SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[PosPosPos]

To the pro-life side, it's just sanctioned murder........informs my opinions going into the present cases.

Pick one. There's no informed, medical or scientific opinion that involves calling early stage abortion as murder.

It's like calling eggs and sperms "life" and emission thereof "murder".

He who defines the terms controls the debate.

No, they who define the terms and gets enough informed consensus controls the debate. Definitely not the you who is the self-proclaimed enlightened centrist who is really just allergic to any critical thought or opinion of their own.

[SoulForge]

The pro-life side doing this to the pro-aborts is just as foolhardy as the reverse. I just don't know if y'all got it by copying them, or they got it by copying you, or just independent development. It certainly involves some privilege. He who defines the terms controls the debate.

There is no such thing as "Pro-Aborts"

[Endus]

To the pro-life side, it's just sanctioned murder.

If it's "sanctioned", it's can't be "murder".

So you're admitting the pro-life side is starting out from a position of internally contradictory idiocy. This is kind of what we keep driving at, y'know.

It can't be the best for the mother, and others involved, because one of the others necessarily dies.

You've presumed the existence of some "other" which is in no way a given nor has it been established through objective argumentation.

Worse, "best for" isn't in the equation when it comes to people's rights and freedoms. It's "best for everyone" if we strap someone with a useful antibody down and harvest blood from them to develop cures, even against that someone's will, but we don't do that because right to self-ownership is so deeply respected. A little temporary discomfort for the "someone", against literally saving hundreds of lives, and we still don't force that someone.

All you're actually saying here is that you don't respect that women should own themselves, but should be owned by some other outside entity who gets to decide what happens to their bodies.

But, to the point, to you it's just "reproductive health care" or "women's healthcare" or whatever y'all go with tomorrow. It's as useless to argue that you must call yourselves pro-death, since the baby dies, than to argue pro-lifers can't be pro-life, because of disagreements on welfare policy post-birth, etc.

There is no "baby". No one should be interested in your overactive imaginative musings about hypothetical future timelines that don't actually exist.

This is the problem with you people; you keep demanding we respect your imaginary future realities as if they're real, while denying that women are actually fully-fledged people with the same rights as men.

Your "it's killing a baby" is fundamentally the same as me saying that Scarlett Johannsen not being my girlfriend and getting pregnant means she's killing our future babies that won't exist if she has that freedom, therefore she shouldn't get to make that choice and must be forced to bear my children for the sake of those future children.

Does that make sense? Of course it doesn't. It's stupid misogynistic bullshit. But it's the exact same argument that you're making here, and that pro-lifers rely on, I just pushed it one step further as a demonstration of how dehumanizing and ridiculous the base principles actually are.

[Adamas102]

The pro-life side doing this to the pro-aborts is just as foolhardy as the reverse. I just don't know if y'all got it by copying them, or they got it by copying you, or just independent development.

Wow, who knew you could fit so much bullshit into two short sentences. Still fighting so hard to push the laughable "pro-abort" narrative, and of course at the same time pretending that you're above it all with the "them vs you" framing. No, your dishonesty and/or incompetence doesn't get to dictate the narrative.

If you think trying to pile on MORE dishonest labels is the same as stripping away dishonest labels then you're either stupid or you realize that your position relies more on perception that valid arguments.

[RampageBW1]

The pro-life side doing this to the pro-aborts is just as foolhardy as the reverse. I just don't know if y'all got it by copying them, or they got it by copying you, or just independent development. It certainly involves some privilege. He who defines the terms controls the debate.

There's no such thing as "Pro-Abort", as that would imply the "movement" encourages people to abort their babies regardless if it's planned or not. It's called Pro-Choice.

[Elder Millennial]

verbose drivel

You really are a deranged psychopath. Gish gallops, lies, made up nonsense, invented words and an uncontrollable raging misogyny.

[Muzjhath]

To the pro-life side, it's just sanctioned murder. It can't be the best for the mother, and others involved, because one of the others necessarily dies. But, to the point, to you it's just "reproductive health care" or "women's healthcare" or whatever y'all go with tomorrow. It's as useless to argue that you must call yourselves pro-death, since the baby dies, than to argue pro-lifers can't be pro-life, because of disagreements on welfare policy post-birth, etc.

But, if it's any consolation, the abysmal pricing set up between insurance companies and hospitals and doctors for birth is also a travesty. Additionally, it perfectly compatible to be for cheaper hospital costs (and disagree on how to create it) while also saving perfectly health babies from termination prior to delivery. But that would sort of deflect from the topic, and I just saw this page as I'm reading it already has another.

It's best for everyone if we harvest blood for donations from everyone not with medication that makes it bad for recipients, or with illnesses that makes it bad for recipients.
Should everyone be forced against their will to give blood?

That's the fucking argument you're making, FYI.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no "baby". No one should be interested in your overactive imaginative musings about hypothetical future timelines that don't actually exist.

This is the problem with you people; you keep demanding we respect your imaginary future realities as if they're real, while denying that women are actually fully-fledged people with the same rights as men.

Your "it's killing a baby" is fundamentally the same as me saying that Scarlett Johannsen not being my girlfriend and getting pregnant means she's killing our future babies that won't exist if she has that freedom, therefore she shouldn't get to make that choice and must be forced to bear my children for the sake of those future children.

Does that make sense? Of course it doesn't. It's stupid misogynistic bullshit. But it's the exact same argument that you're making here, and that pro-lifers rely on, I just pushed it one step further as a demonstration of how dehumanizing and ridiculous the base principles actually are.

Heck, and it times of late-stage abortions where there is a baby?
It's almost always done "against"* the wishes of the family.

With "Against" here i mean, they wanted the fucking kid! But half the kids skull didn't develop and it was a stillbirth! However people knew that at week 15~20 and in reasonable countries you can abort that!

[Cthulhu 2020]

They do offer things for mothers who come and want to keep the pregnancy. Like ultrasounds, prenatal supplements, screenings, diapers, baby toys, blankets, and tons of other stuff. I swear that half the arguments against crisis pregnancy centers are people that have never been to one and just make up which services they aren't going to provide.

Doubting you've been in these places, since many testimonies from mothers have said they do not offer these things at many locations.

The state has no business telling them that they're not pushing contraception or abortion hard enough.

I realize you're believe you're being clever, but it's obvious from even a cursory glance that they prey on women looking to get an abortion by luring them in with inexact language. But that's the conservative way. Obfuscate your true intentions behind non specific language, then when called on your scams and bullshit, just claim "Well I never SAID I'd do X" when it's clear to anyone with two firing brain cells that the crisis centers are deliberately deceptive in how they operate.

Too busy helping pregnant women with their needs to make time for how mad Democrats are that it isn't exclusively routed through the state.

If you believe that Republicans are so busy helping women with their pregnancies, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Pro-birth party isn't pro-life at all. And yeah, Democrats are mad that the NRA terrorists are profiting off the bodies of dead children. Hard to convince anyone but yourself and your buddies that you're pro-life when you see a pile of dead children, shrug your shoulders and go "Look, I realize that every other country in the world with gun control doesn't have these issues, but it's clear there's nothing we can do but continue to assist gun manufacturers in making massive bank every year while not caring about dead children."

But hey, today's children go through active shooter drills every day. They live in fear of a potential school shooting every day. Today's youth are tomorrow's voters. Why do you think Republicans are looking to raise the voting age? Because the new batch of teenagers is looking to be overwhelmingly Democrat. Republicans are in big trouble if they're incapable of going full fash and stopping youth/minorities from voting.

Oh yeah, and outright abortion bans are wildly unpopular, even having a 61% disapproval among REPUBLICANS alone. The right is seriously shooting themselves in the foot with lack of action on guns and continued hardline stances on being pro-birth anti-woman.

[tehdang]

It's really difficult to take your argument in good faith when you refer to healthcare as "whatever y'all go with tomorrow." Just admit you don't give a shit about the mother's well-being.

Whatever the new pro-abort self-id terms are. These have changed over the years, indeed over my lifetime.

So you agree, they're not "pro-life," they're just "pro-birth" since they don't give a shit about its life after its born.

Disagreements on welfare policy can't be reduced to "you don't give a shit." Quit the trolling.

Pick one. There's no informed, medical or scientific opinion that involves calling early stage abortion as murder.

It's like calling eggs and sperms "life" and emission thereof "murder".

Appeal to authority. Also "no true Scotsman" since you're about to call all the pro-life doctors and nurses out there as not informed.

No, they who define the terms and gets enough informed consensus controls the debate. Definitely not the you who is the self-proclaimed enlightened centrist who is really just allergic to any critical thought or opinion of their own.

Appeal to the mob. Eugenics doesn't become right just because it's popular or enough scientists form a consensus.

There is no such thing as "Pro-Aborts"

Those that favor reducing, perhaps to zero, the number of restrictions on elective abortions. I have had several posts on the logic behind calling each side what they wish to be called, versus calling each side what you'd prefer to call them, and the foolishness in enforcing a mixed scheme of both. Look to them if you want to know more.

Wow, who knew you could fit so much bullshit into two short sentences. Still fighting so hard to push the laughable "pro-abort" narrative, and of course at the same time pretending that you're above it all with the "them vs you" framing. No, your dishonesty and/or incompetence doesn't get to dictate the narrative.

If you think trying to pile on MORE dishonest labels is the same as stripping away dishonest labels then you're either stupid or you realize that your position relies more on perception that valid arguments.

More "my side labeling itself is honest, my side labeling ourselves is honest, your side labeling yourselves is dishonest, your side labeling us is dishonest." It's just privilege, to try to control and enforce the terms of the debate on others.

I've never demanded you call yourselves pro-aborts, or that logical argument demands you use it. But I'm certainly not going to drop my choice around others that do the "you aren't really pro-life because..." canard.

There's no such thing as "Pro-Abort", as that would imply the "movement" encourages people to abort their babies regardless if it's planned or not. It's called Pro-Choice.

They could always encourage restrictions confined to the first trimester. But they've long ago abandoned "safe, legal, and rare" and no prominent national Democrat actually voiced support for any restrictions related to gestational age by week in the last major elections. I already saw all the hatred shelled out to private crisis pregnancy centers on not voicing enough support for abortion, so it's pretty clear how y'all feel about one of the two choices. No restrictions and no option for private groups to use their voice towards keeping the baby.

Just to reiterate, that's my opinion to why I use that term, often interchangeably, with the others. I'm not going to be the stasi and enforce the language on you, though some fellow forum members are not so liberal as I am.

Quotes someone, changes quote to say "verbose drivel," to just call another a "deranged psychopath."

Yes, the abortion debate can cause people to explode in blind hatred. But calling people "deranged psychopaths" isn't likely to change their minds on who is more tolerant and caring.

It's best for everyone if we harvest blood for donations from everyone not with medication that makes it bad for recipients, or with illnesses that makes it bad for recipients.
Should everyone be forced against their will to give blood?

That's the fucking argument you're making, FYI.

This one again. No, reproductive acts and pregnancy isn't just forced blood donation levied on the population for another person.

Doubting you've been in these places, since many testimonies from mothers have said they do not offer these things at many locations.

I can assist you in finding your local crisis pregnancy centers to take a tour, so you can ask them yourself to see the pre- and post-childbirth care they offer. I can direct you to the videos online of all the piled up blankets, children's toys, boxes of diapers, just waiting to go to homes of counseled mothers.

I realize you're believe you're being clever, but it's obvious from even a cursory glance that they prey on women looking to get an abortion by luring them in with inexact language. But that's the conservative way. Obfuscate your true intentions behind non specific language, then when called on your scams and bullshit, just claim "Well I never SAID I'd do X" when it's clear to anyone with two firing brain cells that the crisis centers are deliberately deceptive in how they operate.

"It's obvious from even a cursory glance that they prey" is synonymous with "I shouldn't have to argue it because I personally feel it's obvious." No cleverness from me. The state still has no business telling them they're not pushing contraception or abortion hard enough.

If you believe that Republicans are so busy helping women with their pregnancies, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Postpartum care by both state and private groups is widespread. Your inattention or ignorance of this is entirely your personal choice.

Pro-birth party isn't pro-life at all. And yeah, Democrats are mad that the NRA terrorists are profiting off the bodies of dead children. Hard to convince anyone but yourself and your buddies that you're pro-life when you see a pile of dead children, shrug your shoulders and go "Look, I realize that every other country in the world with gun control doesn't have these issues, but it's clear there's nothing we can do but continue to assist gun manufacturers in making massive bank every year while not caring about dead children."

But hey, today's children go through active shooter drills every day. They live in fear of a potential school shooting every day. Today's youth are tomorrow's voters. Why do you think Republicans are looking to raise the voting age? Because the new batch of teenagers is looking to be overwhelmingly Democrat. Republicans are in big trouble if they're incapable of going full fash and stopping youth/minorities from voting.

Oh yeah, and outright abortion bans are wildly unpopular, even having a 61% disapproval among REPUBLICANS alone. The right is seriously shooting themselves in the foot with lack of action on guns and continued hardline stances on being pro-birth anti-woman.

Active shooter drills, NRA terrorists? Alright, dude. Create your own megatopic combining gun control, second amendment rights and "terrorism," and abortion. I've seen enough frail threads holding together "You aren't allowed to sincerely argue X, because you also favor/disfavor Y" arguments.

[RampageBW1]

They could always encourage restrictions confined to the first trimester. But they've long ago abandoned "safe, legal, and rare" and no prominent national Democrat actually voiced support for any restrictions related to gestational age by week in the last major elections. I already saw all the hatred shelled out to private crisis pregnancy centers on not voicing enough support for abortion, so it's pretty clear how y'all feel about one of the two choices. No restrictions and no option for private groups to use their voice towards keeping the baby.

Not at all what I was talking about.

The term is Pro-Choice.

[Muzjhath]

They could always encourage restrictions confined to the first trimester. But they've long ago abandoned "safe, legal, and rare" and no prominent national Democrat actually voiced support for any restrictions related to gestational age by week in the last major elections. I already saw all the hatred shelled out to private crisis pregnancy centers on not voicing enough support for abortion, so it's pretty clear how y'all feel about one of the two choices. No restrictions and no option for private groups to use their voice towards keeping the baby.

Some issues haven't developed by that time!
Most late-term abortions are because health concerns!

[Elder Millennial]

Yes, the abortion debate can cause people to explode in blind hatred. But calling people "deranged psychopaths" isn't likely to change their minds on who is more tolerant and caring.

"I'm a deranged psychopath, but calling me a deranged psychopath won't make less of a deranged psychopath. "

Nothing is going to make you less of a deranged psychopath. Facts are irrelevant for you, you're immune to appeals to empathy, you don't care about human suffering, or dignity, you're an ideologically driven fanatic, if given an inch you'll take an arm because you'll take it as a moral victory, if given nothing you will whinge and whine and bitch and moan and use it a justification for becoming even more insanely radical.

So instead of entertaining your personal delusions the best thing one can do is point out the insanity, the cruelty and vileness.

[Elegiac]

I already saw all the hatred shelled out to private crisis pregnancy centers on not voicing enough support for abortion

The problem people have with crisis pregnancy centers is not that they're "insufficiently supportive of abortion."

The problem is that they want to be treated as healthcare providers when their primary goal is steering women away from particular healthcare options they politically disagree with, and do so by means that are unethical in any healthcare setting including but not limited to harassment of their patients and trafficking in medical disinformation.

No one is saying that anti-choice freaks shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions or offer services catered towards women who don't terminate their pregnancies. The line is crossed when they resort to deceptive and unethical practices in order to insert themselves into a healthcare discussion when they have not been invited and then proceed to lie their asses off about contraception and abortion.

[tehdang]

Where did you pick it up?

I heard it a while ago. I can't really remember. It's useful in dealing with extreme, or passively extreme, positions like never favoring or voicing approval of legal restrictions on abortion related to gestational age. It's useful in gauging how attached people are to insisting opponents use their own labels, and insisting they're personally allowed to reject their opponents labels.

Not at all what I was talking about.

There's no such thing as "Pro-Abort"

I think I've posted enough on the power and privilege games that attend calling others what you like, and not allowing them to call you as they like.

Some issues haven't developed by that time!
Most late-term abortions are because health concerns!

Then craft legal protections for the baby to ensure it only impacts severe fetal defects and nonviable pregnancy. If your only concerns are actual issues, and health, then please support restrictions for the cases where it's not. If the life of the baby never matters (is never a concern) and everything is legal, then I stand firm in calling it a pro-abort attitude. You want to say issues and rarity, but really you want it to be legal for everything.

As a reminder, rape and incest are very rare, but much time is spent arguing over exemptions related to those. I also just engaged in discussion here on a sub-1% condition involving pre-viability preterm prelabor ruptures. Will you say no attention need be paid to those because of their rarity?

Nothing is going to make you less of a deranged psychopath.

the best thing one can do is point out the insanity, the cruelty and vileness.

You literally just quoted my post and deleted its entirety to replace with "verbose drivel." That contains about as much "point[ing] out" as a pro-life activist screaming "baby-murderers" and plugging their ears when they hear disagreement. Similar delete-the-counter-argument-and-apply-ad-hominem. I understand that you have quite a bit of hatred about it ("deranged psychopath" is quoting you), and this is an extremely intense issue, but you communicate very little beyond implying all pro-life arguments are issued by deranged psychopaths.

[Elegiac]

I heard it a while ago. I can't really remember.

Considering you only started using it recently I'm willing to bet you picked it up from either a right wing YouTuber or some shitty anti-choice Facebook group trying to deal with the fallout of how unpopular pro-life positions are proving to be electorally.

It's useful in gauging how attached people are to insisting opponents use their own labels, and insisting they're personally allowed to reject their opponents labels.

"Useful" in a propagandistic sense does not mean it's factually accurate.

Calling a position pro-abortion implies a belief in abortion as the default option in cases of pregnancy - a position held by few if any people. Meanwhile, "pro-life" implies a position actually concerned with human health and wellbeing which is not held by most people who identify themselves as pro-life since they invariably have other political positions that make unwanted pregnancy more likely or ensure that people in poverty have significantly higher rates of mortality.

But let's be real here, the only reason you've resorted to this nonsense is because you're salty that one of your pet political projects cost your party in the midterms and is likely to continue proving an electoral landmine for Republicans.

[RampageBW1]

I think I've posted enough on the power and privilege games that attend calling others what you like, and not allowing them to call you as they like.

You thinking that folks wanting Abortion clinics to provide better choices does not make it a "Pro-Abortion" movement. It's Pro-Choice, the only people to call it "Pro-Abort" are Pro-Life intellectually dishonest people, such as yourself, who think we want all women to have abortions when we just want people to have a choice in the matter.

It's Pro-Choice. I could have a million things to say about Pro-Life not actually being Pro-Life, but then you'd probably think that I would be dishonest.

[PosPosPos]

Appeal to authority.

By appeal to authority you mean you are too woefully unqualified and ignorant to decide the facts of the matter but your conservative hubris, ego and narratives prevent you from accepting the consensus decided upon by those who are, in fact, qualified to give their judgement on the matter.

Also "no true Scotsman" since you're about to call all the pro-life doctors and nurses out there as not informed.

That's why I mentioned consensus, because the tiny minority of irresponsible and ignorant medical professionals do not a consensus make.

If you have problems understanding what an educated, informed consensus means, you should try looking up a dictionary.

[Rasulis]

We know that Protasiewicz ran on abortion, and to a lesser extent redistricting map, platforms in Wisconsin. Now that we have the final numbers, how did it work?

The biggest danger to the GOP is probably the GOP voter erosion in the Milwaukee suburbs Wukesha, Ozaukee and Washington (WOW) counties. The longtime—and very successful—strategy for Republicans to win statewide was for their strength in the WOW counties to neutralize Milwaukee and have their votes in the rest of the state nullify Democrats’ major edge in Dane County. WOW counties also factored heavily into their gerrymandering strategy.

It worked amazingly well…until it didn’t. GOP historically won WOW counties with 70% or better of the votes. Kelly only received 58.7%. GOP can’t win any statewide races with that kind of margin. What is even more worrying, Knodl won State Senate District 8, which includes part of WOW counties, with just over 1% margin. In 2020, his predecessor won by over 10% margin. Voter erosion in WOW counties is breaking Wisconsin heavily gerrymandered district map.

Abortion is now a primary driver of young voters, who fear that an unplanned pregnancy could derail their life’s plans. Then there is the fear that “women’s rights” could be trampled (by men, no less). You can see this clearly in the long lines of students voting at UWM campus. You don’t take a right that people have taken for granted for almost 50 years and expect no blowback. Turned out, even if the thought of ever personally having a child aborted was something they could never abide, majority of Americans do not want the option of legal abortions to go away.

Also, with good cause, majority of Americans believe that the anti-choice crowd will not just stop at abortion.

In 2021, Missouri legislature took a run at blocking Medicaid funding for Plan B and IUD. In 2022, Idaho state Rep. Brent Crane, Republican chair of the powerful House State Affairs Committee, held hearings on legislation banning emergency contraceptives and possibly IUDs as well. Louisiana legislators are working on “human personhood” bill saying the life begins at the point of fertilization. Which would outlaw Plan B drugs, IUDs and other forms of birth control. Most recent development, the Iowa Attorney General's Office has put on hold its longstanding practice of paying for emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault.

None of these are popular. Even in ruby red states they have detractors. Four GOP lawmakers in Florida, that voted for the 15 weeks ban, voted “no” on the 6 weeks ban. Bottom line, the margins of GOP victories in those district were small enough, that a “yes” vote would have made them unelectable in 2024.

Contrast how DeSantis signed the 15 weeks ban vs. the 6 weeks ban. One with raucous public ceremony attended by members of the press, flanked by Republican lawmakers with cheering supporters in the audience. The other with a press release shortly before midnight.

Listen to how the GOP presidential hopefuls talked about abortion. Contrast them to the Democratic candidates. One side embraces their position. The other avoids talking about it at all costs.

BTW, even if mifepristone is outlawed, people can still get it on line from aidaccess.org regardless of where they live. Unless GOP get their way and starts banning abortion access and care information from the internet.

[Muzjhath]

Then craft legal protections for the baby to ensure it only impacts severe fetal defects and nonviable pregnancy. If your only concerns are actual issues, and health, then please support restrictions for the cases where it's not. If the life of the baby never matters (is never a concern) and everything is legal, then I stand firm in calling it a pro-abort attitude. You want to say issues and rarity, but really you want it to be legal for everything.

As a reminder, rape and incest are very rare, but much time is spent arguing over exemptions related to those. I also just engaged in discussion here on a sub-1% condition involving pre-viability preterm prelabor ruptures. Will you say no attention need be paid to those because of their rarity?

Or, bear with me. We leave it up to the Woman, the Doctor, and in cases when relevant her family.
No 11 year old child should ever carry a pregnancy to term, it's likely to kill the child.

It's easier to not have to create clear and easy exceptions by just leaving it to people. If someone feels abortion is immoral they can choose to not practice it.
For late stage abortions practically all of them are for medical reasons, but at times they're for reasons that makes it so it's unsuitable for the child-to-be in other ways, where no child is more humane for the non-existant child.

Early abortions are more often good family planning. Cheaper than adoption and fostercare systems. And shouldn't be hindered. From a "fiscal conservative" position, wouldn't fewer children in poverty needing government handouts be better? (I feel disgusting just asking that...)

Do I want the choice to be there for everyone? Yes! But not because I want everyone to abort. In my ideal case there would be no non-medical abortions. However the world isn't ideal! So there will be! Women cannot choose not to get pregnant at times when it's bad and they cannot take care of a child.

Rape and Incest are far from that rare.
I garantee that at least 4/5 women you know have been sexually harrassed verbally, 1/2 have been sexually harrassed physically, and far more than you'd be able to guess have been forced to have intercourse with someone.

Besides, which political party is it that are pro-child with adult marriage in the USA? (aka, making pedophilia quote, legal, unquote)

The problem with the rarity and all that? It's too narrow, makes it too hard, and makes abortions defacto-illegal. It's horseshit and dogwhistles.

[s_bushido]

As a reminder, rape and incest are very rare, but much time is spent arguing over exemptions related to those. I also just engaged in discussion here on a sub-1% condition involving pre-viability preterm prelabor ruptures. Will you say no attention need be paid to those because of their rarity?

You are the last person who wants to be talking about what's "rare" in the context of abortions. When every """pro-life""" propagandist is out here pretending that women routinely murder their fully-developed infants, despite the reality being that 90-something% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks. People bring up rape and incest in a vain attempt to appeal to the humanity of those who have none, as they demonstrate in their opposition to even those provisions. How did you put it? Ah, yes:

deranged psychopaths

You know, the sort of people who want to force others to carry their rapist's child, even when that rapist is their father/brother/etc. As if legislating mandatory pregnancy in the first place wasn't bad enough...