Abortion

[elcheeso]

I probably shouldn't get involved considering how much of a clusterfuck these threads turn into, but anyway...

Chou, I don't think any of that really amounts to rape. It's a horrible and shitty thing to do, but the problem with your argument is that all forms of contraception (barring stuff like hysterectomies and physical castration, I guess) come with a chance of failing and resulting in pregnancy. Condoms, the pill, vasectomies, etc etc, they all have that slight chance of failure, which I honestly don't think is really communicated enough so most people aren't really aware.

This basically makes "safe" hetero sex a game of chance, with the "losers" getting pregnant if they're really unlucky. The consent was there, even if the people weren't educated that "safe" sex still had a chance of failing, so I don't think it would be fair to call it rape in any sense of the word (also seems a bit degrading to actual rape victims). Even if it did count as rape I don't think men should ever be the ones in control of what happens to a woman's body, considering abortion is generally a form of (very uncomfortable) surgery.

That being said, however, I do think men should have the right to sign away any rights and responsibilities to parenthood before the birth. For example, a dude has a one-night stand, the woman gets pregnant and wants to keep it, he would then be able to choose whether he wants to sign away all his rights as a biological father (so not having to pay child support, but also not being allowed access to the child), along with not being able to go back on it when the kid turns 18 so he can skip having to pay for it while still getting the benefit of, you know, being a parent.

Of course, there's many problems with that, not even counting whether you think that men should have to pay for their kids if it's a standard sexual encounter. Like how long would the guy have to debate it (since presumably his answer would also affect the woman's choice to keep the child), what if the dude can't be found, is it fair to make people make life-long decisions like that in <9 months, etc etc. I'm not sure it could ever become a real legal option due to the many problems with it. Complex issues suck, in other words.

 

[MrIndigo]

Some more food for thought on sex and pregnancy



So building on these above points...

If you force a person to have sex, it's rape right?

It's also said that if any form of coercion is used, or if one party is unaware of sex, or lacks the faculties to consent, it's rape (ie. drugs, alcohol, statuatory, etc. etc.). Keep in mind that consent is key to the sexual act.

So... if say, the couple agrees to use a condom, but the guy secretly takes it off halfway through and ejaculates inside her, this would be breaking the woman's consent, no? She consented to protected sex. She didn't consent to unprotected sex. Question-- do you consider this rape?

If you do, than rape should be established when any of the mutually agreed-upon terms of consent from both parties are broken.

When a party is deceived by the other in doing the act such that it violates the terms of consent, it would then be considered, rape.

Correct, and this is more or less how the legal system tends to deal with it.

Following this line of thought, the examples I quoted above would also logically be considered rape.

Should a woman lie to you about her use of birth control (whether it be diaphram, pills, or any other internal means), or following the sexual act use the contents of a used condom or other material to make the sex "unsafe" (ie. compromise the terms of consent), or heck-- just secretly poke a hole in the condom before hand...

The last one would be rape, I think, though not certain. Not sure about the first - it's not a clear line between consent, freely given but based on misleading information, and no valid consent.

For instance, it is rape to have sex with someone while they think you are another particular person (e.g. you pretend to be their husband when you're his twin brother), but it is not rape to have sex with someone while they think you have a particular characteristic (e.g. you pretend to be a millionaire).

The second would not be rape, but I think it would still be illegal under certain types of proprietary law. It would be like someone stealing your blood, or frozen embryos, etc.

In which case, the man would be raped-- he would be a rape victim. In which case, should he not have the right to an abortion, or at least the legal right to not acknowledge the child as his own (ie. not take up financial responsibilities?).

In the second case, you might be able to get an equitable injunction to do something like this. In fact, if genetic material is considered property outright, it's possible you could even get a court to force the abortion to prevent the unauthorised misuse of your property (though I expect courts would not do so under public policy grounds).

Alternatively, if you don't consider term-violation as a basis of rape-- essentially establishing consent from any consent to any sexual act, than you can hold the couple responsible for the pregnancy and throw my above thoughts out the window. This also would make some sense to me as even safe sex comes with a risk of pregnancy-- heck, fooling around without sex and cumming on the girl's stomach/butt while not paying attention where the stuff goes has a risk of pregnancy. If you think of consent that way than my above thoughts can be ignored. :P

At least in that case you're being reckless, or at least acknowledging the potential by your actions, so you should bear at least some of the responsibility.

 

[ck49]

To paraphrase John Locke: I am a member of this country and a citizen of this government, and as a result I get certain things from the government, such as protection, and I give certain things to the government, mainly taxes. I do not want to live in a society where murder is legal, because I really don't want to be murdered. I am willing to give up my ability to murder people in exchange for not getting murdered. It's a pretty sweet deal.

Abortion does not follow that same logic. I am not an embryo, nor is any lawful member of our society. I am not willing to give up our ability to abort a fetus, as I don't get anything in exchange. Banning abortion breaks the basic social contract that underlies government.

this.

Religious arguments are bs since we have a secular state. Unless we plan on giving the embryo complete human rights, we can't call it murder.

As for who chooses, if the father wants it and mother doesn't, the dad can fuck off. That being said, if the mother wants it and father doesn't, the father should have the right to claim for abortion and if the mother says no, be exempt from payments. If the mother says yes then there's no harm done, though the couple should both pay for the abortion, so the man doesnt just run away.

 

[Chou Toshio]

nice responses both elcheeso and Mr.I. I'd just point out to elcheeso that I was talking about deception-- purposeful and willful breaking of the terms under which consent was made. All sex has a risk of pregnancy, but you consent to take whatever level of risk is associated with your chosen form of birth control. In my examples, that degree of risk was completely compromised by essentially making it completely unprotected sex.

The choice to "abandon fatherhood during pregnancy" sounds reasonable and fair-- an option that would/should be implemented. Those other concerns are pretty minor in working out the details.

 

[elcheeso]

nice responses both elcheeso and Mr.I. I'd just point out to elcheeso that I was talking about deception-- purposeful and willful breaking of the terms under which consent was made. All sex has a risk of pregnancy, but you consent to take whatever level of risk is associated with your chosen form of birth control. In my examples, that degree of risk was completely compromised by essentially making it completely unprotected sex.

The choice to "abandon fatherhood during pregnancy" sounds reasonable and fair-- an option that would/should be implemented. Those other concerns are pretty minor in working out the details.

I understand it was about deception, I guess I just didn't really explain my position very well. Speaking as someone who has caught an ex poking holes in our condoms, I see it as a fundamentally horrible thing to do... but not rape. I think any guy in that situation (or any situation, personally) should definitely have the option of signing away his rights to parenthood and everything that comes with it, but I suppose I just feel uncomfortable calling the sex that led to it rape, despite the woman severely increasing her chance of getting pregnant due to it.

Basically, I see it more akin to MrIndigo's example of having sex with someone while they're pretending to be a millionaire. Deceptive and horrible, yes, but not a rape situation, because the risk of pregnancy was always there, IMO. The risk of pregnancy was simply increased several fold.

 

[Crux]

In Australia we give our unwanted children to the dingos

 

[Spork]

dingo took mah baby

 

[mattj]

I feel that the allowance of abortion is distinctly different from the allowance of murder (many people like to equate the two, and maybe they aren't wrong, I'm not the judge), as allowing murder would break the social contract between a government and its citizens, while allowing abortion does not.

To paraphrase John Locke: I am a member of this country and a citizen of this government, and as a result I get certain things from the government, such as protection, and I give certain things to the government, mainly taxes. I do not want to live in a society where murder is legal, because I really don't want to be murdered. I am willing to give up my ability to murder people in exchange for not getting murdered. It's a pretty sweet deal.

Abortion does not follow that same logic. I am not an embryo, nor is any lawful member of our society. I am not willing to give up our ability to abort a fetus, as I don't get anything in exchange. Banning abortion breaks the basic social contract that underlies government.

Respectfully, you aren't an embryo now, but you were. Had abortion been illegal you would have gotten something. You would be giving up the right to murder embryos in exchange for not having been murdered as an embryo. At least in the sense you described the allowance of abortion and the allowance of murder are the same. It would be like me complaining about paying local school taxes because I graduated 8 years ago. I still got something from the system.

 

[Cartoons!]

No, I just thought Mattj's question was intentionally stirring the pot, which he later clarified it was not.

How on earth did you get "people who disagree shut up" from that?

I'm getting too cynical..sorry for putting words in your mouth.

Anyone familiar with Lila Rose? She's gone undercover a number of times investigating the nature of abortion clinics and the philosophies practiced under some circumstances, like, say, trafficking, rape, and if you happen to have dark skin.

Speaking of hypocrisy though, weren't Christians always known for taking care of the widows and orphans? I'd desperately like to see more Christians of the pro-life persuasion be willing to actually adopt all the unwanted babies.

 

[Spork]

Well, most charities focusing on foster care actually are christian organisations, so I don't think there's too much hipocrisy there. The hipocrisy comes IMO when fundie christians are fiscally conservative, since Jesus basically commanded the rich to just give all their shit to the poor - really, Jesus was a terrible economic adviser, and his policies wouldn't even work long-term, but he's undoubtedly liberal in that sense.

Anyway, the cleaning up of abortion clinics absolutely needs to happen.

 

[Wikey]

I hate that I'm alone with the religious nuts on this one. (mattj's most recent post was awesome though) Abortion is murder. I don't really see any reason this isn't true. The bullshit excuses anti-lifers come up with are insane.

-A fetus is just a mass of cells that couldn't survive outside the mother!
--A human is just a mass of cells that couldn't survive outside Earth's atmosphere. And further most human beings alive now couldn't survive if they were suddenly the last person on Earth. We all rely on others for survival.

-A fetus is incapable of thought and so has no rights!
--Babies aren't really capable of thought when they're first born. Are you suggesting it is okay to kill both them and the mentally disabled?

-We kill living things all the time!
--Yes, but they aren't humans. The goal of any species is to propogate their own species. This is why murderers and cannibals are universally looked down on.

 

[Spork]

What do the mother's beliefs or "stress" (what?) have to do with it being allowed? If she feels bad about abortion she shouldn't have one.

blah

You are more unreasonable than most of the anti-choice people in this thread, really. Read the arguments I've made again and relate them to what you've said here. Extending basic human rights to a foetus has HUGELY problematic implications, and the potential for life is NOT the same as actual human life. Newborn babies (and probably late term foetuses) are absolutely alive, have thought processes and feel pain, and can have no effect on the mother whatsoever if the mother doesn't want it to. Same with the mentally disabled (the referral to whom is actually quite offensive). You can't give a foetus up for adoption.

Also, no matter what your beliefs on abortion are, opposing abortion in every single case is just outright insane, especially since the core of the anti-choice argument is that "every human life, and every human foetus with the potential for life, is equal. Absolute opposition to abortion is both authoritarian and misogynistic.

 

[Dark Prince Raven]

How about this:

We let those who are pro abortion have abortions, and we let those who are anti abortions not have abortions :)

That way, everyone wins except the people who can't win unless they're taking away the rights of others :)

Why can't we be friends
Why can't we be friends
I hope Fred Phelps dies horribly
Why can't we be friends

 

[Banedon]

-We kill living things all the time!
--Yes, but they aren't humans. The goal of any species is to propogate their own species. This is why murderers and cannibals are universally looked down on.

A couple of things:

1. Do you believe in laws restricting animal cruelty? Or do you think we can kill animals at will since they aren't humans?
2. Do you believe in rape? If the goal of any species is to propagate their own offspring, then we had better impregnate every woman in the world right? Who cares if they don't want to have children, get them pregnant as long as it propagates our species?

I can believe in neither #1 nor (especially) #2.

@Dark Prince Raven - that would be good and all if we didn't have anti-abortionists lobbying hard to stop abortion unilaterally, or assassinate abortion doctors, etc.

 

[Dark Prince Raven]

--A human is just a mass of cells that couldn't survive outside Earth's atmosphere. And further most human beings alive now couldn't survive if they were suddenly the last person on Earth. We all rely on others for survival.

A finger is just a mass of cells that couldn't survive unattached to a living body, therefore chopping off a finger is murder (I just reductio ad absurdum'd your reductio ad absurdum)

--Babies aren't really capable of thought when they're first born. Are you suggesting it is okay to kill both them and the mentally disabled?

Babies and the mentally disabled ARE capable of thought, just at lower level than average humans, like llamas and Scientologists. Now we have the brain dead on the other hand, who aren't capable of thought, and it's okay to kill them.

@Dark Prince Raven - that would be good and all if we didn't have anti-abortionists lobbying hard to stop abortion unilaterally, or assassiate abortion doctors, etc.

Just offering a compromise to both parties; personally, I think one party is a lot more open to compromise than the other.

 

[Spork]

(I just reductio ad absurdum'd your reductio ad absurdum)

ahahaaaa.

 

[Fishy]

banedon, i never said that other things that are alive don't want to stay alive. that's obvious. but your argument about killing is so very flippin' pointless. unless you recognize that every living being, be it plant, insect, bacteria, or human, MUST "kill" in order for its own survival, then you just don't get it. why are tigers allowed to hunt smaller animals? should we fish for all the sharks in the oceans and other bodies of water so that they stop eating fish and other sea life? no. it's fucking nature. i am a human and at the top of the food chain, so i will do as i damn well please for my own survival. to equate killing a human being to killing bacteria implies that they have the same value, and that is sooo far from true.

you keep talking about the grey area for aborting a fetus, and yes, doctors and educated women DO understand when it's best to abort an unwanted fetus, which is at least before the end of the first trimester, or probably much sooner. each day further into a pregnancy is riskier for the mother, whether she wants to abort or not. when it is best to abort is not really the grey area, but when a fetus is considered worthy of life, is what people against abortion struggle to decide on. or something.

mattj, I don't think it's a fair comparison between paying taxes for a school you've already graduated from, and being alive because abortion "was" illegal, therein granting you life regardless of any other circumstances. if you were aborted as a fetus, you wouldn't be posting in this thread, and you wouldn't have the capacity to give a damn. contemplating "what if you were aborted because of theoretical laws" is moot over and over again, since only those alive can discuss such an idea.

I think the biggest thing that people are missing is that you don't ever just get a one-time shot at having a baby. Aborting one fetus does not mean that you're forever subtracting a possible life from the world's population: women can get pregnant again. and again. and AGAIN. How do you feel about China's policy for children? If a woman were to accidentally become pregnant, there would be no question about abortion. It's societal convention. Abortion isn't just a woman maliciously murdering a fetus because she's an irresponsible teen who got knocked up by her boyfriend, or any other stereotypical case where abortion is seen as "the easy way out." Could you condemn a woman who aborted a fetus when she was in high school, completely out of her element to be a fit mother, but later has a husband and children in her 30's, completely happy with her decision? I mean, have you seen the show Teen Mom? Teenage mothers more often than not struggle with trying to raise a child, as much as they feel it was the right decision to go through the pregnancy and handle their mistake as an adult. A teenager trying to raise a baby may not only hamper the baby's future, but her own. Two birds with one stone, eh? Is it worth it? You don't bring a baby into the world because you're supposed to. You do it because you want to, and hopefully you have a partner that will love and support your potential child as much as YOU will. Bringing a baby into the world any other way is a recipe for disaster, or if that's too heavy, undesirable circumstances.

bottom line, I really don't believe that men should have any say in whether or not a fetus is aborted, but I strongly agree that they should have the capability to withdraw any monetary/general responsibility and relation to a baby if they do not want to be a father. Everyone just wants to do what is best for themselves, and forcing anyone to birth an unwanted child is one of the worst things you could ever do to a fellow human being.

 

[Stratos]

Banedon i have a question. Are you capable of rational thought?

I don't mean to be insulting, but the evidence adds up. First you post a thread in which you not only endorse nihilism but also misunderstand it.

Then you say that the killing of a bacteria is the equivalent of killing a human.

You also equated the goal of propogation (very true, btw) with Anthem-style breeding houses in which we impregnate every woman to get more pplz.

But the real kicker was when you equated the abortion of a fetus to voting reqs. I mean, that's just sick. Not only is abortion a moral issue whereas battling skill is a much less subjective one, but it's a drastic oversimplification. When Excadrill got banned, nobody DIED. Aldaron's Proposal had major effects on the meta, yes, but last time I checked the meta in general has no major effects on real life. The fact that you can even see the two on the same level makes me question if you should be institutionalized.

I apologize for the harshness in above post, but I'm this close to going NWO on you.

To everyone not named Banedon:

You've all seen the movie "it's a wonderful life," right? well if you remember the plot, that's basically a summary of why I am pro-life.

 

[Hydeous]

You've all seen the movie "it's a wonderful life," right? well if you remember the plot, that's basically a summary of why I am pro-life.

I haven't. What does it say ?

 

[Nastyjungle]

-A fetus is just a mass of cells that couldn't survive outside the mother!
--A human is just a mass of cells that couldn't survive outside Earth's atmosphere. And further most human beings alive now couldn't survive if they were suddenly the last person on Earth. We all rely on others for survival.

earths atmosphere is also something that is not living and therefore does not know it is keeping people alive, it does not have a choice in the matter because it doesn't live
relying on others is not the same as having the very being of your existence depend on them as a mother-fetus relationship is

-A fetus is incapable of thought and so has no rights!
--Babies aren't really capable of thought when they're first born. Are you suggesting it is okay to kill both them and the mentally disabled?

you seem to not understand what "thought" is
a baby thinks
a mentally disabled person thinks
a whale thinks
a mouse thinks
a mass of cells with no nervous system does not think because it is not capable of thought

until you say that "anti-lifers" have stupid arguments why not try analyze your own obvious bullshit first

 

[VKCA]

Does anybody know any girls that aren't pro choice? I'm curious. I don't.

-A fetus is just a mass of cells that couldn't survive outside the mother!
--A human is just a mass of cells that couldn't survive outside Earth's atmosphere. And further most human beings alive now couldn't survive if they were suddenly the last person on Earth. We all rely on others for survival.

ahahahaha

 

[Wikey]

@Spork I don't see how I'm being unreasonable. I just took a few things I saw in this thread that were insane and pointed them out as such. Your point that we have to decide when a fetus becomes a human is a good one. I believe that the line should be drawn at fertilization. When left to run their natural course sperm will stay sperm, ovum will stay ovum, but a zygote will develop into a baby. Aside from rape victims any woman who becomes pregnant made a choice. No birth control is 100% effective. My wife and I had sex for many years before we decided to have a kid. We did this knowing we risked having a baby before we were ready but we knew that we would live with the consequences if that happened. Now some women are not properly educated on the realities of sex but that is a problem fixed with better sex education. Not by letting them kill their babies.

Rape is a very horrible issue. However, I can't justify murdering an innocent child for his biological father's crimes. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT FAIR that the victim will have to carry that baby to term. And it is probably more scarring than the rape itself but again this is a problem solved by preventing rape. Not by murdering babies. As unfair as this is I feel it is less fair to murder the baby.

@Spork again: I will credit you for having a well formed argument not based on the insane stuff my initial post cried out against.

@Banedon: Did you comprehend anything I posted? Of course I agree with animal cruelty laws even though I value an animal's life less than a person's. And of course I don't think women should be pregnant all the time and/or raped to make this so. We evolved civilisation and culture and laws and such because they propogate our species. I'm not advocating a dystopia because it would be less successful than what we have now because freedom and happiness and all that are important to us.

@Dark Prince Raven: The finger thing would be clever if I had said killing a mass of cells was murder. I didn't. I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to say abortion isn't murder because a fetus is just a mass of cells that can't survive outside the mother.

@Nastyjungle: The Earth's atmosphere not being alive is irrelevant. Also, the distinction that a fetus depends on the mother for everything is meaningless. What is significant about a newborn being able to breath on its own etc. when it is still incapable of living on its own due to not being able to feed itself etc.?

Also, I guess it depends on the definition of thought. I'm speaking out of ignorance but I'm not sure how you can define when babies begin thinking. They respond to stimuli while still in the womb and have a ton of reflexes and such but I don't know of those are thoughts.

 

[Stratos]

I haven't. What does it say ?

Basically dudeman George is going through depression and almost kills himself when this "guardian angel" guy comes to visit him. George is all "I wish I was never born" and guardian angel is like "lol think again" but George insists, so he transports him into a reality in which he was never born.

Long story short the place is extremely messed up, like fifty people are dead because he wasn't around to save his brother's life when he was twelve so his brother died and couldn't stop a runaway train or something. All this other stuff is way worse than when George was born and in the end happy ending he re-wishes he was born and things are normal.

Basically, my argument is that everyone who is born leaves the world better than if they weren't (very few exceptions, you can go "lol hitler" but seriously for every megalomurderiac there are hundreds of millions of great people) so I think it's basically jipping society to get an abortion and place your selfish desires over the many people who would enjoy the kid's life. Of course our country is basically built on the principle that people can be selfish assholes if they want to, which is why I'm mixed up.

I think I would probably lean pro-life legalistically because my above argument also applies to the fetus in question, but again they have no ability to have ambitions for the future so as I said it's like month-after pill and it's a really sticky issue eeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Also to VKCA, Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachmann?

If you're asking from personal experience, yes, I have, but it's not like I pry them about it or anything.

 

[Hydeous]

Maybe I should state my point of view before getting more involved...

I am merely pragmatic on this topic.
An unwanted pregnancy has high chances of not turning out well for both the mother and the child ; the former probably won't be able to provide a suitable upbringing to the latter, and her own quality of life is likely to suffer. This doesn't stand as well if the parents are responsible adults (so the father won't run away upon hearing of the pregnancy), which is unlikely if we're talking about teenagers or rape cases. Abortion appears as a human solution to a dreadful risk for both parties.

Even for responsible adults, it is not unreasonable that their very sense of responsibility would lead them to try to have children at what they deem the most suitable moment (e.g. they have secured a stable professional situation) and thus to try to not have any before that moment. This is called family planning, and it is natural for abortion to be included in the means to implement it.

Now, I respect the belief of people for whom life is sacred and even an unborn being is worth of all the respect that is due to a full-fledged human being. What irks me to no end is the tendency of some to try to impose unto others their own values and beliefs. Freedom (respect ?) of opinion and belief goes both ways, people.

Aside from rape victims any woman who becomes pregnant made a choice. No birth control is 100% effective.

I don't really know what to do with this as it's a blatant contradiction.

My wife and I had sex for many years before we decided to have a kid. We did this knowing we risked having a baby before we were ready but we knew that we would live with the consequences if that happened.

You certainly are very responsible people, but that would have been the choice of giving up some control on your own life. You can't reasonably expect everyone to agree with you on that.
Also, it would have been putting the well-being of the child (which arguably depends on the parents being ready) below your own belief, which is something I cannot endorse.

And it is probably more scarring than the rape itself but again this is a problem solved by preventing rape. Not by murdering babies. As unfair as this is I feel it is less fair to murder the baby.

Hold on. You're using a definition of a baby that you established yourself a few lines above. Last time I checked, a baby was something that's actually, y'know, born.
By the way, do all pro-life try to make the others look like baby murderers ? Heck, might as well eat them if I'm accused of murder. At least I would understand what I'm charged with.
About your actual point : that's inficting double penalty to the victim.

The finger thing would be clever if I had said killing a mass of cells was murder. I didn't.

Except, well, you did.


@Pwnemon : that's a very interesting point of view, I'm relieved to hear something else than the usual... thing that is pro-life arguments. I can relate to that, as I think a great lof of the living human beings are already vastly wasting their potential (so every one that could have been born has his/her potential wasted by default), but I still think an unwanted pregnancy is too likely to result in such a waste of life anyway.

 

[Wikey]

I don't really know what to do with this as it's a blatant contradiction.

No it isn't. No birth control is 100% effective so by relying on it you are making the choice to have sex despite the fact that you could become pregnant.

You certainly are very responsible people, but that would have been the choice of giving up some control on your own life. You can't reasonably expect everyone to agree with you on that.
Also, it would have been putting the well-being of the child (which arguably depends on the parents being ready) below your own belief, which is something I cannot endorse.

I think a baby having parents who aren't quite ready is better than being dead.

Hold on. You're using a definition of a baby that you established yourself a few lines above. Last time I checked, a baby was something that's actually, y'know, born.
By the way, do all pro-life try to make the others look like baby murderers ? Heck, might as well eat them if I'm accused of murder. At least I would understand what I'm charged with.

Because they are advocating killing babies! How is this hard to understand? I actually think that if abortion remains legal they should make the woman deliver the baby and then strangle it to death. That way they can appreciate the blood on their hands.

About your actual point : that's inficting double penalty to the victim.

Except the rapist is the one who got the woman pregnant. That's like blaming me for someone both shooting and stabbing someone. If someone attacks me and I need a new heart can I kill a baby to take his? That's about the same as killing your baby because you were raped.

Except, well, you did.

Except, well, I didn't. I just said that defining something as not murder because it is destroying a lump of cells that can't survive outside the mother is ridiculous.