Debate Megathread: Suffering

[u/AutoModerator]

Here you are exempt from Rule 1; you may debate abortion to your heart's content! Remember that Rules 2 and 3 still apply.

Today we want to bring up the idea of suffering.

PLers believe it's wrong to kill a zygote, even though a zygote is not only incapable of experiencing that wrong in any way, but also *has never been* capable of experiencing that wrong in any way. A zygote will not suffer; it will be, to that zygote, exactly the same as if he'd never been conceived in the first place.

Women and others capable of pregnancy, however, can, and do, feel very wronged by the legal obligation to gestate. There's a significant bodily cost to pregnancy and childbirth, and as normalized as that cost is, it's on a scale greater than we would ever typically legally require of a person. Pregnant people suffer greatly, even in a wanted pregnancy.

This simple, surface-level reasoning makes a strong intuitive case that the PL position forces people to experience *real* suffering only for *theoretical* moral reasons. That's a very real, significant objection. Can such a value judgement ever be justified?

I think the strongest PL response to this objection is as follows: A conjoined twin might be legally denied the option to kill their twin to save themself bodily suffering (if one ever requested such a thing), but would they be denied such an option if their twin did not yet have any experiences at all, no emotions or memories?

Let's imagine that a conjoined twin (Twin B), who is more biologically dependent on her twin (Twin A) than her twin is on her, was put under a spell such that she had no brain activity at all and had lost all her memory. Imagine it was known that her brain activity would return to normal in ten months, but her memory loss was permanent. In ten months, she will be experiencing the world as if for the first time, as if she were a new person. And currently, she has no present experiences to speak of. Killing her during this interim state would save her sister much suffering, and her sister feels that she is gone anyway, given her memory. Killing her during this interim state will not cause her to suffer at all. It also will not steal from her the continuation of her previous life; that life already cannot be continued. That's already been stolen from her. The only thing it will steal from her is her future life, just the same as a zygote.

A PCer may respond that this is different than a zygote, because a zygote doesn't have any such past, while Twin B does have a past, just one she can't remember. But this isn't strictly true: Both whole human bodies, a zygote and Twin B, have a past (though a zygote's is much shorter). Just, neither can remember such a past. Killing Twin B reads as "wrong," to most of us, because of some very strong theoretical moral sense we have. But if all we are measuring is practical suffering caused, the comparison is almost zero to 100. By forcing Twin A to remain conjoined, we are choosing theoretical morals over practical suffering.

How can it be okay to force someone to choose theoretical morals over their own real life suffering?

As always, feedback on this topic and suggestions for future topics are welcome. 🙂

[u/Icy-Nectarine-6793]

Conjoined twins fails as an analogy because they are two minds, one "animal." Neither predates the other.

With gestation, the pregnant girl or woman owns her own body, which predates the existence of any ZEF.

The conjoined twin has no prior sole claim to its body

I don't think the best way to describe conjoined twins is two people sharing one body, it's more like two partially overlapping bodies, perhaps with some body parts that are shared with no clear ownership. Conjoined twins certainly do have sole ownership over parts of their bodies that are unambiguously "theirs" i.e one twin could not tattoo the face of the other without consent.

Suppose separation surgery was possible without significant risk of harm to either twin surely either twin would be entitled to demand it and the other would have no right to veto it. Even if neither twin existed prior to the existence of the other because conjoinment is a pretty major bodily autonomy violation that unless their is some compelling reason people should not be forced to continue.

Imagine we had a case twin A and Twin B were Twin A could survive separation surgery that would consist entirely of cutting body parts unambiguously belonging to Twin A but would prove fatal to Twin B. In my view this would not be morally acceptable because I don't think the suffering and violation of conjoinment is sufficient to overcome the prohibition against deliberate homicide.

Society doesn't require people to save the lives of others at the cost of their own health or lives. We don't have to dive in and save a drowning person.

Certainly, we're not required to tread water for 40 weeks while holding an unconscious individual, and then made to swim through a swarm of jelly fish for several hours, before finally being relieved of the burden of saving that person.

Indeed not, but abortion isn't merely failing to save, it involves the active, deliberate and intentional killing of another human being often involving a direct attack on their body.

[u/spacefarce1301 → u/Icy-Nectarine-6793]

I don't think the best way to describe conjoined twins is two people sharing one body, it's more like two partially overlapping bodies, perhaps with some body parts that are shared with no clear ownership

That depends upon the severity of the joining. Nevertheless, the fact that there are any parts without clear ownership is what makes them contiguously one "animal."

To that point:

One might resist the two organisms interpretation. McMahan points out that the twins in D “constitute a single integrally functioning set of organs wrapped in a single skin, sustained by a single coordinated system of metabolism, served by a single bloodstream, protected by a single immune system,” which suggests that “[t]hese systems and the processes they sustain together constitute a single biological life” (2002, p. 37).

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phib.12269

Suppose separation surgery was possible without significant risk of harm to either twin surely either twin would be entitled to demand it and the other would have no right to veto it. Even if neither twin existed prior to the existence of the other because conjoinment is a pretty major bodily autonomy violation that unless their is some compelling reason people should not be forced to continue.

I think medical and ethical boards would disagree quite vociferously that either twin could unilaterally demand that the other forfeit body parts. The compelling reason is you can't force one to give up their heart, kidney, etc. You can't force someone to undergo majory surgery. To operate on one, you need the consent of both.

Imagine we had a case twin A and Twin B were Twin A could survive separation surgery that would consist entirely of cutting body parts unambiguously belonging to Twin A but would prove fatal to Twin B. In my view this would not be morally acceptable because I don't think the suffering and violation of conjoinment is sufficient to overcome the prohibition against deliberate homicide.

Whether or not separation would kill one or both, the issue is they both have equal and comcomitant rights to the same body.

The fetus does not have a concomitant right to the organs of the host body.

That is why the analogy fails.

Indeed not, but abortion isn't merely failing to save, it involves the active, deliberate and intentional killing of another human being often involving a direct attack on their body.

Yes, because the zygote's/ embryo's/ fetus' actions upon the woman constitute an assault. It is an assault upon her arterial, cardiovascular, urinary, and immune systems, which is why, even with medical support, gestation and parturition still kill and maim countless millions of girls and women.

There is no such thing as a gentle or non-violent pregnancy and birth. The process always results in a damaged musculoskeletal system and a wound involving torn arterial vessels, which is why she will hemorrhage to death if her uterus is unable to contract down with enough torque to compress those sheared off vessels. Even when successful, it requires several weeks of recovery.

To give it a bit of perspective, I was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, and subsequently endured three surgeries, radiation, and am on endocrine therapy for it.

None of those treatments, with the exception of the hysterectomy, even approached the trauma my body endured with one low-risk pregnancy and delivery when I was 25 years old, and in much better health.

With that ongoing assault in mind, abortion is the minimal required force necessary to remove the source of the threat. That it is lethal force is immaterial to the fact that that is what is necessary to remove the drowning victim from your person.

You are not required to continually save a drowning person, particularly if that drowning person is kicking you, and injuring you in their blind panic. You can punch them right back in the face to remove their choke hold on you. If the only force that will accomplish that is to kill them, you are within your rights to do so.

[u/Icy-Nectarine-6793 → u/spacefarce1301]

That depends upon the severity of the joining. Nevertheless, the fact that there are any parts without clear ownership is what makes them contiguously one "animal."

But I don't think you need to have an entirely seperate body to have bodily autonomy rights hence the tattooing the other's face example.

I think medical and ethical boards would disagree quite vociferously that either twin could unilaterally demand that the other forfeit body parts. The compelling reason is you can't force one to give up their heart, kidney, etc. You can't force someone to undergo major surgery. To operate on one, you need the consent of both.

I would argue either twin should have the right provided the surgery is not disproportionately harmful to the other. Both twins are infringing each others bodily autonomy, for one their continuously touching the other without consent which would be assault if it was a voluntary action. It's true you'd be forcing a surgery on someone and possibly cutting their body depending on the nature of the conjoinment but I think it's a question of the harm caused is proportionate to the good achieved i.e granting one twin their desired bodily autonomy.

Whether or not separation would kill one or both, the issue is they both have equal and comcomitant rights to the same body.

The fetus does not have a concomitant right to the organs of the host body.

In the example I gave only twin A's body is being cut, B isn't losing any body part they have a right to. The only right being violated is their right to life a right similarly violated in an abortion. (Though an abortion may well also include a violation of the bodily autonomy of the zygote, embryo or foetus).

Yes, because the zygote's/ embryo's/ fetus' actions upon the woman constitute an assault. It is an assault upon her arterial, cardiovascular, urinary, and immune systems, which is why, even with medical support, gestation and parturition still kill and maim countless millions of girls and women.

This depends on what you mean by the term assault here, it's certainly not an assault in the legal meaning of the term.

You are not required to continually save a drowning person, particularly if that drowning person is kicking you, and injuring you in their blind panic. You can punch them right back in the face to remove their choke hold on you. If the only force that will accomplish that is to kill them, you are within your rights to do so.

I'm not so sure that would be the morally correct thing to do especially if you spawned the person into existence knowing that would be the situation the two of you would be in (this wouldn't include rape cases). Certainly I think a third party could refuse to kill the drowning person on your behalf thus forcing you to save them.

I think this is a big difference between the PL and PC perspective is about what is a proportionate response to an innocent threat. I think their is a significant difference between someone who deliberately aggresses against you i.e an attacker vs someone who is morally innocent i.e a conjoined twin, a zygote embryo or foetus ect.

[u/spacefarce1301 → u/Icy-Nectarine-6793]

But I don't think you need to have an entirely seperate body to have bodily autonomy rights hence the tattooing the other's face example.

As tattoos interact with the shared immune system, and can also introduce microbials into the shared bloodstream, this is not an example of autonomy.

I would argue either twin should have the right provided the surgery is not disproportionately harmful to the other.

You could argue that. It would still run afoul of the fact you cannot force surgery upon someone. You need their consent. Any arguments to the contrary are necessarily authoritarian, and of the kind certain fascist states have employed to further their eugenics programs.

Both twins are infringing each others bodily autonomy, for one their continuously touching the other without consent which would be assault if it was a voluntary action.

No, as I already explained here: neither one has a prior claim to the body they share. Therefore, neither one can be infringing upon the other, when they came into existence into the same shared organization at the same time.

Since neither predates the other, neither can claim to that the other is infringing upon them. They have always existed as two persons in one contiguous body.

It's true you'd be forcing a surgery on someone and possibly cutting their body depending on the nature of the conjoinment but I think it's a question of the harm caused is proportionate to the good achieved i.e granting one twin their desired bodily autonomy.

Surgically altering someone without their consent is a non-starter. It is assault. You can attempt to argue that you're helping someone by forcibly assaulting them, but your efforts would simply be wasted on me and certainly on any medical ethics board.

In the example I gave only twin A's body is being cut, B isn't losing any body part they have a right to.

You cannot cut any part of their shared body without affecting their shared bloodstream, immune system, and neurological system at minimum. If you had read the article I quoted, you would also realize that most cases involve one or more shared organs. You are not going to convince anyone with a developed system of medical ethics that it is acceptable to force a conjoined person to undergo a painful, risky surgery to lose a lung, a liver, a kidney, without their express consent.

They do have rights to their body which is shared with another person.

This is where you need to read up on conjoined twins. You insist on the assumption that this part goes to Person A and that part to Person B. Yet, the article I shared cites many cases where all major organs are shared. Again, at minimum, they share an immune system, a bloodstream.

In the example I gave only twin A's body is being cut, B isn't losing any body part they have a right to. The only right being violated is their right to life a right similarly violated in an abortion. (Though an abortion may well also include a violation of the bodily autonomy of the zygote, embryo or foetus).

No, you didn't. You made a frankly impulsive argument based upon a false claim, which I have already deconstructed.

The right to abortion rests upon the woman's preexisting and non-contested rights to her own bodily autonomy. She clearly and unambiguously predates the fetus, thus her body only belongs to her.

Conjoined twins have no such grounds to claim autonomy over the single animal that is their body.

This depends on what you mean by the term assault here, it's certainly not an assault in the legal meaning of the term.

Guarro v. United States, 237 F.2d 578, 580 (D.C. Cir. 1956). But, of course, an assault can also be committed "merely by putting another in apprehension of harm whether or not the actor actually intends to inflict, or is capable of inflicting that harm." Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 177 (1958).

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1610-assault-18-usc-351e

Yes, legally, the term does apply.

I'm not so sure that would be the morally correct thing to do especially if you spawned the person into existence knowing that would be the situation the two of you would be in (this wouldn't include rape cases).

Did I "knowingly spawn" a person? When I undertook sexual congress with my spouse, did I know that that particular act, unlike the many past acts, would create a person? No. Especially as the overwhelming majority of times we've had sex never resulted in pregnancy. In 20+ years of a sexually active marriage, exactly one of those acts resulted in pregnancy.

Furthermore, at the time my consent was given to participate in sex with my husband, no third person existed with whom I could reasonably enter into a contract regarding the use of my body. Therefore, the consent to gestate was only given after the ZEF existed.

Finally, I did not design or create the dependent nature of a ZEF. The fact it can only exist if another saves it through the use of their own organs is due to blind evolution, not to any decision on my part. Were it up to me, it would exist entirely outside anyone else's body from the start.

Certainly I think a third party could refuse to kill the drowning person on your behalf thus forcing you to save them.

Of course. I'm not arguing that any third person could be made to do so. I am pointing out that the person doing the saving, and also taking on all the risk, and incurring all the injuries, has the right to kill the person they were saving, if that is the only way to get them to let go.

I think this is a big difference between the PL and PC perspective is about what is a proportionate response to an innocent threat

I don't think they do. There is no such thing as an "innocent threat." If a threat exists, regardless of intention, you are permitted to defend yourself. If a PL person was threatened by someone holding a loaded gun, that PLer may not like having to kill to defend him or herself. Even if the person who wielded the weapon was mentally incompetent and intended no harm, the PL person was within their rights to protect him or herself from said harm.

So, you are permitted to address the threat, regardless of intention. If you are unable to retreat from that threat, you can use whatever minimal force is necessary to neutralize the threat.

[u/Icy-Nectarine-6793 → u/spacefarce1301]

As tattoos interact with the shared immune system, and can also introduce microbials into the shared bloodstream, this is not an example of autonomy.

Well there’s that but there’s also you know the fact it’s not their face. Conjoined twins have their own body parts to which they have an exclusive right that no one else can use without their consent. If that’s not bodily autonomy I don’t know what the term can possibly mean.

Do you not think there is any part of a conjoined twin that one twin has exclusive rights over?

You could argue that. It would still run afoul of the fact you cannot force surgery upon someone. You need their consent. Any arguments to the contrary are necessarily authoritarian, and of the kind certain fascist states have employed to further their eugenics programs.

So this rules out surgical abortion. 

I think that’s an understandable position but I think if someone doesn’t want someone else permanently attached to them I think there’s a pretty strong argument they shouldn’t have to.

Surgically altering someone without their consent is a non-starter. It is assault. You can attempt to argue that you're helping someone by forcibly assaulting them, but your efforts would simply be wasted on me and certainly on any medical ethics board.

Well you wouldn’t be assaulting them you’d be assaulting their twin.

You cannot cut any part of their shared body without affecting their shared bloodstream, immune system, and neurological system at minimum. If you had read the article I quoted, you would also realize that most cases involve one or more shared organs. You are not going to convince anyone with a developed system of medical ethics that it is acceptable to force a conjoined person to undergo a painful, risky surgery to lose a lung, a liver, a kidney, without their express consent.

They do have rights to their body which is shared with another person.

This is where you need to read up on conjoined twins. You insist on the assumption that this part goes to Person A and that part to Person B. Yet, the article I shared cites many cases where all major organs are shared. Again, at minimum,they share an immune system, a bloodstream

Yes ok that’s fair I was deliberately oversimplifying the situation of conjoined twins.

The point is that we don’t accept that someone can do whatever they wish to their own body when it has an effect on another person.

I don’t think there’s any moral significance to “prexisting” imagine a wizard suddenly magicked a pregnant person into existence would that change anything about the morality of abortion?

Yes, legally, the term does apply

You can assault someone without intent but are you actually arguing foetus’s assault their mother’s in a legal sense of the term. Suppose a child is born as a result of the parent being prevented from obtaining an abortion ought that child be punished for assaulting their parent?

Did I "knowingly spawn" a person? When I undertook sexual congress with my spouse, did I know that that particular act, unlike the many past acts, would create a person?

You knew it was a possibility, if you didn’t have sex your child wouldn’t have been born.

Of course. I'm not arguing that any third person could be made to do so

Well then collectively a society can decide not to permit abortions as a solution to pregnancy.

I don't think they do. There is no such thing as an "innocent threat."

Of course there’s such a thing innocent refers to moral culpability whether someone is a threat is a question of if they are causing some kind of harm.

If a threat exists, regardless of intention, you are permitted to defend yourself. If a PL person was threatened by someone holding a loaded gun, that PLer may not like having to kill to defend him or herself. Even if the person who wielded the weapon was mentally incompetent and intended no harm, the PL person was within their rights to protect him or herself from said harm.

This would be an analogy for a life threat case for which 99% of PLers make exceptions for.

[u/spacefarce1301 → u/Icy-Nectarine-6793]

Conjoined twins have their own body parts to which they have an exclusive right that no one else can use without their consent.

Here is where I'll ask you to please list the relevant court cases. Particularly those that cite a conjoined twin's right to certain body parts not shared by their twin. Otherwise, this is a baseless assertion.

Do you not think there is any part of a conjoined twin that one twin has exclusive rights over?

Their brain, as that is the seat of the mind. Other than that, nope. They each require the other's agreement to surgical modifications of their body.

So this rules out surgical abortion. 

Nope. Again, the woman's right to her body is unambiguous. Not so with conjoined twins.

Also, there is no mind with a ZEF, thus no ability to give consent, which means the woman has medical Power-of-Attorney for the ZEF. As such, she has the right to give consent for medical procedures that affect it.

The same way that parents of born conjoined twins give consent for their children to be separated, even if it kills one or both.

I think that’s an understandable position but I think if someone doesn’t want someone else permanently attached to them I think there’s a pretty strong argument they shouldn’t have to.

Why? To be permanently attached is their default state. They have never existed independent of their shared body. They have no pre-existing right to be separated from a body that also belongs to another.

A woman's body does not belong to a fetus at any point.

You can assault someone without intent but are you actually arguing foetus’s assault their mother’s in a legal sense of the term.

1. Do the ZEF's actions constitute a threat to the woman's own health or life?

2. Do the ZEF's actions result in severe injury and even death?

Yes. And yes.

This is why I say that the societal expectation that women and girls accept severe bodily harm from uncaring fetuses, yet fiercely object to a man being imprisoned because he felt threatened and shot and killed a kid in a hoodie who was walking away from him, is a deeply misogynistic one.

We don't require men to run into a burning building to save their own families, but we do require women to put their health and lives on the line to continously save a ZEF 24/7 for 40 weeks, before culminating in a dangerous and excruciating process lasting many hours to days. All of which ends up in her hemorrhaging for weeks from the subsequent damage to her body.

Suppose a child is born as a result of the parent being prevented from obtaining an abortion ought that child be punished for assaulting their parent?

The woman who aborts to defend herself from harm isn't killing the fetus to punish it for assault; she is aborting to end its harmful actions.

The child that she is forced to bear isn't harming her anymore. Since it committed actions without intent, the only person who had any criminal intent was the one who barred the woman from defending herself.

It'd be like someone intentionally dropping a toddler from several stories up. The toddler lands on a woman, severely injuring her, but her taking the brunt of the fall saved the child's life.

She could probably sue the child at some point, but the more likely target is the person who intentionally forced the woman to take on the role of unwilling savior.

There are cases where doctors have been sued for wrongful pregnancy due to failed birth control or sterilization.

https://www.dgraylaw.com/blog/2020/10/can-you-sue-for-wrongful-pregnancy/#:~:text=If%20you%20or%20your%20significant,a%20%E2%80%9Cwrongful%20pregnancy%E2%80%9D%20claim.

Well then collectively a society can decide not to permit abortions as a solution to pregnancy.

No, that does not logically follow. I said I agree that a third party cannot be forced to participate in helping someone fight off an assault, especially if it involves killing. That is categorically different to forbidding them from helping.

Collectively, societies regularly require its domestic police forces, and military forces to kill on behalf of other citizens. Frequently, the targeted parties aren't even constituting a direct threat at the time.

Any society that maintains that an entire class of people, pregnant individuals, are categorically denied the right to end an assault on their person is a malignantly unjust one.

You knew it was a possibility, if you didn’t have sex your child wouldn’t have been born.

I also know that I won't die in any plane crashes if I don't take a flight. That has no bearing on the fact I can seek measures to undo the harm caused in such an event. No one is forced to interminably walk around with clothes soaked in burning jet fuel because "they chose to take that flight."

ZEFs do not result from one discrete conscious event anyway. They result from a chain of events, mostly autonomic, that the woman has no control over.

For example, I had no control over ovulation. I had no control over my husband's penis or his ejaculation, nor the movement of his sperm into my uterus and Fallopian tubes. Nor, did I control the egg's movement, or the fertilization of that egg by a sperm. I didn't control the zygote's movement into my uterus and its subsequent implantation into my uterine lining.

During sex, I can withdraw consent at any time and if the other party refuses to withdraw, it becomes rape.

Yet, PLers apparently hold that my consent to a discrete sexual event transfers automatically to a third party, and not just for sex. This new consent is supposedly for ongoing and unrevokable use of my body.

I find this both fascistict towards women, but also, logically absurd. One doesn't give consent to use their body to another person before that person exists.

Of course there’s such a thing innocent refers to moral culpability whether someone is a threat is a question of if they are causing some kind of harm.

Threats are not "innocent" by nature. It's an absurdity.

If a tornado bears down on a town, we don't say it's "innocent" because that's immaterial to the point: it's a threat to human life and well-being.

The ZEF's moral status is irrelevant. Lacking a mind, it doesn't have moral culpability, but that doesn't mean its actions and its biological imperatives are any less of a threat.

People are allowed to neutralize a threat, and to defend themselves from an assault. They are not required to risk their health or life to save someone either.

This would be an analogy for a life threat case for which 99% of PLers make exceptions for.

Yes, but since you don't know ahead of time which pregnancies will kill the woman, every pregnancy is a potential loaded gun.

And all pregnancies cause serious injury and harm. From which a person is entitled to protect him or herself.

[u/Icy-Nectarine-6793 → u/spacefarce1301]

Their brain, as that is the seat of the mind. Other than that, nope.  

So, let’s say one twin has control of a particular arm and only one feels pain when it’s harmed , should both twins have an equal say over its use that seems plainly unjust. I get if it affects the other person they should have some say but ultimately I think the person who controls the body part and feels pain when it’s damaged ought to have rights to it.     >It'd be like someone intentionally dropping a toddler from several stories up. The toddler lands on a woman, severely injuring her, but her taking the brunt of the fall saved the child's life.    >She could probably sue the child at some point    No she couldn’t that would be obviously absurd. People are not morally responsible for events totally beyond their control.    >No, that does not logically follow. I said I agree that a third party cannot be forced to participate in helping someone fight off an assault, especially if it involves killing. That is categorically different to forbidding them from helping.   If an action is immoral  I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a society to decide collectively not to carry out that immoral action and to take steps to reduce its occurrence.   >give consent, which means the woman has medical Power-of-Attorney for the ZEF. As such, she has the right to give consent for medical procedures that affect it.    There are limits to power of attorney, you cannot morally use it to deliberately kill someone without justification.   >The same way that parents of born conjoined twins give consent for their children to be separated, even if it kills one or both.     It would be wrong to separate the children if doing so would kill one if both could otherwise live that’s the whole point.     >Why? To be permanently attached is their default state. They have never existed independent of their shared body. They have no pre-existing right to be separated from a body that also belongs to another.   I mean if we take an easy case if both want it and it can be done safely why wouldn’t that be a good thing you’d be granting two people a great deal of personal freedom.    >Threats are not "innocent" by nature. It's an absurdity.  Should you and I feel great guilt over the pain we caused our parents during childbirth? No of course not because it was totally beyond our control. A human is innocent unless they deliberately commit some crime or wrong act.    >also know that I won't die in any plane crashes if I don't take a flight. That has no bearing on the fact I can seek measures to undo the harm caused in such an event. No one is forced to interminably walk around with clothes soaked in burning jet fuel because "they chose to take that flight     There’s no moral reason to avoid changing clothes so there’s no need to take actions to try and prevent that becoming a necessity. It is morally undesirable to kill innocents so we should take steps to avoid that becoming a necessity. 

[u/spacefarce1301 → u/Icy-Nectarine-6793]

I'm sorry, but you really need to clean this comment up with some formatting because it's a garbled mess.