Looks like the only investigation is going to be on the people who filmed the video
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Here are corporate sponsors of Planned Parenthood.
We are not totally powerless here. We can shop elsewhere for goods and services. However, there is a difference between corporate sponsors who donate directly vs. those who do donation matching by employees. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood is listed as a 501c3 organization which makes it eligible for matched funds. So a company cannot legally refuse to match a charity on the list with out nixing the whole program. So in those cases, it’s up to your discretion.
Here are some companies responses:
To those who feel strongly about ending abortion, our main focus should be on those companies who directly donate to the abortion industry.
We can bitch about it here and we should. But we should also write these companies and tell them we won’t do business with them as long as they support the largest provider of abortion in the nation.
Not shopping with these companies is great. Telling them why is even better. Given the recent bad publicity, it should have some extra oomph.
I am doing it. I am asking those of you who oppose abortion to take a little time and send a small message. 2 letters is better than 1. 100 letters is better than 2, 1000 letters will get someone’s attention.
These companies may like abortion, but they like profits a lot more.
We can also write our congressmen to put forth legislation to have Planned Parenthood removed as a 503c charity so long as they are in the abortion business.
I know it seems like a drop in the bucket, but if enough people do it, it will make a difference. Really, it take 5 minutes to send an email.
Companies who were put on the list mistakenly and have asked their names to be removed:
Have a Coke and a smile…[/quote]
Well, for what it’s worth, I don’t use products from any of those companies…with the exception of Microsoft, and that is not by choice. Fucking Windows and Excel on the company computer.[/quote]
So far the coolest company by far has been Starbucks. They actually contacted me to discuss the issue. They had their research ready and made it clear in no uncertain terms that they make no direct contributions to Planned Parenthood and that their only involvement is donation matching for 503c charities, which a lot of people do.
I really appreciated that that so respectfully responded to my activism and put to rest my concerns. My hats off to Starbucks. Cool company. Cool people.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Looks like the only investigation is going to be on the people who filmed the video
Oh, Planned Parenthood is getting investigated in 8 states. I don’t care if they investigate the wistle-blowers. They have the edited clips and the full videos available. Seems to me they are not hiding.
And if the best Planned Parenthood can do is attack the messenger, sounds to me like they are fucking busted. If not for something illegal, busted for describing abortion for what it really is, callous murder by unthinking, unfeeling profiteers.
Fuck this stupid bullshit. Let’s just ignore the disgustingly barbaric practice of harvesting an unborn child’s, sorry fetus’, organs. Let’s ignore the glaringly hypocrisy of the United States when it comes to the unborn.
Fuck these people.
"Anti-abortion activists, spurred by the release of the Center for Medical Progress?highly edited undercover videos on fetal tissue donation, held a rally opposing federal funding for Planned Parenthood in front of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday in Washington, DC. "
uh, no asshole, the raw unedited footage is available online, but heaven forbid we actually talk about the actual issue.
FUCK!
“Usually you can see the whole brain come out,” Ginde says as she describes the procedure.
“Here’s some organs for you,” a Planned Parenthood employee said. “Here’s a stomach, kidney, heart.”
I’m really at a loss as to how this is acceptable here.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m really at a lose as to how this is acceptable here.
[/quote]
I’m currently on an “unplug” from politics, and it honestly couldn’t have come at a better time. I’ve barely been able to skim this thread, and can’t bring myself to press play on any of the videos. I can barely even read the headlines.
It’s a sad, sad world we live in.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“Usually you can see the whole brain come out,” Ginde says as she describes the procedure.
“Here’s some organs for you,” a Planned Parenthood employee said. “Here’s a stomach, kidney, heart.”
I’m really at a loss as to how this is acceptable here.
[/quote]
No shit. “Oh it’s another boy!” OMG! Horrific.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m really at a lose as to how this is acceptable here.
[/quote]
I’m currently on an “unplug” from politics, and it honestly couldn’t have come at a better time. I’ve barely been able to skim this thread, and can’t bring myself to press play on any of the videos. I can barely even read the headlines.
It’s a sad, sad world we live in. [/quote]
The last is by far the worst. I am so glad they are being exposed finally. Caught in their own words, caught red handed.
I’ve been thinking about this for the last couple of days, trying to put my finger on why the harvesting of fetal organs and tissue should, if the comments here and elsewhere are any indication, be considered even more horrible than the killing of the unborn is in and of itself.
I admit I have been unsuccessful in this. “It should turn your stomach!”, people assure me. “The very thought of it should revolt and outrage you!”, people sternly tell me. The problem is that it just doesn’t.
It’s a problem of empathy, I’ve decided. Not that I am pathologically devoid of empathy, just that I have nobody to empathise with.
On her second pregnancy, my wife had a miscarriage. We were devastated, of course, not because we thought that the baby had undergone any suffering, but because we really wanted that baby. Whenever I hear about a woman suffering a miscarriage, I feel a twinge of sadness on her behalf, because I remember how sad we were when it happened to us.
Some time later, a friend of ours lost her second child, a one-year-old girl, to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The baby just stopped breathing in the crib one evening, and by the time the father thought to check on her, she was gone. My wife and I felt absolutely terrible about this. We also had a little boy and a baby girl, and we could imagine how tremendously sad we all would be if our little girl were to die.
On whose behalf should I feel sadness in the case of fetal organ harvesting? Or for that matter, the abortion itself? Certainly not the parents. They may indeed regret the decision later, but at the time their overriding emotion is likely one of relief.
I suppose one could say “on behalf of the babies”, but their problems are over. A moment of pain (if even that), and then oblivion once again… or an eternity with their Lord and Creator, whichever eventuality one happens to believe in.
Death is sad, I suppose, in and of itself (at least for the survivors of the deceased), but it is also inevitable. Start feeling sad on behalf of everyone on this planet who dies, and you’ll never be happy again. Start feeling angry about every single person whose life is snuffed out prematurely, and you’ll give yourself an aneurism, or an ulcer at the very least.
It’s kind of like all the outrage about Cecil the lion. I like lions, and it’s kind of sad that this one in particular, who wasn’t a threat to anybody (anybody human, that is; the zebras and wildebeests may have had a different opinion) got whacked in the undignified way that he did, I just haven’t been able to work myself up into a righteous froth about it…except to opine that the Minnesota dentist who killed him is kind of a dweeb.
The Cecil shitstorm, however, has made me consider just how much the pro-life movement and PETA and animal rights movements have in common.
Both are famous for public displays of absolute frothing rage and disgust over the killing of organisms that people outside their respective movements hardly consider worthy of consideration, except as food (in the case of Tasty Animals) or medical supplies (in the case of Valuable Fetuses).
Both are fond of splashing billboards and internet browser displays with gore to evoke an emotional response, preferably one of disgust and loathing, which is calculated to override any rational objections the viewer might have to the position.
Both, therefore, insult me by rather than trying to convince me by presenting an intelligent, definitive case against the practice of slaughtering a living organism, regardless of the number of chromosomes it has, how far along in the gestational cycle it is, or how valuable its organ or muscle tissue is, instead try to coerce me by appealing to my basest emotions: quite literally, to my “gut feelings”.
I also find it interesting how the PETA people and the Pro-Life people tend to be on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, and how few of the members of one group make it into the camps of the other. In fact, they are known to belittle and ridicule each other’s positions, even though their respective positions are identical.
For the record, I think PETA is a fucking joke, and also think that abortion strains the limits of the definition of a “necessary” evil.
But I also think the world could use more lions, tigers and apes, and fewer people.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I’ve been thinking about this for the last couple of days, trying to put my finger on why the harvesting of fetal organs and tissue should, if the comments here and elsewhere are any indication, be considered even more horrible than the killing of the unborn is in and of itself.
I admit I have been unsuccessful in this. “It should turn your stomach!”, people assure me. “The very thought of it should revolt and outrage you!”, people sternly tell me. The problem is that it just doesn’t.
It’s a problem of empathy, I’ve decided. Not that I am pathologically devoid of empathy, just that I have nobody to empathise with.
On her second pregnancy, my wife had a miscarriage. We were devastated, of course, not because we thought that the baby had undergone any suffering, but because we really wanted that baby. Whenever I hear about a woman suffering a miscarriage, I feel a twinge of sadness on her behalf, because I remember how sad we were when it happened to us.
Some time later, a friend of ours lost her second child, a one-year-old girl, to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The baby just stopped breathing in the crib one evening, and by the time the father thought to check on her, she was gone. My wife and I felt absolutely terrible about this. We also had a little boy and a baby girl, and we could imagine how tremendously sad we all would be if our little girl were to die.
On whose behalf should I feel sadness in the case of fetal organ harvesting? Or for that matter, the abortion itself? Certainly not the parents. They may indeed regret the decision later, but at the time their overriding emotion is likely one of relief.
I suppose one could say “on behalf of the babies”, but their problems are over. A moment of pain (if even that), and then oblivion once again… or an eternity with their Lord and Creator, whichever eventuality one happens to believe in.
Death is sad, I suppose, in and of itself (at least for the survivors of the deceased), but it is also inevitable. Start feeling sad on behalf of everyone on this planet who dies, and you’ll never be happy again. Start feeling angry about every single person whose life is snuffed out prematurely, and you’ll give yourself an aneurism, or an ulcer at the very least.
It’s kind of like all the outrage about Cecil the lion. I like lions, and it’s kind of sad that this one in particular, who wasn’t a threat to anybody (anybody human, that is; the zebras and wildebeests may have had a different opinion) got whacked in the undignified way that he did, I just haven’t been able to work myself up into a righteous froth about it…except to opine that the Minnesota dentist who killed him is kind of a dweeb.
The Cecil shitstorm, however, has made me consider just how much the pro-life movement and PETA and animal rights movements have in common.
Both are famous for public displays of absolute frothing rage and disgust over the killing of organisms that people outside their respective movements hardly consider worthy of consideration, except as food (in the case of Tasty Animals) or medical supplies (in the case of Valuable Fetuses).
Both are fond of splashing billboards and internet browser displays with gore to evoke an emotional response, preferably one of disgust and loathing, which is calculated to override any rational objections the viewer might have to the position.
Both, therefore, insult me by rather than trying to convince me by presenting an intelligent, definitive case against the practice of slaughtering a living organism, regardless of the number of chromosomes it has, how far along in the gestational cycle it is, or how valuable its organ or muscle tissue is, instead try to coerce me by appealing to my basest emotions: quite literally, to my “gut feelings”.
I also find it interesting how the PETA people and the Pro-Life people tend to be on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, and how few of the members of one group make it into the camps of the other. In fact, they are known to belittle and ridicule each other’s positions, even though their respective positions are identical.
For the record, I think PETA is a fucking joke, and also think that abortion strains the limits of the definition of a “necessary” evil.
But I also think the world could use more lions, tigers and apes, and fewer people.
[/quote]
Okay, if someone painlessly kills you, I’ll remember not to empathize with you and to only feel bad for your wife. What you are saying about fetuses is true of all humans.
If on the last video the “Another baby!”, “It’s a boy!”, “who wants a brain?”, doesn’t fuck with your head, I can only assume you do not believe in the innate value and dignity of a human life. something your seem to acknowledge in this post, which is at least honest. However, there is no reason to exclude humans other than fetuses from this logic. If there is a loner hermit that gets painlessly murdered you would have to agree you should feel no empathy for anyone and (presumably) no one is guilty of anything terribly wrong. You, like another friend I know in real life assign worth based on societal feeling. If no one cares, it doesn’t matter. If someone isn’t wanted, they aren’t worth caring about. I believe in natural rights that are not granted by society and therefor cannot be removed by society. It’s fine if you believe what you are saying, but you have to realize you are denying natural innate human rights.
The first image in my daughters scrap book my wife made is our first picture of Maebyn (my daughter). It is at 8 weeks and 4 days of life, in the womb. Every child, by their nature, deserves that caring. If that want isn’t there, it is the failure of society, not the child. Even to the atheist it is a delinquency of evolution. The fetus should not pay for OUR failure. But I’m sure my personal story is just trying to emotionally appeal over your logic. The only catch is, there isn’t any real good logic on EITHER side to override. Human rights are arbitrary. Natural human rights lead inexorably to a fetus having rights. The problem is people say they believe in natural human rights and then deny a fetus because they don’t look like us, or they don’t think like us, or they don’t feel like us. THAT is the general appeal to emotion devoid of rationality in the argument. I had a friend tell me, “but they have gills and a nervous system like an ant”, apparently because a reference to something a fish or insect has makes them not human. Of course they irrationally don’t apply consistent standards to born children.
That is what I find truly destining in our society, people no longer actually believe natural human rights. And that is a super slippery slope for a society to move in. Societal granted rights can lead to terrible terrible things. Not the least being the casual killing of millions of innocents. Look at history and reflect of the periods where the cultural norm of “they don’t look or think like us so why care” argument has succeeded.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
On whose behalf should I feel sadness in the case of fetal organ harvesting? [/quote]
The whole of humanity?
That some people, in 2015, still aren’t seen as people because of the way they look, or their age.
That another human, who curiously happened to survive the womb, not only can, but willingly does, and celebrates afterwards, the termination of innocent life.
It’s the pro-abortion side that creates the need for the argument to be appeal to emotion, not the pro-life. Because if one was to use logic and science, there would be zero chance that abortions of pregnancies resultant of consensual sex between adults would be legal. In fact, science tells us it is murder, and logic tells us, our constitution is supposed to prevent these murders.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
On whose behalf should I feel sadness in the case of fetal organ harvesting? [/quote]
The whole of humanity?
That some people, in 2015, still aren’t seen as people because of the way they look, or their age.
That another human, who curiously happened to survive the womb, not only can, but willingly does, and celebrates afterwards, the termination of innocent life.
It’s the pro-abortion side that creates the need for the argument to be appeal to emotion, not the pro-life. Because if one was to use logic and science, there would be zero chance that abortions of pregnancies resultant of consensual sex between adults would be legal. In fact, science tells us it is murder, and logic tells us, our constitution is supposed to prevent these murders. [/quote]
Agree, much more concise than my jabbering.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It’s the pro-abortion side that creates the need for the argument to be appeal to emotion, not the pro-life. Because if one was to use logic and science, there would be zero chance that abortions of pregnancies resultant of consensual sex between adults would be legal. In fact, science tells us it is murder, and logic tells us, our constitution is supposed to prevent these murders. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean, and I’m not sure I would agree with you even if I did.
Science can tell us whether a thing is human or not, whether it is alive or dead, and what the cause of its death was. Science can tell us whether a homicide took place. Science cannot tell us whether a “murder” took place.
Murder is a legal construct, and the law in the preponderance of jurisdictions currently says that abortion is not murder. Laws are subject to change, of course, but I wouldn’t hold your breath if I were you. Overturning Roe v Wade is not the sort of decision I would expect from a Court that just legalised same-sex marriage.
Incidentally, our Constitution is silent on the matter of homicide. Quite literally, murder is not a federal crime…except under very specific circumstances specified in United States Code, but not in the Constitution.
Inasmuch as the Constitution does not specify what a “person” is, nor outline under what circumstances ending the life of a “person” would be “murder”, logic tells us our Constitution doesn’t say a damned thing about what it’s supposed to prevent.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It’s the pro-abortion side that creates the need for the argument to be appeal to emotion, not the pro-life. Because if one was to use logic and science, there would be zero chance that abortions of pregnancies resultant of consensual sex between adults would be legal. In fact, science tells us it is murder, and logic tells us, our constitution is supposed to prevent these murders. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean, and I’m not sure I would agree with you even if I did.
Science can tell us whether a thing is human or not, whether it is alive or dead, and what the cause of its death was. Science can tell us whether a homicide took place. Science cannot tell us whether a “murder” took place.
Murder is a legal construct, and the law in the preponderance of jurisdictions currently says that abortion is not murder. Laws are subject to change, of course, but I wouldn’t hold your breath if I were you. Overturning Roe v Wade is not the sort of decision I would expect from a Court that just legalised same-sex marriage.
Incidentally, our Constitution is silent on the matter of homicide. Quite literally, murder is not a federal crime…except under very specific circumstances specified in United States Code, but not in the Constitution.
Inasmuch as the Constitution does not specify what a “person” is, nor outline under what circumstances ending the life of a “person” would be “murder”, logic tells us our Constitution doesn’t say a damned thing about what it’s supposed to prevent.
[/quote]
It is pretty clear that the right to life is enshrined in our foundation, though it is true that the constitution left out explicit instructions on some things considered overly self evident. The DOI which is the founding document for the constitution makes inherent self ownership clear.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It’s the pro-abortion side that creates the need for the argument to be appeal to emotion, not the pro-life. Because if one was to use logic and science, there would be zero chance that abortions of pregnancies resultant of consensual sex between adults would be legal. In fact, science tells us it is murder, and logic tells us, our constitution is supposed to prevent these murders. [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean, and I’m not sure I would agree with you even if I did.
Science can tell us whether a thing is human or not, whether it is alive or dead, and what the cause of its death was. Science can tell us whether a homicide took place. Science cannot tell us whether a “murder” took place.
Murder is a legal construct, and the law in the preponderance of jurisdictions currently says that abortion is not murder. Laws are subject to change, of course, but I wouldn’t hold your breath if I were you. Overturning Roe v Wade is not the sort of decision I would expect from a Court that just legalised same-sex marriage.
Incidentally, our Constitution is silent on the matter of homicide. Quite literally, murder is not a federal crime…except under very specific circumstances specified in United States Code, but not in the Constitution.
Inasmuch as the Constitution does not specify what a “person” is, nor outline under what circumstances ending the life of a “person” would be “murder”, logic tells us our Constitution doesn’t say a damned thing about what it’s supposed to prevent.
[/quote]
You’re being much more literal than I am, but that is to be expected and I should know better by now, lol.
I’m basically saying:
Science tells us it is a unique human life from the moment of conception.
Logic says if it’s human, it has rights.
And while maybe not verbatim, the Constitution is regularly regarded as a document designed to constrain government and protect the rights of the people.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I’ve been thinking about this for the last couple of days, trying to put my finger on why the harvesting of fetal organs and tissue should, if the comments here and elsewhere are any indication, be considered even more horrible than the killing of the unborn is in and of itself.
I admit I have been unsuccessful in this. “It should turn your stomach!”, people assure me. “The very thought of it should revolt and outrage you!”, people sternly tell me. The problem is that it just doesn’t.
It’s a problem of empathy, I’ve decided. Not that I am pathologically devoid of empathy, just that I have nobody to empathise with.
On her second pregnancy, my wife had a miscarriage. We were devastated, of course, not because we thought that the baby had undergone any suffering, but because we really wanted that baby. Whenever I hear about a woman suffering a miscarriage, I feel a twinge of sadness on her behalf, because I remember how sad we were when it happened to us.
Some time later, a friend of ours lost her second child, a one-year-old girl, to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The baby just stopped breathing in the crib one evening, and by the time the father thought to check on her, she was gone. My wife and I felt absolutely terrible about this. We also had a little boy and a baby girl, and we could imagine how tremendously sad we all would be if our little girl were to die.
On whose behalf should I feel sadness in the case of fetal organ harvesting? Or for that matter, the abortion itself? Certainly not the parents. They may indeed regret the decision later, but at the time their overriding emotion is likely one of relief.
I suppose one could say “on behalf of the babies”, but their problems are over. A moment of pain (if even that), and then oblivion once again… or an eternity with their Lord and Creator, whichever eventuality one happens to believe in.
Death is sad, I suppose, in and of itself (at least for the survivors of the deceased), but it is also inevitable. Start feeling sad on behalf of everyone on this planet who dies, and you’ll never be happy again. Start feeling angry about every single person whose life is snuffed out prematurely, and you’ll give yourself an aneurism, or an ulcer at the very least.
It’s kind of like all the outrage about Cecil the lion. I like lions, and it’s kind of sad that this one in particular, who wasn’t a threat to anybody (anybody human, that is; the zebras and wildebeests may have had a different opinion) got whacked in the undignified way that he did, I just haven’t been able to work myself up into a righteous froth about it…except to opine that the Minnesota dentist who killed him is kind of a dweeb.
The Cecil shitstorm, however, has made me consider just how much the pro-life movement and PETA and animal rights movements have in common.
Both are famous for public displays of absolute frothing rage and disgust over the killing of organisms that people outside their respective movements hardly consider worthy of consideration, except as food (in the case of Tasty Animals) or medical supplies (in the case of Valuable Fetuses).
Both are fond of splashing billboards and internet browser displays with gore to evoke an emotional response, preferably one of disgust and loathing, which is calculated to override any rational objections the viewer might have to the position.
Both, therefore, insult me by rather than trying to convince me by presenting an intelligent, definitive case against the practice of slaughtering a living organism, regardless of the number of chromosomes it has, how far along in the gestational cycle it is, or how valuable its organ or muscle tissue is, instead try to coerce me by appealing to my basest emotions: quite literally, to my “gut feelings”.
I also find it interesting how the PETA people and the Pro-Life people tend to be on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, and how few of the members of one group make it into the camps of the other. In fact, they are known to belittle and ridicule each other’s positions, even though their respective positions are identical.
For the record, I think PETA is a fucking joke, and also think that abortion strains the limits of the definition of a “necessary” evil.
But I also think the world could use more lions, tigers and apes, and fewer people.
[/quote]
Your asking why you should be horrified? Nobody can control your emotions but you and most of the time, you cannot help how you feel.
These videos are simply an underhanded way of exposing abortion for what it is. You have the abortionists themselves talking about arm, legs, brains, livers, and sex.
Those of us who choose to understand abortion for what it is actually are not surprise that people so devoid of morality could further act immorally.
I commend the creators of the videos for taking this angle because it gives the pro-abortion lobby nowhere to hide.
What are you killing? A human being. Period.
And when you are talking about killing a human being, how a person feels, and thinks about the consequence of having a baby is moot.
The argument is are you willing to kill in order to get what you want out of this life?
Is what you want out of this life important enough to kill for? Because abortion is the willful killing of a human being. Only the most emotionally and intellectually dense can deny that fact. Meaning, you have to be an idiot to think of it as something else.
I am sorry about your miscarriage.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is pretty clear that the right to life is enshrined in our foundation, though it is true that the constitution left out explicit instructions on some things considered overly self evident. The DOI which is the founding document for the constitution makes inherent self ownership clear.[/quote]
You would have to do some pretty fast talking to convince me that when he penned the first sentence of the Declaration, Jefferson intended to include unborn fetuses (or for that matter, women and slaves) into the category of “all men” who were endowed unalienable rights.
As for the Constitution, the only place where personhood is even remotely defined is the fourteenth amendment. Let me know what the third word of that amendment is.
The Supreme Court were unconvinced that abortion was a violation of an unborn fetus’s Constitutional under the fourteenth amendment, but decided that banning it would be a violation of the mother’s rights under the ninth. That position has not changed.
Again, it may in the future.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is pretty clear that the right to life is enshrined in our foundation, though it is true that the constitution left out explicit instructions on some things considered overly self evident. The DOI which is the founding document for the constitution makes inherent self ownership clear.[/quote]
You would have to do some pretty fast talking to convince me that when he penned the first sentence of the Declaration, Jefferson intended to include unborn fetuses (or for that matter, women and slaves) into the category of “all men” who were endowed unalienable rights.
As for the Constitution, the only place where personhood is even remotely defined is the fourteenth amendment. Let me know what the third word of that amendment is.
The Supreme Court were unconvinced that abortion was a violation of an unborn fetus’s Constitutional under the fourteenth amendment, but decided that banning it would be a violation of the mother’s rights under the ninth. That position has not changed.
Again, it may in the future. [/quote]
You do not think that Jefferson thought the unjust killing of a slave or woman was murder?
[quote]pat wrote:
I am sorry about your miscarriage.[/quote]
Thanks, Pat. So were we.
The bright side is, after we lost that baby we tried again, and had a beautiful baby girl.
I like to console myself with the thought that had we not lost that baby, my daughter would not have been conceived, so it all worked out in the end.