to read the boards was on my lunch hour at work (when I got one), which pretty much limited me to just reading. When I tried to do it at home on our dialup connection, it took forever to load anything. Now we have cable modems and all is swift with the world. I’m still enough of a wuss to that I tend to stay out of the Pit, though.
Wasn’t my intent to derail your thread, though. Everyone, back to the previously scheduled flames and barbecue sauce!
Ok, I understand you point of view now amist the name-callign and the shouting. The appeal to emotion is what really irked yout he wrong way. That and the shaking part as well consdiering what we know now about the problems with shaking. That being said, arguments about abortion being most tantamount to reproductive freedom sometimes reach a form of emotionalism as well, and also tended to drown out anotehr aspect of reproductive freedom, pre-natal and post-natal care.
Those who are pro-life don’t generally believe that this form of freedom should not come at an expense of another life, except in mortal self-defense. Financial and social self-denfense reasons are for the most part inadequate; this is to us like a corporation weighing the expenses of upgrading a defective machine part, versus the amount in damage claims settled because the company leaves the part in the machine, causing deaths to unwary customers. No amount of this kind of bean-counting should be worth more than even one life. And no, choosing abortion is no waltz. But there are those who want the choice of abortion to be so. The coldness and casualness of the decision aspect also irks those who are pro-life.
And BTW this pro-life person would much prefer that sex education be in schools, be taught by parents, read thoroughly in the library, from anywhere except from the streets and friends’ mythology.
Also, IMHO, I think that the abortion movement’s success came at the expense of the movement for excellent pre-natal and post-natal care. You know, as well as I, that it shouldn’t be either/or, but both/and, but hospitals are under pressure to make a profit, and they tend to lump them both together in the budget. Using bean counting analogy again, they tend to favor procuring abortion treatment over pre-natal care to full term, because for the most part they get paid for the abortion procedure, either by cash or by Medicaid in some states, whereas they are not as certain to receive all of the money for the more expensive pre-natal care, especially of poor, uninsured mothers and their children. I ought to know, one of my jobs was processing physician’s fees for my city’s child agency. Pre-natal and post-natal care are valuable parts of reproductive freedom, as much if not more than the right to choose, or it deals with the health of the mother and helps insure healthy children. However, the intrasigence of the abortion debate had the most unfortunate side effect of putting pre- and post-natal care to the back burner, and, until recently, having these two receive paltry funds from the legislature and corporations.
The right to choose movement is just one aspect of reproductive freedom. Birth control and pre and post-natal care are the other parts. However, the huge advocacy of option to choose abortion might have been a misstep in the reproductive freedom movement, for the backlash put pre- and post-natal care in the background. If pre- and post-natal care were strongly advocated after the victory in birth control, then the right to choose may have had less voiceferous opposition than it has now.
Capacitor, let me reiterate. I have no problem with people who are pro-life (i.e, would choose not to have an abortion). I respect their views. I have problems with people who are anti-choice. I do not believe in forcing anyone into any procreative decision, be it to have sex, to have an abortion, to give birth, or to not have children at all.
Before I go on, I just want to make perfectly clear the definitions I’m using for certain terms. IMHO, Pro-choice does not automatically equate to pro-abortion any more than pro-life equals membership in Operation Rescue. Pro-choice means a belief that women should be able to make their own reproductive choices, and that abortion is but one of the choices available. Pro-life means at the very least that one would personally not choose to abort. Anti-choice means that legal abortion should be eliminated entirely as a choice, no matter what the circumstances. I’m defining these because they have a bad tendency to get used interchangeably, to the detriment of discussion. So there we go. Now, onward.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding from your post is that you believe that if we were an anti-choice country, the time and/or money that goes to provide abortions would instead go to pre-natal and post-natal health care.
If I understand that POV correctly, I must disagree. If this were so, we would have anti-choice organizations right now which offered quality, low-cost pre- and post-natal health care to women in need. These organizations would not push a religious message, nor limit education to one form of birth control, but would attempt to educate women honestly about all forms of birth control, about sex, and about how to care for their children. Moreover, they would place enough value on a woman to offer her affordable gynecological exams and Pap smears, affordable birth control, and educate her in how best to use it for maximum effect. However, I cannot name a single anti-choice organization at this time that provides any such services like this. If you do, please so advise, and I’ll get out the barbecue sauce to eat that crow with. No – better – I’ll donate to them. I honestly will.
On the other hand, Planned Parenthood – a pro-choice organization – not only offers affordable pre-natal care (including examinations), but also goes out of their way to try to ensure that the women that come in for pregnancy assistance get advice on parenting and infant care as well.
Further, they give education on birth control and offers very low cost examinations and medical care to women who are in need. Through PP, you can also buy birth control pills or get other forms of birth control (i.e. diaphragms, etc.) at a discount consonant with your income and be shown how to use them effectively. If you come in confused and and pregnant, you aren’t told in glowing terms how wonderful abortion is. Instead, you’re told frankly what you will need to do for each option which is available to you. Abortion is never, ever, ever, EVER promoted as a means of birth control, and in fact, they go out of their way to tell you of how abortions can affect your potential ability to bear a child in the future. (Many, if not most PP’s don’t even do abortions.) They don’t show scare videos or give out religious tracts, nor force any choice at all. They give the information; they listen, and they try to help the person come to a decision that person can live with.
Unless you can give me specific information to the contrary, I must respectfully believe that, based upon the above, your assertion on that score lacks grounding.
That is one take on it. However, this is my view on the situation.
I would not, under any circumstances, bring a child into this world if said child were crippled mentally or physically, had a congenital, incurable disease or a condition which prevented it from ever having a chance at a quality life. Giving a child the opportunity to merely exist, and do nothing more, is not enough to me. I will not put a child through a life of lingering pain simply so I can gratify my wish to procreate. I will not make an innocent suffer for years on end without hope. I think it is one of the most reprehensible, cruel things I could do.
To me, not bringing a child like that into the world to suffer is an act of mercy. Forcing it to suffer without recourse is downright monstrous, and I will not be a party to that any more than I would stand by and allow a child to be abused. Yet under an anti-choice police, I would have NO recourse except to let my child suffer. That, I cannot, will not, accept.
By being pro-choice, I can choose to give birth to my child or not. By being anti-choice, I have no alternatives at all. You call abortion murder in the circumstances I describe; I call forcing a child to live through years of conscious suffering to be child abuse. It’s all in how you look at it. What I do know is that it does pro-choicers a great disservice to assume that we believe that abortion is a prime way to avoid responsibility or achieve convenience, because that simply isn’t so.
Can you cite specific groups which advocate that abortion should be treated as a panacea for all reproductive ills? I have not seen one-single-piece of literature advocating legal abortion which wants abortion to be considered in such a light. I have read literature which states that it is a crime to legally deny citizens of this country access to safe medical care. I have read the arguments concerning the use of RU-482. People do NOT advocate the use of such techniques because they want abortion to be no more than taking a pill for an unwanted headache. They advocate the use of such methods for the same reason that they would advocate more advanced surgical techniques or better medicines: because it lessens the health risk and/or pain and suffering to the person involved. It can even make a difference in terms of whether or not a woman is able to bear a child safely at a later time. How then is this bad??
Surely you’re not taking the point of view that if a woman is going to get an abortion, she should be punished physically as much as possible for it to make her pay for what she’s done. That assumes (wrongfully) that every woman who chooses to get an abortion is doing so for wholly frivolous reasons, and that does many women a great disservice.
As far as the “cold and callous” decision-making goes – is it any less cold and callous to consider it perfectly all right for young women to die of infections from improperly sterilized instruments, to hemorrhage to death from perforated uteruses, or to die from medical complications from a pregnancy they cannot physically sustain? How can this be justified as a desirable alternative to an abortion? Or is it that she somehow deserves to suffer and die for what she’s done? Surely that can’t be the case. And what, again, about those women who are not doing this frivolously, but because they medically must? Is it fair to compound their suffering?
I do not believe under any circumstances that abortion should be a means of birth control. I do, however, believe that as a woman, I should not be denied a form of professional health care because one particular element of this country believes it should be so. What’s next? Allowing the minority who believe that vaccinations are against the will of God to prevent us giving our children vaccinations to keep them healthy?
I agree. I agree 110%. I’ve got several pro-life (who are also pro-choice) friends who believe as you do, as well. I even believe that abstinence has its place in sex education, so long as it does not constitute the whole of what is being taught and is not presented as the only way to go. (If I have one huge beef about the Web, it’s that sexual misinformation spreads even more now than it used to…but that’s a good, chewy topic for another thread in IMHO or GD, maybe. Let me know if you decide to start one. :))
Hospitals and/or insurance companies also favor shoving a mother out as soon as she can get on their feet, and her health and the baby’s health be damned. The solution to that problem is not in denying abortion as an option; it’s in getting decent health care for all citizens. I won’t argue that insurers and hospitals alike should be taken out to the fiscal woodshed and drubbed thoroughly. I would actually think that over the long haul, though, it would be more lucrative to have a child to treat than to have an abortion. Medicaid is pretty comprehensive in what it covers (a sight better than Medicare, which is a pity.)
I don’t disagree in the slightest. I would go one step farther and say it should be required by law (and paid for by insurance) for every mother AND father to have to go through a mandatory parenting program to teach them how to care for their children. I’d almost go for mandatory birth control from puberty on until people take the course, register with a partner and make a contract with said partner for the care of the child. I say almost just because I also see the potential for abuse in that. <sigh> Still, it would certainly eliminate a lot of problems.
I think pro-choice groups would be perfectly happy to not have to keep fighting over the same ground over and over again. I know I, for one, could certainly do without the unremitting vitriol. It accomplishes nothing.
Unfortunately, anti-choice groups will not turn their attention from the issue of abortion and will not stop trying to eliminate it as a reproduction option. That pretty much means that the pro-choice people have no choice but to try to fight to keep the option of safe, legal abortions open.
It could be as easily (and as validly) argued that if the anti-choice groups were truly pro-life in nature, that they wouldn’t be wasting their time trying to gun down doctors who perform abortions or conduct terrorism campaigns on abortion clinics, nor spend millions on TV ads that give guilt trips but no real information. They’d be spending the money and the time doing their best to try to give positive support to pregnant women, teaching responsible parenting and frank, honest sexual education with a strong emphasis on birth control. Moreover, they’d go beyond teaching pure abstinence and emphasize the need to think before rushing into an intimate relationship. But unfortunately, I know of none which do that.
IMHO, parenting should be a privilege and not a consequence of indiscretion. If that could really be the case, I think society would be by far the better for it.
An interesting frame of reference. I’m sure that, from their point of view, your dismissal of a human being as some kind of disposable appendix is patently offensive as well.
Women want to be able to choose whether to have an abortion or not, and if we don’t give it to them legally, they’ll die due to back-alley abortions they’ll get anyway.
Oh God, where to begin?
Lets try this:
I would like the legal right to kill people that piss me off. The fact that murder is illegal causes the need to hire unprofessional hitmen, who often botch the job, or kill bystanders with stray bullets. Therefore we should legalize murder, to keep it professional and ultimately save lives.
Yeah, that’s about it. Great argument, huh?
Usually in these things when one is debating honestly, it is usually a given that you will pay lip service to the valid arguments on the other side of the debate, and not simply assume they don’t exist.
People, including myself, believe that abortion is the killing of a human life.
Women simply “wanting” the right to do this, is not a valid fucking argument for murder.
Weighing the rights of a human life or potential human life versus the rights of the person carrying it, is a horrendously difficult proposition.
I certainly would never count expediency as a valid argument either way.
Yeah, that’s pretty much it. Especially since that was the situation in the US before 1973.
Oh God, where to begin?
applauds Bravo! Bravissimo! Bis! Bis!
Damn, Scylla, that’s one of the finest straw men I’ve ever seen you construct. I think Zadok from 1/0 has a better sense of humor, though.
[sub]holding back on a ‘master debator’ line[/sub]
I do not question the arguments behind a woman deciding she would not want to have an abortion herself. I certainly don’t think there are any valid arguments for enforcing that decision on all women.
Women simply wanting the right of choice over what happens to their own bodies is plenty valid enough for keeping abortion legal.
More weight should be given to the person carrying it, since they are the only ones in this situation capable of making any sort of decision whatsoever. The fetus can’t even survive on its own, let alone even understand what a decision is.
Meaing that you don’t think it’s a valid argument.
But earlier you said:
Looks like an argument of expediency to me, buckaroo.
If you didn’t like the example I gave, here’s another:
Abortion should be outlawed, because people want it to be, and if you leave it as legal, people will continue to bomb clinics and lives will be lost.
I also disagree with the rest of your premise. The simple fact that it is the women in question’s body, does not give her carte blanche.
The father may have some valid input and rights,
The fetus may have some rights, especially if it’s late term.
I don’t think a woman has the right to abuse drugs while she’s pregnant, and bring crack-babies or fetal alcohol syndrome damaged children into the world for society to take care of.
Do you know that in China they perfrm abortions, by waiting until the baby’s head crowns during labor? Then they inject formaldehyde through the skull and into the brain.
I don’t think I support a woman’s right to choose that, and like all rights, there are attendant responsibilities that go along with it.
A woman also has the right not to engage in activities that will give her an unwanted pregnancy.
So, a women’s body rights are not all-encompassing, and the argument can be made that being pro-life does not restrict a women’s rights to her body, it only forces her to live the consequences or her actions, and protects the new life that has been created as a result of those actions.
Pro-life doesn’t encumber a women’s right to choose. It does take away her right to a do-over when she is unhappy with her choice.
Let’s be clear that this is not a black and white situation concerning only the rights of the woman in question.
For the record, I’m pro-choice through the first trimester, though personally I’m anti-abortion.
Fair is fair.