If it is your body & your choice why the he'll do I have to pay for the next 18 years?

[Skylar]

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

 

[dilloduck]

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

I know this concept has not a snowball's chance in hell in the current legal system. Pass a ERA though, and all bets are off unless this is specifically excluded.

The problem is that now that the State is involved in raising and paying for kids born out of nothing but laziness and lack of preparedness (on both sides), the State will get its dime, regardless of whats fair.

I'm betting it would be specifically excluded. Women resent men for the power they have held over them for centuries. They feel like victims and want revenge.

 

[dilloduck]

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

 

[Syriusly]

Then a woman should have no right to force a man to pay for a kid she want's to keep, and he doesn't. With great power comes great responsibility.

Nope. And if you don't think that is fair, then talk to the person who came up with the division of labor on making babies. You don't want the responsibility, then get snipped or keep it in your pants. But don't pretend that how babies are born is an equal thing between men and women. It isn't and the women don't get to make you carry it half way because it's not fair. The man gets no say, and that's just too bad.

Or the woman can simply keep her legs crossed. Problem solved. For some reason you think women are somehow unable to control their sexuality, but men somehow can.

Exactly. Women, like blacks, are considered a disposable, stupid, and criminal underclass who aren't capable of making decisions on their own...and who shouldn't be expected (or allowed) to. It's why we train women from birth via our public schools that it's their job to have sex upon a whim with whomever asks it, and get an abortion to relieve that person of any responsibility if they get knocked up.

That's what you were taught growing up? No wonder you're so fucked in the head. I raised 2 girls and taught them the exact opposite.

I also don't know a single person who thinks women are stupid or disposable.

It sounds to me like you have serious mental issues along with super low self esteem and that is what you're projecting on everyone else.

Seek help

No, it's what the public schools teach our children. .

No- that is just your whacked out imagination at work.

 

[Ravi]

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

I know this concept has not a snowball's chance in hell in the current legal system. Pass a ERA though, and all bets are off unless this is specifically excluded.

The problem is that now that the State is involved in raising and paying for kids born out of nothing but laziness and lack of preparedness (on both sides), the State will get its dime, regardless of whats fair.

I'm betting it would be specifically excluded. Women resent men for the power they have held over them for centuries. They feel like victims and want revenge.

Hi Dillo! Still crazy I see.

 

[dilloduck]

and handsome as ever too.

 

[Syriusly]

Indeed she can. But if she doesn't and he doesn't, then they are both equally responsible. But they do not equally carry the kid. If there is an abortion, they don't equally have the procedure. If there is a problem with the pregnancy, they don't equally undergo treatment. They are not equally at risk. So to make it equal, she gets to make the decisions about the pregnancy. After that, they are equally responsible. If the man doesn't like that arrangement, it is his responsibility to keep it in his pants. Once he pulls it out, he signs on for the whole ride whether he thinks it fair or not.

You are confusing legality and biology. Again, you are placing an undue burden on one gender of the other.

A question, if an ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) ever gets passed, and removes gender from the law, how do you give women these additional rights over men?

And if you want that to be the case, Men have to get some legal benefit as an equalizer, or you are basically admitting legally women are inferior and require additional protections.

No. The same legal burden is on both of them. You just don't think it's fair you don't get an equal say in the biological part of the equation, even though you accept no responsibility in it. She takes all the risks, but you think you should be able to make the decisions. The only thing I am admitting is the woman's body belongs to her and you get no say. Whether you think that is fair is of no consequence.

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot?

I am going to respond once more even though I said I wouldn't:

The woman has control over her body, and therefore has control over what happens with her body- and that includes allowing a pregnancy to continue to term or not to allow a pregnancy to continue to term.

The man has control over his body- he can go drink and die of alcohol poisoning if that is what he wants. The woman cannot prevent the man from going out and drinking himself to death.

The woman doesn't have control over the man's body. The man doesn't have control over the woman's body.

If a baby is born- it becomes both of their responsibility.

 

[Syriusly]

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

The man can choose not to be a father- and not parent.

But he is still 50% responsible for the action that resulted in a child coming into the world- and responsible for 50% of the financial responsibility.

 

[martybegan]

You keep saying that- but what we keep saying is that both men and women are equally responsible.

When having sex- both are equally responsible deciding whether to have sex and whether to use protection- both are equally responsible for the consequences of those decisions(pregnancy/std's)
After having sex- both are responsible for their own bodies- uniquely only the woman can get pregnant- so we either allow a woman to control her body- or we do not allow it. She is responsible for whatever decisions she makes with her body though.
After a baby is born- both are responsible for the baby.

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

Again, how is it equal of only one side has an unimpeded choice?

They both have unimpeded choice. The man over his own body. The woman over hers. If a man wants to choose whether or not he's going to carry a fetus to term, he should get pregnant. As that's the only power a woman possesses in the situation; over her own body.

you are saying the man is initially responsible, then loses all responsibility and authority for 9 months, and then suddenly becomes responsible again?

No you're saying that. I'm saying that a man is financially responsible for any child he fathers from the moment that child is born.

Its remarkably simple. And perfectly reasonable.

If the woman knows ahead of time the man wants nothing to do with a child, then its 100% on the woman to either support it, or abort it. Its the only logical conclusion you can reach if you want the inviolability of a womans right to choose coupled with equality among the sexes.

Save that a man wanting nothing to do with a child has nothing to do with his financial responsibility. You're premise is the same faulty nonsense you've been arguing from the beginning: that a man's obligation is based on his choice and power.

It isn't. His obligation to pay is based on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he wants the child is irrelevant. If he doesn't want the child is irrelevant. Thus, the basis you claim a man should be absolved of financial responsibility is gloriously irrelevant to that responsibility. Nor has the slightest impact on it.

You're wrong about 3 times. First in unequal obligation. Second, in unequal control over one's own body. Third, in your fallacious basis of obligation. Logic simply has nothing to do with your claims.

If a woman's obligation is based on her choice, if men and women are truly equal, a man's obligation should also be based on his choice. The fact that a woman can decide to have or not have a child a man does not have the same choice legally (not biologically, which is of course silly) is unequal.

So what you are saying is women need special legal protection, because they can't support their own choices?

 

[Skylar]

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

 

[dilloduck]

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

The man can choose not to be a father- and not parent.

But he is still 50% responsible for the action that resulted in a child coming into the world- and responsible for 50% of the financial responsibility.

A woman can choose to make a man pay or not pay. How is it that she gets to choose what he does with his money ?

 

[martybegan]

You are confusing legality and biology. Again, you are placing an undue burden on one gender of the other.

A question, if an ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) ever gets passed, and removes gender from the law, how do you give women these additional rights over men?

And if you want that to be the case, Men have to get some legal benefit as an equalizer, or you are basically admitting legally women are inferior and require additional protections.

No. The same legal burden is on both of them. You just don't think it's fair you don't get an equal say in the biological part of the equation, even though you accept no responsibility in it. She takes all the risks, but you think you should be able to make the decisions. The only thing I am admitting is the woman's body belongs to her and you get no say. Whether you think that is fair is of no consequence.

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot?

I am going to respond once more even though I said I wouldn't:

The woman has control over her body, and therefore has control over what happens with her body- and that includes allowing a pregnancy to continue to term or not to allow a pregnancy to continue to term.

The man has control over his body- he can go drink and die of alcohol poisoning if that is what he wants. The woman cannot prevent the man from going out and drinking himself to death.

The woman doesn't have control over the man's body. The man doesn't have control over the woman's body.

If a baby is born- it becomes both of their responsibility.

Actually she does, because he has no veto power, which she has. In a biological sense it is reasonable, but in a legal sense, unless you admit women are unable to support their own decisions without government helping them, it doesn't. So empowerment goes out the window, and we have the State playing the role of daddy with the shotgun.

 

[martybegan]

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

The man can choose not to be a father- and not parent.

But he is still 50% responsible for the action that resulted in a child coming into the world- and responsible for 50% of the financial responsibility.

But again, unlike the woman he had no say in removing that responsibility. If one side has it, and you want men and women to be considered equal, both side have to have it.

If not, you are basically admitting women need the power of the State in some cases to support their choices.

 

[Skylar]

If a woman's obligation is based on her choice, if men and women are truly equal, a man's obligation should also be based on his choice.

Another fallacious 'if'. A woman's obligation to support her child is based on the existence of the child. If the child exists, the obligation exists. The same as for the father.

Once again, your premise that a man's choice and power are the basis of his obligation is simply wrong. Its the child's existence that is the basis. The moment the child is born, the father is financially responsible. Exactly as the mother is.

Their obligations are always equal. You're demanding they be unequal. That a woman be financially responsible for every child she bears. But a man never be held responsible for any child he fathers.

No.

 

[martybegan]

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

And we all know that all child support gets spent only on the kid.....

NOW who is being silly?

 

[dilloduck]

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

There is no child unless the mother decides to have one.

 

[Skylar]

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

And we all know that all child support gets spent only on the kid.....

We're speaking of the basis of financial obligation. And its not to the mother. But instead to the child. If the mother died and someone else cared for the child, the father would still be obligated.

NOW who is being silly?

That would still be you.

 

[martybegan]

If a woman's obligation is based on her choice, if men and women are truly equal, a man's obligation should also be based on his choice.

Another fallacious 'if'. A woman's obligation to support her child is based on the existence of the child. If the child exists, the obligation exists. The same as for the father.

Once again, your premise that a man's choice and power are the basis of his obligation is simply wrong. Its the child's existence that is the basis. The moment the child is born, the father is financially responsible. Exactly as the mother is.

Their obligations are always equal. You're demanding they be unequal. That a woman be financially responsible for every child she bears. But a man never be held responsible for any child he fathers.

No.

But again, If he gives notice of not wanting the child, the burden transfers to the woman to decide if she want's it or not, and if she does, it should be hers to take care of.

All the equality is on your side of the argument, and the man gets the short end of the stick, just for using his. So sex HAS to have consequences for men, but women should be able to get rid of said consequence without any input.

I can't see how you see this as equal. I would have more respect for you if you admitted it was unequal, and you just want it to be this way.

 

[martybegan]

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

And we all know that all child support gets spent only on the kid.....

We're speaking of the basis of financial obligation. And its not to the mother. But instead to the child. If the mother died and someone else cared for the child, the father would still be obligated.

NOW who is being silly?

That would still be you.

Based on a woman making a choice he had no input into, which again is not fair if you seek equality.

 

[dilloduck]

Evil men are to blame for women having vaginas. Let's face it.