Abortion

[Cecona]

No one would ever abort because the embryo might die, and that was not the issue we were discussing. The issue is discussing when life begins, and rather than relying on faith I rely on science which shows that at the blastocyst stage it has nothing that would categorized it as a living individual human, and to me that indicates that it’s life has not yet begun.

[olympe]

This is just as scientifically accurate as the fact that there are living cells in an embryo of any stage, which have their very unique strands of DNA. The DNA contains all the information to make the human develop.

 

Also, a biological thing: You won't find anything alive without DNA.

Edited September 15, 2018 by olympe

[HeatherMarie]

18 hours ago, Skellybones said:

 

I don't really get how some pro lifers think. They put the life of the unborn child above the life of the mother, as though the unborn child, who has never experienced the outside world, who has not had the chance to form meaningful attachments to other human beings, is more important than the mother. Organs can only be taken and donated from the corpse of someone who said they want their organs to be used. If someone's life is at risk- if they're going to die without a transplant- and someone who has just died said they don't want their organs to be used, those life-saving organs cannot be taken. In that case, a dead body's rights were put above the right of a person's to live. To quote the NHS: "The law says that the decision about whether or not to donate your organs rests first and foremost with you." In the UK, at least three people die every day because they have not received the organ donation they need to continue living. As a society we value a dead person's right to their body above the life of another person's. You don't see crowds boycotting those who are dying because they have made the decision to not be an organ donor. Why does this not apply to someone carrying an unborn child? In that case, this person is alive and breathing- they're still making memories and talking to other people and doing everything a living human does, so why shouldn't they get the choice to terminate a pregnancy if it's unwanted, or will risk their own life?

 

Omg yes. Soooo much this. I really honestly don't get that. People have to specifically allow their own organs to be donated *after their death*, they have the right to choose what happens to their organs after they've DIED, and yet a living woman shouldn't have those same rights to their own body? Just because there is a *possibility* of the thing inside of her to *eventually* become a living breathing live human, suddenly her rights to her own body don't matter. 

[Cecona]

11 hours ago, olympe said:

This is just as scientifically accurate as the fact that there are living cells in an embryo of any stage, which have their very unique strands of DNA. The DNA contains all the information to make the human develop.

 

Also, a biological thing: You won't find anything alive without DNA.

 

Just because the information is there does not mean it will always become a viable baby. The notion of when life begins is tied to when an individual is given rights, and a potential life that may not even survive to birth, which is NOT the same as an already born baby that might die, should not have rights which trump those of the already established life of the mother should she make the decision to abort. 

[olympe]

41 minutes ago, Cecona said:

The notion of when life begins is tied to when an individual is given rights,

Not at all. The point in time when an individual is given rights is determined solely by laws and/or customs. According to some religious beliefs, every single sperm is holy and needs to be allowed to find its way to an egg. (Catholic church... which is pretty much their reasoning for forbidding use of condoms.) In other cultures, a child doesn't have any rights until it's been presented to and been accepted by the community. In some cultures, only males get rights - unless you count a woman's "right" to obey males' commands as law, that is. That does in no way mean that such a woman is not alive. In some countries, slavery is still a thing. You're not going to try to convince me that a human slave (who usually doesn't have much in the way of rights) is not alive, are you? Even in some states in the US, a human being can lose the very basic human right to live - and while waiting to be executed, these people are still very much alive, too.

 

And, just like your argument that not every embryo turns into a viable baby, not all babies stay viable and turn into adults. Drawing the line at any one point of development is totally arbitrary, and one is as good as another.

[Cecona]

That would be true if people weren’t trying to form laws around the idea that life begins so early and there for the potential life has precedence over the mother. I also very well can draw a line because of the giant distinction between a fetus still growing inside and leeching nutrients off the mother, and a child that is not physically attached to anyone and is given nutrients through outside sources. There is a difference but you refuse to accept this because apparently if something might die it’s okay to kill it? Which was NEVER the discussion. you keep bringing this fallacy up which holds no water. You also need to stop trying to use the very obviously out dated and inhumane laws about ways people are mistreated to argue your point.

 

whenever life does start, however, it should never trump the woman’s already established life and that is the issue, people are using the argument for when life begins to restrict and control women and force them to go through a pregnancy she may not want. If the woman does not want to have a baby she should not be forced, and keep in mind how rare late term abortions are, which is what you keep arguing about. It’s even more rare for a woman to just decide late in the pregnancy she wants an abortion because she doesn’t want it anymore. If that has ever happened at all. Late term abortions are always, ALWAYS done because the child has something wrong and won’t survive literally hours after birth if that, or a woman that wanted an abortion early on was given the run around to try and make her keep it against her will and she is willing to risk her life to get rid of it. Never once has someone gone “Eh, its just as likely to die in a week as it is to die in 80 years, might as well abort”

 

there is a GIANT DIFFERENCE between a blastocyst or embryo that is just as likely to detach and die before the woman even realizes she is pregnant as it is to form into a fully formed baby. That right there is the distinction for me, when it cannot become anything other than a baby successfully living and surviving outside the mothers body. And I’m going to say this now before you try to use it as an argument, I am NOT saying it has to be born to be considered it’s own life, it just has to be viable. A viable fetus cannot become anything other than a baby, unlike the blastocyst which could turn into a normal cyst or tumor. 

[olympe]

 

15 hours ago, Cecona said:

There is a difference but you refuse to accept this because apparently if something might die it’s okay to kill it? Which was NEVER the discussion. you keep bringing this fallacy up which holds no water. You also need to stop trying to use the very obviously out dated and inhumane laws about ways people are mistreated to argue your point.

I am? Really?

On 9/14/2018 at 2:27 AM, Cecona said:

It’s also still possible for it [the embryo] to simply die with no idea what the cause is.

On 9/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, hazeh said:

I am of the thought process that viable babies should be delivered and relinquished to the state if able to survive outside the mother's body-- to me, at that point, that is considered a baby (i.e., that "potential" life has now a solid stake as a person. Before this point, there is too much potential within the development of the fetus for me to consider it having reached the landmark of "person" yet)

On 9/13/2018 at 12:15 AM, Cecona said:

I agree, if a woman doesn’t want to give her embryo up and end up having the child find them in adulthood they should not be forced to do so just like normal pregnancy and abortion.

 

It’s human in the sense it’s made of human cells, but keep in mind tumors and cysts are also made of human cell. Just because it’s made of human cells does not mean it is a human itself, not until it has developed enough to be its own person. Does that answer your questions, Laryal?

Right. Definitely all me bringing up a fallacy. What I did is put a point stated by you and others (repeatedly)  - "abortion isn't killing because the embryo might not develop into a baby in the first place" -

into a different context - and suddenly, your obviously very valid argument turns into a fallacy? You'll really have to explain that to me, because there's no logic behind this save for your faith that life begins when a human is viable outside their mother's body.

 

15 hours ago, Cecona said:

You also need to stop trying to use the very obviously out dated and inhumane laws about ways people are mistreated to argue your point.

I used these examples to disprove your claim that "the notion of when life begins is tied to when an individual is given rights". Laws =/= Science, and trying to argue science by citing laws as an example is the very definition of fallacy.

[Dekka]

On 9/14/2018 at 10:20 PM, Laryal said:

 

 20 years old never had a partner never had sex so  it can be done So tell me again that it is hard to not do that? Also there are thousands of women like me so your thinking of it is to hard not to is false really. But now i can not have children even if i try as hard as i want  do not have those parts no more so yea.

 

just because YOU have done it does not in ANY way mean everyone should be obligated to do so! how does that even make sense? "i do it, so you need to do it too" is NOT a valid point and no one has to conform to your standards or wishes. that is all.

[Cecona]

Republicans and pro-life lobbyists are, and have been working to give rights to unviable embryos/fetuses that trump those of the already established life of the mother on the case that life begins at or right after conception. They recently attempted to revoke roe V wade, which I’m actually surprised no on has talked about. 

 

Your different context is claiming it’s alright to kill an already established person, which is in no way the same thing as killing something that doesnt even have the capacity to do literally anything. A blastocyst cannot think, breathe, move. It has no organs, no spinal cord, no nervous system. Up until it becomes a viable fetus/baby you can not compare it to an already living person and claim killing one is the same as killing the other. 

[Laryal]

On 9/17/2018 at 5:44 PM, Dekka said:

just because YOU have done it does not in ANY way mean everyone should be obligated to do so! how does that even make sense? "i do it, so you need to do it too" is NOT a valid point and no one has to conform to your standards or wishes. that is all.

 I was talking to anouther player an yes if one person can do it then others can if they want. See i am a virgin still an will be till i die.I was not saying everyone should but there are billions of women an men like me still in this world. An here are some links to those who are debating when life begins.

 

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Laryal

[Alrexwolf]

Did you even look at the Princeton quotes? Literally, all they are is just scientists stating that an embryo begins to form when a sperm fertilizes an egg... which is something all of us know. Your first link actually supports what WE are saying, if you actually read it; the brain is not even formed at all by week 7. Electrical impulses do not begin (movement, in its basic sense) until week 8. You're countering your own argument because your own references literally say that the brain is not formed to any notable capacity until 7 weeks. A fetus cannot even make breathing motions until it reaches the second trimester. 

 

"Baby's first sucking and swallowing impulses kick in around 16 weeks." They can't even swallow until 16 weeks. They don't even have a spinal cord or brain (two things required to have any pain response/neural impulses) until almost two months in.

 

Also, just because you feel you have some weird moral high ground for being a virgin means nothing to the actual debate of when life begins or whatever. We are a social species - intimacy is part of what keeps us close. I'm a virgin too, whoop-de-doo. It doesn't mean I can't make a mistake. Can't be pressured. Can't be raped. It has nothing to do with the abortion discussion, at all. round of applause for you for choosing a life of celibacy i guess?? but sex is a natural instinct and nothing will stop curious teenagers/young adults. giving them the tools they need to keep themselves safe and educating them on symptoms, signs, and risks, however, means that when they decide they're ready they have a greater chance at being safe.

[JavaTigress]

7 hours ago, Alrexwolf said:

Did you even look at the Princeton quotes? Literally, all they are is just scientists stating that an embryo begins to form when a sperm fertilizes an egg... which is something all of us know. Your first link actually supports what WE are saying, if you actually read it; the brain is not even formed at all by week 7. Electrical impulses do not begin (movement, in its basic sense) until week 8. You're countering your own argument because your own references literally say that the brain is not formed to any notable capacity until 7 weeks. A fetus cannot even make breathing motions until it reaches the second trimester. 

 

"Baby's first sucking and swallowing impulses kick in around 16 weeks." They can't even swallow until 16 weeks. They don't even have a spinal cord or brain (two things required to have any pain response/neural impulses) until almost two months in.

 

Also, just because you feel you have some weird moral high ground for being a virgin means nothing to the actual debate of when life begins or whatever. We are a social species - intimacy is part of what keeps us close. I'm a virgin too, whoop-de-doo. It doesn't mean I can't make a mistake. Can't be pressured. Can't be raped. It has nothing to do with the abortion discussion, at all. round of applause for you for choosing a life of celibacy i guess?? but sex is a natural instinct and nothing will stop curious teenagers/young adults. giving them the tools they need to keep themselves safe and educating them on symptoms, signs, and risks, however, means that when they decide they're ready they have a greater chance at being safe.

Scuse me!

I don't see the need for the snarky tone here.

 

I believe their point, which is a valid one, BTW, WAS that choosing NOT to have sex is a perfectly POSSIBLE and valid choice.

I get SOOOOOOOoooo sick of sex being touted as the be-all, end-all of human existence. ( FULL disclosure, I believe I am an asexual.)

Abstinence is a perfectly valid choice... and many people seem to forget that.

 

I would ADD that there might be a variety of reasons that a person might choose to abstain....without it being because they are 'holier-than-thou' OR unable to get a partner.maybe they just don't WANT to have sex? Maybe they don't currently feel ready? Maybe... any NUMBER of things.
 

THAT being said, I do get your point about it being a powerful instinctive drive for most people and DIFFICULT at best for most people to control. Mistakes can be made and experimenting by young people can and DOES happen. PERSONALLY I would rather see better and more effective birth control... and perhaps better knowledge on how to properly use it. I personally believe that that would prevent many abortions. As far as when life begins...I believe it happens at some point before birth, though I fully understand there isn't really scientific evidence for that, necessarily.

Edited September 19, 2018 by JavaTigress

[Alrexwolf]

1 minute ago, JavaTigress said:

I believe their point, which is a valid one, BTW, WAS that choosing NOT to have sex is a perfectly POSSIBLE and valid choice.

I get SOOOOOOOoooo sick of sex being touted as the be-all end -all of human existence. ( FULL disclosure, I believe I am an asexual.)

Abstinence is a perfectly valid choice... and many people seem to forget that.

 

Their point was that if they don't have to have sex other people don't either so abortion isn't necessary / is murder because people can just not have sex.

 

Btw, as an ace myself, I would never say that sex is a be all end all, lmao. Not sure where that came from. But implying that, because you're a virgin, abortion is murder/people are irresponsible or bad for wanting to have sex is ridiculous. 

[JavaTigress]

9 minutes ago, Alrexwolf said:

 

Their point was that if they don't have to have sex other people don't either so abortion isn't necessary / is murder because people can just not have sex.

 

Btw, as an ace myself, I would never say that sex is a be all end all, lmao. Not sure where that came from. But implying that, because you're a virgin, abortion is murder/people are irresponsible or bad for wanting to have sex is ridiculous. 

Not YOU specifically.... but society at large often seems to imply it.   Perhaps I ought to have been clearer, there.

 

AND I will admit that that WANTING sex isn't precisely irresponsible... though I think it can certainly be indulged in irresponsibly, I think we can agree. 

Ats why I DO think people should be taught HOW to do it responsibly (USE BC if they aren't trying for a baby, be aware of STDs, that kind of thing!) Because there CAN be consequences to it, if it isn't handled carefully. And , sometimes, saying 'NO' is absolutely a valid choice.

Edited September 19, 2018 by JavaTigress

[Laryal]

1 hour ago, JavaTigress said:

Not YOU specifically.... but society at large often seems to imply it.   Perhaps I ought to have been clearer, there.

 

AND I will admit that that WANTING sex isn't precisely irresponsible... though I think it can certainly be indulged in irresponsibly, I think we can agree. 

Ats why I DO think people should be taught HOW to do it responsibly (USE BC if they aren't trying for a baby, be aware of STDs, that kind of thing!) Because there CAN be consequences to it, if it isn't handled carefully. And , sometimes, saying 'NO' is absolutely a valid choice.

 Thank you for both your posts.Also they did not see all i wrote there is seems i said if one person can do it then others can if they want.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Laryal

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, Alrexwolf said:

 

Their point was that if they don't have to have sex other people don't either so abortion isn't necessary / is murder because people can just not have sex.

 

Btw, as an ace myself, I would never say that sex is a be all end all, lmao. Not sure where that came from. But implying that, because you're a virgin, abortion is murder/people are irresponsible or bad for wanting to have sex is ridiculous. 

 

People shouldn't have to give up sex just because there is always the possibility that any form of birth control can fail. Nor should they be forced to carry to term because b/c did fail. Even with in a committed marital relationship there can be a need for abortion - I don't for one moment hold that a man and wife should only make love if the wife is prepared to carry any resulting accident to term.

[Zeditha]

Laryal - I think what we're trying to say isn't that abstinence isn't a valid method of birth control, or that it won't work, or that it's silly. Abstinence works for some people, like you. It's simply that some people don't want to, or can't, or get raped, or *don't understand what sex is because of a complete lack of education*. I have heard of cases where people didn't know what sex was, only that they shouldn't do it - or even had no idea that sex would lead to pregnancy.

 

Basically what we're saying is that while abstinence might be a solution for you, and for many people, it isn't a solution for everyone.

 

(And education is very important. Teaching children literally nothing more than 'sex is bad don't do it' gets nobody anywhere.)

[olympe]

11 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

People shouldn't have to give up sex just because there is always the possibility that any form of birth control can fail. Nor should they be forced to carry to term because b/c did fail. Even with in a committed marital relationship there can be a need for abortion - I don't for one moment hold that a man and wife should only make love if the wife is prepared to carry any resulting accident to term.

No. But, like you, I think that most women who do get pregnant without wanting to could be more responsible about birth control. Whether they aren't responsible about it because they didn't know, or simply didn't care or were so intoxicated it simply slipped their mind - that's something that I feel should change. (Of course, there are cases where birth control isn't an option, like in a rape scenario.) But once someone starts talking about probably having to have another abortion like other people talk about having a dentist's appointment, things are definitely skewed. (Yes, I've met someone like that. Seriously.) And, if you (=general you) really don't want to ever carry a child to term, you should consider getting sterilized. Because, think of this: Some people get pregnant and never even know about it (because of a decided lack of symptoms - or so they claim) until they're in labor. You really don't want to become one of those, do you?

[hazeh]

7 minutes ago, Zeditha said:

Laryal - I think what we're trying to say isn't that abstinence isn't a valid method of birth control, or that it won't work, or that it's silly. Abstinence works for some people, like you. It's simply that some people don't want to, or can't, or get raped, or *don't understand what sex is because of a complete lack of education*. I have heard of cases where people didn't know what sex was, only that they shouldn't do it - or even had no idea that sex would lead to pregnancy.

 

Basically what we're saying is that while abstinence might be a solution for you, and for many people, it isn't a solution for everyone.

 

(And education is very important. Teaching children literally nothing more than 'sex is bad don't do it' gets nobody anywhere.)

This exactly. There's a reason why the areas with abstinence-only education have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. These kids need to know what's going on and how to best protect themselves. Not everyone has the knowledge to refrain, or if they don't want to be abstinent, they should have all the tools they need to keep themselves protected (both from pregnancy and STDs). And when those methods fail, there should always be an alternative available. 

Until there is a different alternative for pregnancy, there will always be a need for abortions. 

2 minutes ago, olympe said:

No. But, like you, I think that most women who do get pregnant without wanting to could be more responsible about birth control. Whether they aren't responsible about it because they didn't know, or simply didn't care or were so intoxicated it simply slipped their mind - that's something that I feel should change. (Of course, there are cases where birth control isn't an option, like in a rape scenario.) But once someone starts talking about probably having to have another abortion like other people talk about having a dentist's appointment, things are definitely skewed. (Yes, I've met someone like that. Seriously.) And, if you (=general you) really don't want to ever carry a child to term, you should consider getting sterilized. Because, think of this: Some people get pregnant and never even know about it (because of a decided lack of symptoms - or so they claim) until they're in labor. You really don't want to become one of those, do you?

I'm not sure about the "most" figure here. I don't have the statistic on me, but earlier in this thread I do remember Sock linking to some figures that showed that teen abortions are a low percentage of needed abortions, and that a higher percentage were married couples for different reasons; contraceptive failure, spousal tampering (I recall being absolutely shocked with the percentage of women whose birth control was tampered with or lied to about by their spouses), financial issues, etc. Sure, everyone should have better access to birth control. But then we as a society need to do a better job and making sure it's accessible. Same thing for sterilization-- a lot of women want that for those reasons. And most of those women are denied sterilization because of archaic reasons. 

So until our society can make a better collective effort to reduce the need for abortions (contraceptives, education, medical treatments + accessibility), I don't think it's all that fair to put the onus entirely on the women themselves. 

[JavaTigress]

21 minutes ago, Zeditha said:

Laryal - I think what we're trying to say isn't that abstinence isn't a valid method of birth control, or that it won't work, or that it's silly. Abstinence works for some people, like you. It's simply that some people don't want to, or can't, or get raped, or *don't understand what sex is because of a complete lack of education*. I have heard of cases where people didn't know what sex was, only that they shouldn't do it - or even had no idea that sex would lead to pregnancy.

 

Basically what we're saying is that while abstinence might be a solution for you, and for many people, it isn't a solution for everyone.

 

(And education is very important. Teaching children literally nothing more than 'sex is bad don't do it' gets nobody anywhere.)

AND I think there really ISN'T an excuse for the situation you mention... where someone has literally NO idea how pregnancy even HAPPENS. Certainly not if they are an adult.

[Kith]

Re: sterilization procedures

 

Since some insurance packages require approval by a GP or some other type of consultation, any person who wants to get sterilized (whatever sort of tubes they have) runs the risk of browbeating by the consulting doctor, or even outright refusal of services if the person is under 30. Insisting that the person will change their mind later, or that a future partner will want children and then what will they do, etc. If all medical professionals would take the tone where this information is being provided for the patient's consideration as opposed to persuasion against the procedure, that would be fine, but some are quite aggressive. So part of the societal change would also need to be within the medical field itself, for the removal of stigma against vasectomy/tubal ligation and the people who want/need them.

[olympe]

58 minutes ago, hazeh said:

I'm not sure about the "most" figure here. I don't have the statistic on me, but earlier in this thread I do remember Sock linking to some figures that showed that teen abortions are a low percentage of needed abortions, and that a higher percentage were married couples for different reasons; contraceptive failure, spousal tampering (I recall being absolutely shocked with the percentage of women whose birth control was tampered with or lied to about by their spouses), financial issues, etc. Sure, everyone should have better access to birth control. But then we as a society need to do a better job and making sure it's accessible. Same thing for sterilization-- a lot of women want that for those reasons. And most of those women are denied sterilization because of archaic reasons. 

So until our society can make a better collective effort to reduce the need for abortions (contraceptives, education, medical treatments + accessibility), I don't think it's all that fair to put the onus entirely on the women themselves. 

Very true, too.

[Zeditha]

1 hour ago, JavaTigress said:

AND I think there really ISN'T an excuse for the situation you mention... where someone has literally NO idea how pregnancy even HAPPENS. Certainly not if they are an adult.

 

I don't know how true the particular case I read about was (it wasn't from the most reliable of websites) but if it was, I wouldn't put the blame on the person, but rather the education system they went through. Obviously, if they didn't know, they weren't taught - and it was never talked about. That is a result of abstinence-only culture, where children are only told not to, without being told what the results are, and certainly not how to do it safely. If we remove the stigmas surrounding sex, especially the (sometimes religious) cultural stigmas, that cause people to think abstinence-only sex 'ed' is okay, then we can begin teaching children what these things mean. After all, not everyone is going to think about these things themselves to look it up. That's what school is *for*.

 

Basically what I'm trying to say is that if someone doesn't know these basic things, obviously they weren't taught or told, either in school or by their parents. So what needs fixing is the system.

[Alrexwolf]

2 hours ago, Kith said:

Re: sterilization procedures

 

Since some insurance packages require approval by a GP or some other type of consultation, any person who wants to get sterilized (whatever sort of tubes they have) runs the risk of browbeating by the consulting doctor, or even outright refusal of services if the person is under 30. Insisting that the person will change their mind later, or that a future partner will want children and then what will they do, etc. If all medical professionals would take the tone where this information is being provided for the patient's consideration as opposed to persuasion against the procedure, that would be fine, but some are quite aggressive. So part of the societal change would also need to be within the medical field itself, for the removal of stigma against vasectomy/tubal ligation and the people who want/need them.

 

This is a very, very big thing also. I was recently at the doctors and, when learning of a sterilization procedure I had never heard of (that spares the uterus/ovaries completely), I asked more about how one would go about getting something like that done. I'm an adult. I am over 18, and can make legal medical decisions. Yet, I was told I was too young and that was the end of the conversation.

 

I never want children. Any pregnancy would be unwanted. I can barely, in reality, care for myself - let alone another life. And, like some other people in this thread, babies seriously freak me out. Yet, because I'm young, I seemingly don't have a right to say what happens to my body. I can't get sterilized because I'm too young - there are plenty of people like me, over 18, who know they don't want children. Period. They don't have the option to get sterilized because, as Kith said, doctors are aggressive about it. Pro-lifers are aggressive about it. 

 

Then they turn around and tell people who would have otherwise gotten sterilized if they had the option/were allowed but got pregnant on accident that they're irresponsible and murdering a child. THAT situation in particular really grinds my gears.

[Starscream]

my birthcontrol pill failed because of antibiotics taken at the time for an infection. At the time, there was no chance of being able to support a child. at the time I was skipping meals at least two days a week, ensuring my husband got what he needed for the energy at work. I was off work for medical reasons (which is none of anyones concerns here) so we were on one income. we did not drink more than maybe two or three times a month, smoke, or have a car. we had rent and barely scraped by with what he made. My husbands insurance covered most of my medication. But that would not be a time to have a kid, also with the medications I was taking at the time, the kid would have probably had developmental issues. I was not going to do without medicine just because of a pregnancy. My health comes first -  always. Considering how sick I was for the duration, I was glad when it ended.