President Trump Signs the Mandatory Organ Donor Act

On January 25^th, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that made it mandatory for American citizens to donate their blood and organs to those who need them. Especially in times of crises.

“It is a beautiful piece of legislation. Just beautiful,” said the president, during a press conference. “No more waiting around. Just, once a match is found, we slate for surgery and go. Efficient and quick. It’s going to save a lot of lives.”

Children as young as three are expected to be “mandatory donors.” Other restrictions – such as chronic illness, past sexual history, and other factors – may be decided at the state level.

Does this anger you? “I don’t want to donate my organs! You can just take my organs and blood against my will!”

Good, it should anger you. This sort of legislation would be a serious violation of bodily autonomy!

It’s in the same vein of violation as forcing pregnant people to remain pregnant, against their will.

“But the fetus would die if we allow abortions.” Cry the anti-choicers.

People will die if we don’t forcibly take blood and organs from people! That’s the argument for the MDA.

Birth Control and Comprehensive Sexual Education Lower Abortion Rates

We’re nearing an official week of Trump holding our highest office and, already, the legislation against abortion has been ridiculously high.

Ironically, this legislation is also targeting Planned Parenthood, which provides comprehensive sexual education and birth control. Those are two of the biggest contributing factors to lowering abortion/unintended pregnancy rates. (Which, by the way, abortion rates at at a record low.)

Denying People Abortions – When They Want Them – Is Bad

Decades of legal abortion make people forget the awfulness of illegal, back-alley abortion. People were desperate to terminate pregnancies. They used metal coat hangers and knitting needles to terminate the pregnancy themselves. They pumped chemicals into their body. They bled out in alleyways and hotel rooms, sometimes at the hand of a unqualified “surgeon.” (Those who bled out, left to die, aren’t going to be labeled as “victims of unsafe abortion” either. They’re going to be called victims of homicide.)

Needless to say, people who want abortions will be desperate to get them. And it makes sense. It’s their body. It’s their sovereignty over their body being denied. Mentally, emotionally, and physically, denying people their right to an abortion – when they want it – is detrimental.

Let’s not forget how debilitating pregnancy, by itself, can be. Even when it is a wanted occurrence. Pregnancy changes every facet of your being. Emotionally, mentally, and physically; it also affects you financially, since you need time off to give birth. If someone cannot deal with this, don’t force them.

Abortion Itself

Abortion is not evil. Abortion is not murder. It’s merely procedure meant to terminate a medical condition.

There is so much emotional discourse surrounding pregnancy, anti-choicers don’t want to allow the opportunity for choice. That’s wrong. Your emotions do not get to control someone else’s body. Yet you won’t acknowledge this, because you’ll ignore the death tolls of those who perform unsafe, back-alley abortions when safe abortions become unattainable.

The end of the discussion should be this: A person knows their limits. Let them make the choice they feel is the best for them. They may regret it in the future, but you can’t legislate against regret, otherwise you’d be legislating against freedom to date who you want and buyer’s remorse. They may not ever regret their abortion, either.

But if you do not allow them the choice, you will be doing more harm than good.

Final note: The Mandatory Donor Act is an “alternative fact.” In other words, it’s a farce. In this instance, it’s used for analogical purposes. Trump has not signed a Mandatory Donor Act.

Let’s Talk: Pro-Life

No, this article isn’t going to bash the pro-life side. I understand why people would be pro-life. However, my issue is when they want everyone to abide by their beliefs on the matter.

For example, I’m not fond of cigarettes. I support the ban of cigarettes in public spaces, like restaurants, universities, and bars. Cigarette smoke is dangerous, it can trigger asthma attacks, and some people are genuinely allergic to the smoke. However, I do not support entirely banning cigarettes altogether. If someone wants to smoke, that’s their prerogative. I simply demand never to do it in my home and I would hope they would refrain from lighting up with children present. Otherwise, if I’m in a public place that allows smoking, I just try to keep my kids as far away from it as possible.

See? I don’t like cigarettes, but I’m not forcing everyone to stop smoking based on how I personally feel about the things. That said, I want to talk about pro-life rhetoric, specifically.

• Abortion is murder.

No, abortion isn’t murder. I’ve covered this, here, but I’ll do a Cliff Notes version:

Murder is the unauthorized killing of another person, done with premeditation and malice.

Abortion is the authorized killing of a fetus, done for many reasons.

• Abortion is genocide.

The Merriam-Webster definition of genocide is, as follows: noun – the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

Abortion doesn’t, generally, happen due to racial, political, or cultural ties. Abortion happens, because the pregnant person doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore.

• Your mom chose life!

In my personal opinion, whenever you start a sentence off with “your mom…” it will end badly.  That’s not the intention with this little catchphrase, but my opinion stands.   Some people never had the choice of abortion, so that is a bit of a faulty presumption from the start.  However, even if someone’s mother had the option of abortion, they were allowed to choose for themselves to go through with pregnancy.

Choice.  It’s powerful.

• You had sex, deal with the consequences!

This basically translates into, “You decided to have sex, you slut, so deal with pregnancy, even though it can be debilitating, whore.”  Intended or not, it’s shaming people who have sex.

Consent to sex is, as you’ve heard me say, not consent to pregnancy.  While a pregnancy can be a consequence of sex, carrying the pregnancy isn’t the only way to take responsibility.

The consequences of an unplanned pregnancy are abortion, parenthood, and adoption. People take responsibility for their situation, makes choices on their situation, as they see fit.  They know their circumstances and their limits better than anyone else.  It’s somewhat arrogant to think you know what’s best for complete strangers.

• If you didn’t want to get pregnant, you shouldn’t have had sex/should’ve taken precautions.

Again, sex shaming.  Sex is not solely about procreation. It can be a great way to bond with lovers and sexual partners (though that’s not true for everyone!) and it can be a stress-reliever.  On top of that, there are plenty of other benefits to having sex.

Precautions are not 100% effective, either.  The presumption that they are is thanks to poor sexual education.   That said, birth control can lower the rate of unwanted pregnancy, and thus abortion, greatly.  The problems, however, are having comprehensive sexual education that goes over proper applications and storage and the birth control being affordable.  If you can’t use it appropriately, effectiveness goes down; if you can’t afford birth control, well, it needs to be affordable.

Further, some people don’t want to pump themselves full of hormones, suffer complications from birth control, or are allergic to birth control options.  Some couples need to rely on other methods, through ovulation calendars and being extremely safe.  In the end, accidents or miscalculations can happen.

Regardless of what precautions, or lack thereof, were taken, no one should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if they don’t want to do so.

• The child shouldn’t pay for your mistakes
• or The child shouldn’t pay for the crimes of the parent. (In regards to victims of rape getting abortions)

Abortion is not about punishment laid upon the fetus.  Abortion is for the benefit of the pregnant person, however that benefit may materialize itself.

A victim of rape should not be forced to carry their rapist’s offspring, if they do not want to.  Taking their bodily autonomy away, again, after the trauma of having it stolen from them once, is detrimental to their mental and emotional health.  Don’t.  Support.  That.

• There’s two bodies involved in abortion.

Only one of them can bodily support themselves, however.  The other needs to infringe on another’s body simply to survive.

• Choose adoption!
• or There are people out there who can’t have babies!

Adopting out can be very emotionally difficult.  Telling people to do it, flippantly, marginalizes how much it affects biological parents when they give their babies up for adoption.  It’s backhanded, in a way.

Some people are not emotionally or mentally capable of adopting out and that’s perfectly fine.  Bonding with a fetus for 40 weeks and then giving the resulting baby up would be very difficult and emotionally jarring.  Sometimes, there’s physical complications, as well, or the fetus will be born with a severe deformation (which makes it less likely they’ll get adopted.)

Admitting that one cannot cope with adopting out is strong, in itself, because they recognize and acknowledge their limits.

Some people just do not want to be pregnant, which makes adoption a moot option.  It isn’t selfish of them to not want to carry a pregnancy to term.  Pregnancy can be debilitating, frightening, and an all-around hardship that someone doesn’t want to opt for it at their position in life, or ever.

No one is obligated to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term on the basis that others cannot.  That’s like telling someone they can’t cut their hair, because some people are unable to grow their own.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

In the end, I understand that pro-lifers mean well, but their good intentions are warped as soon as they demand abortion to be abolished or made illegal.   Banning abortion will lead us back to unsafe, illegal back-alley procedures or to desperate people trying to self-abort with knitting needles, coat hangers, or overdosing on a natural abortifacient.

Any action that supports restricting or banning abortion spells out disaster, our own personal Hells, for people who want or need abortions.

Consent Is Not Transitive

Often I hear, “You consented to sex, you knew there was a risk to pregnancy.  Accept your responsibilities!”

Besides the sex-shaming factor, it’s also wrong.  Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy.  To help people understand, I have a handy comparison:

Everyone knows you get drunk from drinking alcohol.   Someone who is not a complete novice at drinking, but who isn’t extremely experienced, decides to go out partying, not intending to get a hangover.  They consume alcohol – at any point, they can stop – and maybe they know their limits, maybe they don’t.  Whatever the reason – maybe not enough food in their stomach or they try something new – they end up with a hangover the next day.

Did they consent to that hangover?  No.  Maybe they weren’t explicitly careful, but they didn’t consent to the hangover.  They take some aspirin and hope for the best.  No one judges them for “not taking responsibility,” when they take the pain reliever.

Now, let’s make it about sex.  This participate is not anticipating pregnancy.  Maybe they have had sex plenty of times before, but they wouldn’t call themselves a sexpert.  They can stop at any point during the sex, but they don’t.  Maybe they thought they weren’t ovulating, maybe their birth control failed, maybe their partner had faulty or expired condoms.  Whatever the reason, they are now pregnant.

Did they consent to pregnancy?  No.  Maybe they weren’t explicitly careful, but they did not consent to pregnancy.

Consent is not transitive and people are allowed to rescind consent at any point and time.

Let’s Talk About: Matt Walsh

Others have taken apart this argument, but it’s my turn!  You can find his “argument” here.

Here is the analogy he’s attempting to extinguish:

Imagine that you wake up one morning in a hospital bed. In the bed next to you is a famous singer. He is unconscious and all of these tubes are connected from him to you. A doctor comes in and explains that the singer became sick and you are the only person with the right blood type to match his. They need you to remain hooked up to him until he recovers… they tell you it should only take nine months. Until then, he needs to use all of your organs… your kidneys, liver, lungs, everything… just to survive. If you unplug yourself, he will die. So do you think you are obligated to stay plugged in? Does he have a right to live off of you like this? Should you be FORCED to stay connected to him?

Now, I do not like this analogy 100%, but I’ll uphold that it is decent enough to get a point across.

No one should be forced to donate their body to another, especially for a long amount of time.

1. Your analogy is flawed because it presupposes that the relationship between mother and child is no more significant, and carries with it no more responsibility, than the relationship between a person and some random stranger in a hospital bed.

If a pregnant person has not “met” the fetus, as it were, then they are strangers.  Yes, when a person wants to be pregnant, they can bond with the fetus; when you don’t want to be pregnant, you don’t bond (or you try not to.)

This is absurd. If we’re trying to make this hypothetical as close to pregnancy as possible, shouldn’t the sick singer (or violinist, according to the original iteration of this hypothetical) at least be your child? Your argument doesn’t work because the fact that your child is your child, and not some strange adult from across town, is precisely the point.

Hidden cleverly in this hypothetical is the insinuation that one cannot agree that an unborn child has a right to his mother’s body, without agreeing that anyone in the entire world, in any context, for any reason, at any point, for any period of time, has a right to a woman’s body.

Nice try, Rachel.

Just because a mother is expected to be a mother doesn’t mean she’s also expected to be a slave, a prostitute, and a forced organ donor to talented musical artists. Indeed, the extent of our responsibility to a person hinges in many ways on our relationship to them. You would, I assume, agree that you have a responsibility to your born children, wouldn’t you? And your responsibility to them extends far beyond your responsibility to your neighbor, or your plumber, or your trash collector, doesn’t it? The relationship matters. Your hypothetical fails because it pretends that relationships are irrelevant.

The thing this argument is forgetting is this: a born child, whom you have grown with, is a person and has interacted with you.  You have made a repertoire with them.  Of course you’re going to feel inclined to help them, because – being a person – they’re sentient, capable of suffering, have interacted with you (aka part of their surroundings) and you’ve become emotionally invested with them.

However, some people don’t feel the need to help their children out via organ donations.  That’s their right under bodily autonomy.

2. Your analogy is flawed because it leaves out an important detail: how did the singer become ill in the first place?

Aside from cases of rape, a child is only conceived because two people intentionally committed a particular act which has, literally billions of times, resulted in the conception of a human life.

This singer came down with a terrible sickness. You might feel pity for him, but you didn’t cause him to be sick. You didn’t put him in this state. You had absolutely nothing to do with it. The same cannot be said when a child is conceived.

Some people don’t get comprehensive sex education.  Some people do not realize that sex can result in pregnancy; some people don’t get the best education on properly handling birth control.  They shouldn’t be punished for this lack of privilege if they don’t want to be pregnant.

Regardless, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.  It’s the same as saying, “Hey, you were driving that car and got into an accident?  I guess you can’t get any medical attention.”

3. Your analogy is flawed because, when framed properly, it doesn’t strengthen your moral position — it defeats it.

The hypothetical should be this: your own child becomes very sick because of something you did.

You have emotional investment in a child you decided to carry and birth.  You don’t generally – not always – have such a strong emotional investment, if you want to terminate a pregnancy.

He needs a blood transfusion and you are the only match. Would you refuse to give him your blood because it infringes on your bodily autonomy? Could this be morally justified?  You put your kid in the hospital and now you will choose to watch him die because he ‘doesn’t have a right to your blood.’ THIS scenario would be the closest to abortion.

Closest; no, not really.  Pregnancy involves a lot more than blood.  This is saying that pregnancy is basically on par with a blood transfusion.  It’s not.

Pregnancy can involve a lot more changes – physical, mental, and emotional – and has tons of deadly symptoms.  Further, a blood transfusion takes a one-time sacrifice.  Pregnancy takes nine months of sacrificing various things and capabilities.

Which is something he’s forgetting in this point: the singer is hooked up to you for nine months.

And, if you are consistent in your affinity for ‘bodily autonomy,’ you could not criticize parents who’d rather let their child die than be inconvenienced by a blood transfusion.

Blood transfusions are one-time, however parents are still allowed a choice.  Pregnancy – and the analogy – last a large chunk of time, is hugely debilitating and concerns a lot more than simply giving blood.

4. But, no matter how you frame the hypothetical, it is still flawed because it ignores one crucial thing: natural order.

Oh, natural order.  You mean we’re allowed to abort – such as animals (like rabbits, cows, horses, dogs, cats, and so on) do – when it hurts us or when resources aren’t in enough supply?  You mean a sentient being is given more rights and respect than a non-sentient being?

An unborn child is exactly where he is supposed to be. He couldn’t possibly be anywhere else. This is the fundamental difference between two people hooked up to machines on a hospital bed, and a ‘fetus’ connected to his mother insider her womb. The former represents unnatural and extraordinary measures, while the latter represents something natural and ordinary. The unborn child is where Nature (or God, as I call Him) intends it to be.

First off, Matt Walsh doesn’t know his former from his latter.

Second off, just because a fetus is “meant” to be in a womb, doesn’t mean anyone has to allow it to stay.

The unborn child is not,in any scientific or medical sense, an intruder or a parasite. These words have meanings, and unborn babies do not fit the bill. They are where they are supposed to be. They are where they belong. A fish belongs in water, just as an unborn child belongs in his mother’s womb.

Some fish are able to fly.  Just thought I’d throw that out there.

If someone does not want to be pregnant, however, they can get rid of the fetus.  Sure, a fetus can develop and thrive in a uterus, but if someone doesn’t want them there, if the fetus doesn’t have consent to stay, that person has all rights to evict the fetus.  There is no sentient human who is allowed to use our bodies without our say so, so why would we allow a non-sentient fetus more rights?  We don’t.

5. Beyond all of these points, the analogy is flawed because abortion is not the same as ‘unplugging’ a person from medical equipment.

It is if the person in the analogy will die without being connected to you.  If you’re the only match and this patient is in such a horrible position, they will die without your “donation.”

It might be quite sanitary and pleasant to refer to abortion as a woman ‘withdrawing support’ from her child, but the procedure goes beyond this. During a ‘termination,’ the baby is actively killed. It is crushed, dismembered, poisoned, or torn apart. It is killed. It is actively, actually, purposefully, intentionally killed.

Fetuses aren’t viable.  So if a pregnant person is going to evict a fetus, what do you expect to happen?  Once the fetus is removed, it will die regardless.  The way it dies has no bearing on abortion, because – as soon as the pregnant person has chosen – it’s not going to live, regardless.

In fact, even in the original hypothetical — where you’re hooked up to a singer in a hospital bed — while it would be acceptable to unplug yourself, it would NOT be morally or legally permissible to shoot the poor guy in the head.

However, if a match isn’t made, the man would probably be taken off of life support.  He’d die.  Does whether he die whole or not matter in the end?

Say, as soon as you unplug yourself from him, a swinging pendulum comes down and chops him to bits.  Does that still matter?

No, because you have your own bodily autonomy and you don’t want to be hooked to him.

A person’s physical reliance on you does not give you the moral (or legal, usually) right to murder them. ‘

Well, two things: fetuses aren’t people and abortion isn’t murder.  So we’re in the clear!

Withdrawing support’ is precisely what an abortion isn’t. If it was, then the baby would be delivered and left to die in the corner of the room. Of course, this is how some abortionists conduct business, but it’s illegal. If they’re caught, they go to jail.

So, even if fetuses could be extracted in whole, you still wouldn’t want the fetus to die naturally.

6. But the bodily autonomy argument is flawed in ways that go beyond that utterly fallacious and misleading hypothetical. It’s flawed because nobody is crazy enough to consistently apply it to pregnant women.

…there are things illegal for pregnant people to do?

According to bodily autonomy, a mother could not be judged harshly for smoking, drinking, doing coke, and going skydiving (hopefully not all in the same day) while 6 months pregnant.

None of those are illegal for a pregnant person to do…

Is the pregnant person wanting to continue the pregnancy until term?  It’s unlikely they want their baby to be born with abnormalities or to suffer once born.  For a guaranteed healthy pregnancy, the pregnant person shouldn’t drink, smoke, do drugs, or do any stressful activities.

In some cases, those particular issues may cause the pregnant person to severely miscarry.  That could hurt the pregnant person.

Also, if a business refuses to give a pregnant person a drink or refuses her at a sky-diving agency, the business is covering their ass if the pregnant person loses their pregnancy, because that’s grounds for a lawsuit.

If you really believe that a woman’s body is autonomous — that she has absolute jurisdiction over it — then you must defend a mother who does things that could seriously harm her unborn child, even if she hasn’t chosen to abort it. This is not a slippery slope argument; this is a reasonable and inevitable application of your principle.

I would hope someone looking to carry a pregnancy to term would be healthy about it, however  I am not the keeper of every pregnant person out there.

Therefore: yes, the pregnant person is still allowed to do all that and I support her choice in bodily autonomy, even if I hold reservations over the health of the baby.  (Some pregnant people do drink or smoke during pregnancy and their babies are just fine. )

To reiterate: none of those recreations are actually illegal for a pregnant person to do.

7. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because it requires you to support abortion at every stage of development.

…and?

I’m throwing this in here because most pro-aborts will not (vocally) defend abortion at 8 or 9 months. But — if bodily autonomy is your claim — you must. Is a woman’s body less autonomous when she’s been pregnant for 35 weeks? There is no way around it: bodily autonomy means that it is moral to kill a fully formed baby, at seven months, or eight months, or nine months.

I agree with a person’s bodily autonomy regardless of when they get an abortion.  Plenty of pro-choicers do, actually.

I’d hope, if the fetus were viable, they could induce birth and be able to put the baby up for adoption, but I do not know the circumstances or reasons behind the abortion.

However, bodily autonomy doesn’t support killing a baby once born.

8. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because you can’t limit it to pregnant women.

You say that our bodies cannot be ‘used’ without our ‘consent.’ Why should this apply only to pregnancy and organ donations? Children, at any age, create profound demands on their parents’ bodies.

They are not bodily dependent on the parents, though.

Whether it’s waking up in the middle of the night for the crying baby, working long hours to pay for their food and clothing, carrying them around when they cannot walk, staying home when you’d like to go out, going out (to bring them to the doctor, or school, or soccer practice) when you’d like to stay in, etc, etc, etc, and so forth.

However, the baby is able to digest its nutrition, it has its own blood pumping, its development is no longer infringing on the parent’s body, physically.  The parents are able to drink, lift heavy things, do drugs, and what not without worrying about it hurting the child.  They are completely separate entities.

An argument for absolute bodily autonomy means that it can’t be illegal, or considered immoral, for a parent to decline to do any of these things, so long as their decision was made in the name of bodily autonomy.

It’s called adoption.  Some people do choose it, because they’re not ready for parenthood.  How did you forget about adoption?

9. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because it necessarily justifies things like public masturbation.

Well, that’s a stretch.  Slippery slope?  Didn’t you use that earlier…

If I can ‘do what I want with my body,’ then it becomes very difficult to launch a salient moral or legal attack against a man who chooses to sit in a playground in front of children and pleasure his own body.

You can choose what happens to your body.  You make choices about your body, such as medical choices, piercings, tattoos, who gets to have sex with you, so on and so forth.

Where that stops is when it hurts another person or infringes on another person’s rights.  You are not allowed to force your body on another, sexually; that’s what public masturbation is.  You’re forcing your body onto that of the children, whether they want to see it or not.  You take away their right to say “no,” and that is not what bodily autoomy is.

I’m also very concerned that, rather than make an allusion to masturbation in front of adults, you chose children.

10. Finally, the bodily autonomy argument is flawed because our bodies are not autonomous.

So our bodies are not digesting our own food, developing without the usage of another person’s body, pumping our own blood, making and evacuating its own excrement?

I’m often accused of oversimplifying, but I’ve never oversimplified to the extent of you bodily autonomy proponents. Once we’ve considered every complexity and nuance, we can rightly say that our bodies are autonomous in some ways, and in some circumstances, but not in others. We cannot say that they are absolutely autonomous, and I find it hard to believe that anyone truly thinks that.

Any claim or responsibility placed on me, automatically includes a claim and responsibility on my body. Everything I do involves my body. I am my body. CS Lewis would say that I am my soul and I have a body. I agree with him, but for our purposes in this discussion, leaving souls and spirits aside, we are our bodies. Whether we are expected to pay taxes or drive the speed limit or provide a safe and sanitary home for our children, we are using our bodies to meet these expectations. We experience and participate in life with our bodies. Absolute bodily autonomy is inexorably linked with personal autonomy. If my body is autonomous, my person must be autonomous, and if my person is autonomous, then my very existence is autonomous, and if my very existence is autonomous, then it is simply unacceptable and (by your logic) immoral for anyone to expect me to do anything for anyone at any point for any reason.

If you concede that we ought to be expected or even required to do certain things, then you are placing limits on our bodily autonomy.

Want to give examples?  Fine.  Taxes.  Everyone hates paying taxes!

Here’s a cool thing, though: If you absolutely wanted to, you could find a way to live witout having to pay taxes.  You would have to give up things, though.  Such as living in the US.  If you wanted to, you could find somewhere secluded, live off the land, and not do anything that others expect of you.  You have to give up things, though.

If you place limits on our bodily autonomy, then you are admitting that limits can be placed on our bodily autonomy.

No, we are allowed to do with our body what we want.  However, for certain luxuries, we also do things we don’t necessarily want to do, but do anyway to keep those luxuries in our life.

If you are admitting that limits can be placed on our bodily autonomy, then you must consider whether abortion falls within or outside of those limits.

Nope, it doesn’t.

And here’s the rub: if you contend that abortion falls within the limits on bodily autonomy, you must justify that belief beyond simply reasserting our right to bodily autonomy.

The pregnant person is bodily autonomous and the fetus is not a person, thus the fetus doesn’t get rights.  Sentient pregnant people > non-sentient fetus.

Personally, I think that abortion goes well beyond the limits on bodily autonomy, for all of the reasons I’ve previously stipulated.

Most of which were cherry picking part of the analogy or ascertaining things that weren’t necessarily true.

There’s your answer, Rachel.

But, except for the ten reasons why you’re wrong, you’re right on the money.

Your reasons aren’t good, though.  Kind of arrogant to say otherwise.

And, except for the ten answers I’ve provided, I have no answers for you.

So you got nothing, Mr. Walsh.

I guess you win.

Thanks for writing.

I do win, thanks for being so proactive as to admit that.  😉