The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[PoliticalChic]

Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The wall of separation was part of case law much earlier:

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES. LII Legal Information Institute

In any case, abortion before "the quickening" was legal at the time of this country's founding.

You might want to read something other than ridiculous propaganda if you don't want to continually make an ass of yourself.

Have someone explain both the first amendment, and the religious character of the Founders to you.

It might take quite a while......

 

[PoliticalChic]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

I love this type of thread PC.....let me explain my position, in words pro lifers can understand

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

Exactly!
They don't care, they approve of killing the offspring of humans.

Exactly, and since murder is the unlawful killing of another human. Abortion in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy, where legal, Is lawful, and not murder.

Furthermore, when a first or second trimester fetus has an undeveloped cerebral cortex it cannot have feelings. If you want to make the case that the human baby has "personhood" rights, you must also grant those same rights to brain dead people, and make pulling the plug on anybody, under any circumstances, illegal, regardless of their wishes.

What people like PC do is think that calling a fetus a baby makes it any different, it doesn't.

Another thing PC won't address, is all the babies she wants to government controlling. Because she wants the government to control every aspect of reproduction, yet she doesn't seem to want to make sure EVERYONE the government would force to carry human babies to term, gets to turn them over to a loving family.

Government control of women's bodies and decisions is what she wants, and would offer nothing to guarantee good lives for them. She just assumes that'll happen.

And that's only the beginning of how naïve her position is

1. "...is all the babies she wants to government controlling. Because she wants the government to control every aspect of reproduction,..."
This is the sort of fabrication one posts when they are embarrassed at having having written that they are in favor of murder.


2. "Government control of women's bodies...."
The victim under discussion is not part of the mother's body.
Be happy to prove that to you when you get out of prison.


3. "offer nothing to guarantee good lives for them."
Again, not true.
If the child is American, it is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

I love this type of thread PC.....let me explain my position, in words pro lifers can understand

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

"I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother,....

1. As you have admitted to acceptance of homicide, why draw the line at 'first and second trimester"...?
Why not first or second decade of the child's life, as Obama's science adviser Singer has suggested be done (well...he didn't go quite that long....)


2. What is the right the mother has to take that life, aside from the acquiescence of homicidal maniacs like you?
Or....why does that mother not have the same "right" to kill any other person she comes across?

What, exactly, is that "right" based on?

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

I love this type of thread PC.....let me explain my position, in words pro lifers can understand

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

Exactly!
They don't care, they approve of killing the offspring of humans.

Exactly, and since murder is the unlawful killing of another human. Abortion in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy, where legal, Is lawful, and not murder.

Furthermore, when a first or second trimester fetus has an undeveloped cerebral cortex it cannot have feelings. If you want to make the case that the human baby has "personhood" rights, you must also grant those same rights to brain dead people, and make pulling the plug on anybody, under any circumstances, illegal, regardless of their wishes.

What people like PC do is think that calling a fetus a baby makes it any different, it doesn't.

Another thing PC won't address, is all the babies she wants to government controlling. Because she wants the government to control every aspect of reproduction, yet she doesn't seem to want to make sure EVERYONE the government would force to carry human babies to term, gets to turn them over to a loving family.

Government control of women's bodies and decisions is what she wants, and would offer nothing to guarantee good lives for them. She just assumes that'll happen.

And that's only the beginning of how naïve her position is

She's not naive, and her position is firm. Your argument is poorly thought out, and nonsensical.

For example..."all the babies she wants to government controlling" makes zero sense. It's impossible to even figure out what the hell you're talking about. I've read P.C. for a loong time, and I've never seen that she wants any government control of reproduction. Protecting the vulnerable is not control of reproduction. It's simply protecting the results of it.

If you hate babies, don't get pregnant. Just because you despise the offspring of humanity doesnt' give you the right to kill them.

First of all, I don't hate babies.

Furthermore your argument is just like hers, you do not address the results of making laws that cause the government to force women into giving up 9 months of their lives, and the resulting 18 years of unwanted human babies lives

I certainly did.
See post above.


Liberals, child-like and insipid, look to government to make certain they are protected from all the vicissitudes of life.

...and...get this....they actually believe daddy-government can do that!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.

simple.

That was so very kind of you, signing your name to the post.

posting daily strawmen is for simpletons...

Here's the point, simple......numerous examples of "laws" being wrong are evident.

Is the Bible wrong?

Exodus 21:22
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The girls are arguing against abortion in this thread - and kicking ass.

It's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world.

Except my Lola.

Dana is a girl too and she is kicking your and PoliticalSpice's asses so hard your noses are bleeding.

It's been hours and over 40 pages, I'm still waiting for any one of them to respond to my questions about ectopic pregnancy.

I guess proving the fact that a fertilized egg isn't life is way too inconvenient for those people.

It's been over 40 years and we're still waiting for those opposed to privacy rights to explain their plan to end abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

If I were as ugly as you, I'd want to live under a penumbra, too.

 

[alang1216]

I define it perfectly well, thank you, with the assistance of my friends at Princeton. I provided the citations, and attributed the sources. Where were you?

I don't recall seeing a definition from your friends. Is a strand of DNA a human being? If I took DNA from an fertilized human egg and put it into an unfertilized human egg (with DNA removed) and implanted it via invitro in a woman who caries it to term, is that a human being? What if the source of the DNA was one of my skin cells, would that be a human being?

I suggest you read through the thread more carefully.

None of my questions were addressed by your friends. Can you answer them for yourself?

 

[alang1216]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?
And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats...

I don't see this as a political issue, it is an issue of personal values, not how we are governed. I think it is really humanists you are taking issue with. There is likely plenty of overlap but not all liberals are pro-choice, I suspect there are plenty of liberal Catholics in that category.

 

[DriftingSand]

Ah, the abortion is infanticide or murder argument.

Legally it is just not so.

Morally and ethically it is. Simple common sense says that when a life ends that a death has taken place. Add hundreds of thousands or millions of planned, premeditated deaths together and you end up with a genocide. I should hope that would make sense to you.

So every single miscarriage is 3rd degree murder?

Miscarriages aren't generally PLANNED. Don't know of any institutions called "Unplanned Parenthood." Only "Planned Parenthood" draws up blueprints and carries out the destruction of human life.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If the child is American, it is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness.

The onus is now on PolitcalSpice to produce this "guarantee"!

I see much squirming ahead in her immediate future.

FYI that one is a "keeper"!

 

[Derideo_Te]

The death penalty is a value, values are eternal,

If death is one of PoliticalSpice's "values" then why is she so bent out of shape about abortion?

It isn't as though her own God didn't order abortions to be carried out wholesale by the chosen people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ah, the abortion is infanticide or murder argument.

Legally it is just not so.

Morally and ethically it is. Simple common sense says that when a life ends that a death has taken place. Add hundreds of thousands or millions of planned, premeditated deaths together and you end up with a genocide. I should hope that would make sense to you.

So every single miscarriage is 3rd degree murder?

Miscarriages aren't generally PLANNED. Don't know of any institutions called "Unplanned Parenthood." Only "Planned Parenthood" draws up blueprints and carries out the destruction of human life.

Which is why they are 3rd degree murder AKA manslaughter.

Hey, this is what you want, not me!

 

[DriftingSand]

Ah, the abortion is infanticide or murder argument.

Legally it is just not so.

Morally and ethically it is. Simple common sense says that when a life ends that a death has taken place. Add hundreds of thousands or millions of planned, premeditated deaths together and you end up with a genocide. I should hope that would make sense to you.

So every single miscarriage is 3rd degree murder?

Miscarriages aren't generally PLANNED. Don't know of any institutions called "Unplanned Parenthood." Only "Planned Parenthood" draws up blueprints and carries out the destruction of human life.

Which is why they are 3rd degree murder AKA manslaughter.

Hey, this is what you want, not me!

You make no sense whatsoever. Hungover? Toked a doob before posting?

Accidental miscarriage is -- ummm -- accidental. "Planned" abortion is -- ummm -- purposeful. See the difference?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ah, the abortion is infanticide or murder argument.

Legally it is just not so.

Morally and ethically it is. Simple common sense says that when a life ends that a death has taken place. Add hundreds of thousands or millions of planned, premeditated deaths together and you end up with a genocide. I should hope that would make sense to you.

So every single miscarriage is 3rd degree murder?

Miscarriages aren't generally PLANNED. Don't know of any institutions called "Unplanned Parenthood." Only "Planned Parenthood" draws up blueprints and carries out the destruction of human life.

Which is why they are 3rd degree murder AKA manslaughter.

Hey, this is what you want, not me!

You make no sense whatsoever. Hungover? Toked a doob before posting?

Accidental miscarriage is -- ummm -- accidental. "Planned" abortion is -- ummm -- purposeful. See the difference?

Run down a pedestrian on purpose versus run over a pedestrian by accident?

In both cases you can be charged with murder but the former is premeditated 1st degree murder and the latter is 3rd degree manslaughter.

If you want to charge a woman having an abortion with 1st degree murder then having a miscarriage would be manslaughter.

So why are you having such a hard time grasping your own attempts to criminalize women this morning?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the child is American, it is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness.

The onus is now on PolitcalSpice to produce this "guarantee"!

I see much squirming ahead in her immediate future.

FYI that one is a "keeper"!

Must you let everyone know what an imbecile you are?

Well....by this point it is common knowledge.


"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the ..en.wikipedia.org/.../Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happines..Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

The death penalty is a value, values are eternal,

If death is one of PoliticalSpice's "values" then why is she so bent out of shape about abortion?

It isn't as though her own God didn't order abortions to be carried out wholesale by the chosen people.

Every time I think you have posted the stupidest post evahhhhh.....

...you manage to top.....or 'bottom' it.

Abortion is the murder of innocents.
The death penalty, as posted, is the result of taking the life of another.


It’s too bad stupidity isn’t painful.

 

[toxicmedia]

First of all, I don't hate babies...

Huh... Yet you advocate for the murder of babies.

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

So, you don't hate babies, you just favor their being stripped of their lives...

We can therefore rest assured that you're also not antisemitic, just because you reject the right of the Israelis to defend themselves from mass-murderers intent upon their destruction.

ROFL! You people are a menace to the species.

You're a useless drama queen. Go try your emotional bullying on someone it'll work with.

You can use words like baby, murder, or whatever you want to emotionalize your completely unbalanced, judgmental, and half baked position.

Pro life folks are the biggest manipulators on the planet. The authors of the position use every trick they can to tap into the emotions and past grief everybody has who've ever loved their child instead of make a reasoned arguments about what it means to lack a cerebral cortex and ignore the results of the government forcing women to have unwanted babies.

You're being pushed around intellectually and don't even know it

 

[PoliticalChic]

First of all, I don't hate babies...

Huh... Yet you advocate for the murder of babies.

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

So, you don't hate babies, you just favor their being stripped of their lives...

We can therefore rest assured that you're also not antisemitic, just because you reject the right of the Israelis to defend themselves from mass-murderers intent upon their destruction.

ROFL! You people are a menace to the species.

You're a useless drama queen. Go try your emotional bullying on someone it'll work with.

You can use words like baby, murder, or whatever you want to emotionalize your completely unbalanced, judgmental, and half baked position.

Pro life folks are the biggest manipulators on the planet. The authors of the position use every trick they can to tap into the emotions and past grief everybody has who've ever loved their child instead of make a reasoned arguments about what it means to lack a cerebral cortex and ignore the results of the government forcing women to have unwanted babies.

You're being pushed around intellectually and don't even know it

1. "You can use words like baby, murder, or whatever you want to emotionalize your completely unbalanced, judgmental, and half baked position."

Hmmm.....who was it who wrote:
"I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother...."

Oh....right....you did.


2. "Pro life folks are the biggest manipulators on the planet. The authors of the position use every trick they can to tap into the emotions and past grief everybody has who've ever loved their child ...."
When you sober up, even you will recognize how truly stupid this post is.....

Almost as stupid as "I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother...."

Only a sociopath has to be 'manipulated' into caring about the murder of a baby.
Raise your paw.


3. "the government forcing women to have unwanted babies."
OK...your third strike.
No government forced her to have sex without considering the possible results.....but the Liberal government did essentially tell her, 'if it feels good do it, and we'll 'manipulate' the words to make abortion as a form of birth control.'

So....you must be a Liberal, huh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The notion that abortion is 'murder' is ignorant and unfounded, completely unsupported by the facts of law:

'The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 1992

Many conservatives and others hostile to the right to privacy will of course deride and ignore the Constitution in this regard, which is consistent with the contempt many conservatives have for individual liberty, and the desire many conservatives have to compel conformity.

 

[Valerie]

The girls are arguing against abortion in this thread - and kicking ass.

It's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world.

Except my Lola.

Dana is a girl too and she is kicking your and PoliticalSpice's asses so hard your noses are bleeding.

It's been hours and over 40 pages, I'm still waiting for any one of them to respond to my questions about ectopic pregnancy.

I guess proving the fact that a fertilized egg isn't life is way too inconvenient for those people.

It's been over 40 years and we're still waiting for those opposed to privacy rights to explain their plan to end abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

exactly..and it's the sanctimonious anti-choice totalitarians who resort to 'word games' as if they have a point in arguing strawmen..

 

[Carib Gyal]

The girls are arguing against abortion in this thread - and kicking ass.

It's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world.

Except my Lola.

Dana is a girl too and she is kicking your and PoliticalSpice's asses so hard your noses are bleeding.

It's been hours and over 40 pages, I'm still waiting for any one of them to respond to my questions about ectopic pregnancy.

I guess proving the fact that a fertilized egg isn't life is way too inconvenient for those people.

I answered it soon after you asked it. Might want to read the thread before you continue to make an ass of yourself.