Political Crossfire Forums

cup2006Sens · Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 208

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Impossible to be anti abortion and pro choice. Either you believe murder is murder or you dont. To be anti abortion means to be against its legality, period. No, not period. The world is not black and white, it is shades of gray. I am morally against abortion, and would do everything I can to convince a woman not to have one. But, I still believe that it would be wrong to make abortion illegal.

That is exactly my sentiment.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5138 Location: Boston, MA

cup2006Sens wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: cup2006Sens wrote: I am anti abortion yet pro-choice. I think abortion is wrong, to me anyways. As a male I really don't have a choice in the matter but I would never counsel someone to have an abortion. However I don't feel it is my place to tell all women what they should do with their bodies. I don't think that abortion should be allowed after 5 or 6 months unless the womans life is in danger. A woman has had time to know she is pregant by that point and the baby is too developed to allow an abortion.

Also I think that abortion should have a waiting period. A woman should have to wait 4 or 5 days or a week after she goes to the hospital and get counselling about whether she really wants the abortion and whether she is serious about getting the abortion and whether she can live with it. Abortion on immediate demand should not be as once it is done it can't be taken back. That said I don't mind the government paying for an abortion in a hospital if there is counselling and a waiting period.

I do believe life begins at conception and I think if someone causes a woman to lose her baby through violence they should be charged with manslaughter or murder.

I wouldn't ban abortion but I would like it if fewer abortions happened.

Men are 50% responsible for ALL abortions in the world.

Men over all could be FAR more responsible both on the subject of having sex in the first place and then in supporting the woman carrying and perhaps having their baby.

By simply saying "it is not my issue" you automatically abandon the woman who needs you most at the very time she is FORCED to make a decision BY HERSELF.

If you look at the reasons MANY women (USA) get abortions it has to do with partner support either financially or personally.

Men have a tremendous influence on how many abortions there are every year by their COWARDLY ABSENCES, and abdication of responsibilities.

There would be far fewer abortions if there were more boys willing to be act like men.

Don't give me the excuse that just because you are male you have NOTHING TO SAY.

Why attack me? I never said that it isn't my issue or that the issue doesn't concern men. I said I am a male so I won't ever be faced with the decision to have an abortion. I can't have an abortion as I can't bear children. That is waht I meant and I think it is pretty clear I implied that.

No you said this exactly "As a male I really don't have a choice in the matter but I would never counsel someone to have an abortion" Men do have a choice in the matter and whether you meant it or not, it is the attitude that we don't that puts many women in the position of having to deal with the decision of motherhood ALONE and that is criminal.

cup2006Sens · Joined: 07 Jun 2006 Posts: 208

Gilbert1908 wrote: cup2006Sens wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: cup2006Sens wrote: I am anti abortion yet pro-choice. I think abortion is wrong, to me anyways. As a male I really don't have a choice in the matter but I would never counsel someone to have an abortion. However I don't feel it is my place to tell all women what they should do with their bodies. I don't think that abortion should be allowed after 5 or 6 months unless the womans life is in danger. A woman has had time to know she is pregant by that point and the baby is too developed to allow an abortion.

Also I think that abortion should have a waiting period. A woman should have to wait 4 or 5 days or a week after she goes to the hospital and get counselling about whether she really wants the abortion and whether she is serious about getting the abortion and whether she can live with it. Abortion on immediate demand should not be as once it is done it can't be taken back. That said I don't mind the government paying for an abortion in a hospital if there is counselling and a waiting period.

I do believe life begins at conception and I think if someone causes a woman to lose her baby through violence they should be charged with manslaughter or murder.

I wouldn't ban abortion but I would like it if fewer abortions happened.

Men are 50% responsible for ALL abortions in the world.

Men over all could be FAR more responsible both on the subject of having sex in the first place and then in supporting the woman carrying and perhaps having their baby.

By simply saying "it is not my issue" you automatically abandon the woman who needs you most at the very time she is FORCED to make a decision BY HERSELF.

If you look at the reasons MANY women (USA) get abortions it has to do with partner support either financially or personally.

Men have a tremendous influence on how many abortions there are every year by their COWARDLY ABSENCES, and abdication of responsibilities.

There would be far fewer abortions if there were more boys willing to be act like men.

Don't give me the excuse that just because you are male you have NOTHING TO SAY.

Why attack me? I never said that it isn't my issue or that the issue doesn't concern men. I said I am a male so I won't ever be faced with the decision to have an abortion. I can't have an abortion as I can't bear children. That is waht I meant and I think it is pretty clear I implied that.

No you said this exactly "As a male I really don't have a choice in the matter but I would never counsel someone to have an abortion" Men do have a choice in the matter and whether you meant it or not, it is the attitude that we don't that puts many women in the position of having to deal with the decision of motherhood ALONE and that is criminal.

How is that criminal? What is criminal that woman have to deal with the decision of abortion alone? What is criminal? What are you saying that the government should enforce parental support on men? They already do that. Or that there is no really decent welfare/system available to single mothers who need it? You could balme that on men becuse those are the people more often in political power but is it really on the average male? Is that what you are arguing.

Attacking someone who is anti-abortion yet doesn't believe in exactly what you do is what people who are anti-abortion do. Not trying to attack pro-life people here in particular because it is prevalent across all aspects of the political spectrum.

Right wing people attack moderate conservatives more than they do left wingers. Really left wing people attack moderate liberals/democrats more than they do right wingers. Attacking people that basically agree with you on many points and that are natural allies but that don't completely share your ideology is a huge problem on both sides of the political spectrum.

I can see abortion being a huge black and white issue and most people are clearly aligned to one side. But life and politics and power is all about the shades of gray in between.

This isn't a comment particularly about abortion but many, many people can't see the shades of gray and only see in black and white. And they attack their natural allies moreso than their enemies becuse they are more angered by someone who somewhat agrees with them not completely agreeing than they are with people who absolutely are on the other side.

Again this isn't a comment solely on abortion but on all things political. And it is a huge weakness of the 2 party system. Most people are centrist yet the ultra right and left dictate the terms of the debate.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5138 Location: Boston, MA

cup2006Sens wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: cup2006Sens wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: cup2006Sens wrote: I am anti abortion yet pro-choice. I think abortion is wrong, to me anyways. As a male I really don't have a choice in the matter but I would never counsel someone to have an abortion. However I don't feel it is my place to tell all women what they should do with their bodies. I don't think that abortion should be allowed after 5 or 6 months unless the womans life is in danger. A woman has had time to know she is pregant by that point and the baby is too developed to allow an abortion.

Also I think that abortion should have a waiting period. A woman should have to wait 4 or 5 days or a week after she goes to the hospital and get counselling about whether she really wants the abortion and whether she is serious about getting the abortion and whether she can live with it. Abortion on immediate demand should not be as once it is done it can't be taken back. That said I don't mind the government paying for an abortion in a hospital if there is counselling and a waiting period.

I do believe life begins at conception and I think if someone causes a woman to lose her baby through violence they should be charged with manslaughter or murder.

I wouldn't ban abortion but I would like it if fewer abortions happened.

Men are 50% responsible for ALL abortions in the world.

Men over all could be FAR more responsible both on the subject of having sex in the first place and then in supporting the woman carrying and perhaps having their baby.

By simply saying "it is not my issue" you automatically abandon the woman who needs you most at the very time she is FORCED to make a decision BY HERSELF.

If you look at the reasons MANY women (USA) get abortions it has to do with partner support either financially or personally.

Men have a tremendous influence on how many abortions there are every year by their COWARDLY ABSENCES, and abdication of responsibilities.

There would be far fewer abortions if there were more boys willing to be act like men.

Don't give me the excuse that just because you are male you have NOTHING TO SAY.

Why attack me? I never said that it isn't my issue or that the issue doesn't concern men. I said I am a male so I won't ever be faced with the decision to have an abortion. I can't have an abortion as I can't bear children. That is waht I meant and I think it is pretty clear I implied that.

No you said this exactly "As a male I really don't have a choice in the matter but I would never counsel someone to have an abortion" Men do have a choice in the matter and whether you meant it or not, it is the attitude that we don't that puts many women in the position of having to deal with the decision of motherhood ALONE and that is criminal.

How is that criminal? What is criminal that woman have to deal with the decision of abortion alone? What is criminal? What are you saying that the government should enforce parental support on men? They already do that. Or that there is no really decent welfare/system available to single mothers who need it? You could balme that on men becuse those are the people more often in political power but is it really on the average male? Is that what you are arguing.

Attacking someone who is anti-abortion yet doesn't believe in exactly what you do is what people who are anti-abortion do. Not trying to attack pro-life people here in particular because it is prevalent across all aspects of the political spectrum.

What is criminal is the abdication of responsibility by the men who are as responsible for the preganacy as the woman, yet do everything to AVOID that responsibility REGARDLESS of what the woman decides.

I attacked a specific sentence that represents a societal element that contributes to a major problem in the USA. That being irresponsible men who deny or ignore the women (sometimes equally irresponsible) leaving them to deal with there pregnacy without a supportive partner.

And if you took the time to look up the reasons given by women as to why they choose abortion you will see that many of them do so because they DO NOT have the support either emotionally or finacially of a partner.

Now if you can find ANY ideaology in my comments that state a position about governement, welfare and all of the other elements of your rant that have NOTHING to do with what I said or my point, I would be happy to see it.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:09 am Post subject:

Plodder wrote: funny i was pro death until I read up on science and technology and philosophy and started to pay attention to life and now im 110% for life.

I'm with the people who don't particularly "like" abortion but are pro-choice anyway. And here's why. Let's speculate. Say tomorrow we ban all forms of abortion, including chemical (pills). We'll take the Catholic stance and make saints out of all the women who die because they choose to carry children whose birth will kill them--in other words, we will value every life from "conception until natural death."

There will be 12-year-olds who get raped and have to carry the child. Babies will be born dead or dying within 15 minutes of exiting the womb. Women will hemorrhage and die from complications with pregnancy that could have been easily prevented with an early abortion.

In my world, you weigh the benefits, costs, and consequences of every choice when you make it, and that includes abortion. To unequivocally state "this is wrong, and we will not do it under any circumstances" may sound great, but it shuts the door on those cases where, frankly, ending the potential life or even the life, if you please, of the fetus, is an acceptable cost. When the consequence of abortion is a mother living, or an adolescent not having to carry child she is physically unable to bear, or a woman not giving birth to a child of rape, then I think even if we consider the fetus to be alive, it's acceptable. Do you want to be the doctor who tells a woman with a pregnancy that will kill her "sorry, we can't destroy this life"? What about her life? How cold-hearted are you?

So maybe abortion isn't a great thing, but completely banning it is not only stupid, but IMO morally wrong. Like Uriel said, life is colored in gray, not in black and white. If you completely ban abortion, you condemn some women to die or to spend their childhood with a child. I'm sorry, but if at that point you can still say "it's a life, we have to protect it," then you're absolutely beyond reason.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: There will be 12-year-olds who get raped and have to carry the child. Babies will be born dead or dying within 15 minutes of exiting the womb. Women will hemorrhage and die from complications with pregnancy that could have been easily prevented with an early abortion.
funny you would think that the world was dark and evil before abortion was legal. Quote: Do you want to be the doctor who tells a woman with a pregnancy that will kill her "sorry, we can't destroy this life"? What about her life? How cold-hearted are you?
if it will kill her the obvious choice to allow to live is the mother. Quote: So maybe abortion isn't a great thing, but completely banning it is not only stupid, but IMO morally wrong. Like Uriel said, life is colored in gray, not in black and white. If you completely ban abortion, you condemn some women to die or to spend their childhood with a child. I'm sorry, but if at that point you can still say "it's a life, we have to protect it," then you're absolutely beyond reason. quite the opposite, it is beyond reson to kill a life when it is not needed. There are centers where you can drop off your child and forget about it. Deaths form birth are temendouly low, i think you have been wathching whats it called ... Jersey Girl too much.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5138 Location: Boston, MA

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Plodder wrote: funny i was pro death until I read up on science and technology and philosophy and started to pay attention to life and now im 110% for life.

I'm with the people who don't particularly "like" abortion but are pro-choice anyway. And here's why. Let's speculate. Say tomorrow we ban all forms of abortion, including chemical (pills). We'll take the Catholic stance and make saints out of all the women who die because they choose to carry children whose birth will kill them--in other words, we will value every life from "conception until natural death."

There will be 12-year-olds who get raped and have to carry the child. Babies will be born dead or dying within 15 minutes of exiting the womb. Women will hemorrhage and die from complications with pregnancy that could have been easily prevented with an early abortion.

In my world, you weigh the benefits, costs, and consequences of every choice when you make it, and that includes abortion. To unequivocally state "this is wrong, and we will not do it under any circumstances" may sound great, but it shuts the door on those cases where, frankly, ending the potential life or even the life, if you please, of the fetus, is an acceptable cost. When the consequence of abortion is a mother living, or an adolescent not having to carry child she is physically unable to bear, or a woman not giving birth to a child of rape, then I think even if we consider the fetus to be alive, it's acceptable. Do you want to be the doctor who tells a woman with a pregnancy that will kill her "sorry, we can't destroy this life"? What about her life? How cold-hearted are you?

So maybe abortion isn't a great thing, but completely banning it is not only stupid, but IMO morally wrong. Like Uriel said, life is colored in gray, not in black and white. If you completely ban abortion, you condemn some women to die or to spend their childhood with a child. I'm sorry, but if at that point you can still say "it's a life, we have to protect it," then you're absolutely beyond reason.

Since you weigh every benefit, cost and consequence then you would realize that the people who take the pro life position believe that the 1 million+ abortions each year (USA) are the termination of human lifes. How many human lives will be terminated if there were no abortions?

Applying pure reason IF you believed you could save hundreds of thousands if not nearly a million lives by banning abortion how could you NOT do it.

Many pro life people DO support a compromise for the exemption for the life of the mother AND Rape and incest in order to get restrictions on abortion at will, so your gratuitous insult of Catholics is false on the facts.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:15 am Post subject:

Gilbert1908 wrote:
Since you weigh every benefit, cost and consequence then you would realize that the people who take the pro life position believe that the 1 million+ abortions each year (USA) are the termination of human lifes. How many human lives will be terminated if there were no abortions?

Applying pure reason IF you believed you could save hundreds of thousands if not nearly a million lives by banning abortion how could you NOT do it.

Many pro life people DO support a compromise for the exemption for the life of the mother AND Rape and incest in order to get restrictions on abortion at will, so your gratuitous insult of Catholics is false on the facts.

I used to BE a Catholic. "...no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being." -CCC 2258. Ever heard of
Blessed Gianna Beretta Molla? That's how the Church wants us all to be--sacrifice the born for the unborn. I don't care if it's selfish; if my wife has a cystic fibroma in her uterus that will kill her unless she aborts, she will get an abortion. If a man comes into my home and threatens to kill my wife, I will shoot him before he can. They are equally justified in my mind.

Banning abortion completely will solve no problems. We can make them harder to get, or promote the use of contraception, but in the end you don't know the circumstances that each one of those abortions was chosen in.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:19 am Post subject:

Plodder wrote: Quote: There will be 12-year-olds who get raped and have to carry the child. Babies will be born dead or dying within 15 minutes of exiting the womb. Women will hemorrhage and die from complications with pregnancy that could have been easily prevented with an early abortion.
funny you would think that the world was dark and evil before abortion was legal.

Funny, you would think that stuff like this actually happened before abortion was legal. Oh wait, it did.

Quote: Quote: So maybe abortion isn't a great thing, but completely banning it is not only stupid, but IMO morally wrong. Like Uriel said, life is colored in gray, not in black and white. If you completely ban abortion, you condemn some women to die or to spend their childhood with a child. I'm sorry, but if at that point you can still say "it's a life, we have to protect it," then you're absolutely beyond reason.

quite the opposite, it is beyond reson to kill a life when it is not needed. There are centers where you can drop off your child and forget about it. Deaths form birth are temendouly low, i think you have been wathching whats it called ... Jersey Girl too much.

Nice, so that's better? Dropping your child somewhere and forgetting about it?

Yes, deaths from birth are rare (though America has one of the highest rates in the first world). My point is that it still happens, and that the option should still be there.

BTW, I've never seen Jersey Girl. Looked like trash to me.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: Funny, you would think that stuff like this actually happened before abortion was legal. Oh wait, it did. it was not as bad as you make it sound. now adays it would be significantly less if ab ortion were made illegal. Thats because people would have less sex which would decrease the demand for illegal abortions.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8750

Plodder wrote: Quote: Funny, you would think that stuff like this actually happened before abortion was legal. Oh wait, it did. it was not as bad as you make it sound. now adays it would be significantly less if ab ortion were made illegal. Thats because people would have less sex which would decrease the demand for illegal abortions. That severely misrepresents human nature. There is nothing to even suggest that "people would have less sex."

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:01 pm Post subject:

UrielsFyre wrote: Plodder wrote: Quote: Funny, you would think that stuff like this actually happened before abortion was legal. Oh wait, it did. it was not as bad as you make it sound. now adays it would be significantly less if ab ortion were made illegal. Thats because people would have less sex which would decrease the demand for illegal abortions. That severely misrepresents human nature. There is nothing to even suggest that "people would have less sex."

For freaking real. "People would have less sex"? What dream world are you living in?

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: That severely misrepresents human nature. There is nothing to even suggest that "people would have less sex." one in which people would rather have a baby rather than die of an infection due to a coat hanger wound.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8750

Plodder wrote: Quote: That severely misrepresents human nature. There is nothing to even suggest that "people would have less sex." one in which people would rather have a baby rather than die of an infection due to a coat hanger wound.

That is nothing more than speculation. There is no evidence to suggest that your claim of people having less sex is accurate.

Coral · Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 2759 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Buy condoms..buy coat hangers. Too many worries. The stress of it all, I refuse to participate.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:43 am Post subject:

Plodder wrote: Quote: That severely misrepresents human nature. There is nothing to even suggest that "people would have less sex." one in which people would rather have a baby rather than die of an infection due to a coat hanger wound.

Yes, but unfortunately in the real world there are some people who have chosen the latter route, and that is why I'm pro-choice.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

and thats why we should have better education out there. The benefit of the many out wheigst tha benefits of a few. the psychological damage is not as bad as the damage done by a murder.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Plodder wrote: and thats why we should have better education out there. The benefit of the many out wheigst tha benefits of a few. the psychological damage is not as bad as the damage done by a murder.

BBC News wrote: In Peru alone, an estimated 50,000 women a year either die or suffer serious complications after an illegal abortion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3194680.stm

You guys are sadly deluded if you think making abortions illegal will either stop people having sex or having abortions. Taking away peoples choices does not make them more responsible.

If the effort spent on stopping abortions was spent on changing attitudes to sex and pregnancy there wouldn't be a need for abortions. The Religious Right wing is not just about making abortions illegal its about making unmarried sex dirty and shameful.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

I havn't changed my pro-choice stance, but I have changed my reasoning and what I think should be done about it. All thanks to these forums.

I am pro-choice because I think the Mothers rights outweigh the unborns.

The two beings are not equivalent by a long stretch. Whilst both are of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens (making them 'human', thats all it means), one is a cognating being with memories, emotions and empathy (person) and one is not.

No doubt someone will come along and mix up or obfuscicate the definition of human life to be more than it is, but thats all that it really means. A living being of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It does not confer personhood however you want to define personhood.

Its the same reasoning that allows us to eat animals and plants, to treat them as property. Your unborn and your born progency are your property, the law even says so. You are responsible for its care, just as you are a plot of land. You are responsible for the damage that it does just as you are a car. It cannot be abandoned to fend for itself.

As property you have a right to dispose of it (legally).

The US Constitution says that only PERSONS BORN in the US have the right to be citizins. So the unborn are not citizens. Can you imagine if it was changed and the unborn had rights to be US citizens, then the Government would have to stop foreigners having sex in case they concieved in America! ;)

It is not a moral choice because there is no murder or wrongdoing. You are not killing a thinking being, with memories, emotions and empathy.

It could be your progeny though and the instinct to produce and protect progeny is a big part of us. It is not a decision to be taken lightly (though no doubt some will) and I don't think the vast majority do take it lightly.

Usually their reasons are driven by outside forces, financial, spousal, parental, and religious (oh yes, doesn't do to get knocked up in a religious community, could get you stoned as they have done in Africa).

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5138 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: I havn't changed my pro-choice stance, but I have changed my reasoning and what I think should be done about it. All thanks to these forums.

I am pro-choice because I think the Mothers rights outweigh the unborns.

The two beings are not equivalent by a long stretch. Whilst both are of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens (making them 'human', thats all it means), one is a cognating being with memories, emotions and empathy (person) and one is not.

No doubt someone will come along and mix up or obfuscicate the definition of human life to be more than it is, but thats all that it really means. A living being of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It does not confer personhood however you want to define personhood. By your definition a new born would be terminateable?

Selfish_Meme wrote: Its the same reasoning that allows us to eat animals and plants, to treat them as property. Your unborn and your born progency are your property, the law even says so. You are responsible for its care, just as you are a plot of land. You are responsible for the damage that it does just as you are a car. It cannot be abandoned to fend for itself.

As property you have a right to dispose of it (legally).

The law indeed DOES NOT say your child is your property and there are many (some would say too many) laws making that clear. You CAN NOT dispose of children OR fetus' in any method you like and in fact in most cases NOT AT ALL. You can not be arrested for forgetting to mow your lawn for a couple of weeks but try NOT feeding your child. The idea that a child is YOUR property is not only beyond cynical it is incorrect. A child is your LEGAL responsibility NOT your PROPERTY. No Human being can be the property of another legally in the USA.

Selfish_Meme wrote: The US Constitution says that only PERSONS BORN in the US have the right to be citizins. So the unborn are not citizens. Can you imagine if it was changed and the unborn had rights to be US citizens, then the Government would have to stop foreigners having sex in case they concieved in America! ;)

You are correct that the constitution defines what is a citizen, but it does not deny rights to ALL persons(today right this minute, non-citizens have rights as well as the born AND the unborn) . Here is the 14th amendment which addresses both your PROPERTY AND CITIZEN claim.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You may make the argument that a fetus is NOT a person and that is a valid legal argument, but why then is a fetus treated differently after week 23 than prior to week 23 has it become a person? It is certainly not cognizant or have memories???

Selfish_Meme wrote: It is not a moral choice because there is no murder or wrongdoing. You are not killing a thinking being, with memories, emotions and empathy.

It could be your progeny though and the instinct to produce and protect progeny is a big part of us. It is not a decision to be taken lightly (though no doubt some will) and I don't think the vast majority do take it lightly.

Usually their reasons are driven by outside forces, financial, spousal, parental, and religious (oh yes, doesn't do to get knocked up in a religious community, could get you stoned as they have done in Africa).

You are right about most of this except for the gratuitous "stoned" comment .