# Punishment for Abortions?



## no1special18 (Feb 5, 2009)

I was listening to an atheist podcast the other day and they started to talk about questions they stump pro-lifers with. One of the questions went like this: If you believe that abortion should be illegal and that it is murder then what do you think the legal punishment for performing an abortion should be? I had never thought of it that way before, but I believe that if abortion were to be made illegal than the doctor who performed one illegaly should receive at least some sort of murder charge. I thought it was an interesting question and wanted to know what everyone thought.


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 5, 2009)

They would be charged by the same laws that govern homicide cases.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 5, 2009)

They should be punished under the same laws as homicide.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 5, 2009)

Homocide


----------



## no1special18 (Feb 5, 2009)

*not illegal?*



> And, as an aside, you can't make something illegal that was never legal in the first place.



I admit that I do not understand you here. I thought abortions were legal to some degree or another in most if not all states.


----------



## PresbyDane (Feb 5, 2009)

Homicide


----------



## Jon Peters (Feb 5, 2009)

I think to answer homicide is to punt. What type of homicide? The laws vary with the states, but should it be the type of homicide that carries with it the death penalty (for those states that have it)? It strikes me that if one believes that abortion is the premeditated taking of a human life, one should advocate for the harshest penalty. We are, after all, talking about doctors who perform abortions in very methodical, planned out ways (i.e., premeditation).


----------



## no1special18 (Feb 5, 2009)

> I think to answer homicide is to punt. What type of homicide? The laws vary with the states, but should it be the type of homicide that carries with it the death penalty (for those states that have it)? It strikes me that if one believes that abortion is the premeditated taking of a human life, one should advocate for the harshest penalty. We are, after all, talking about doctors who perform abortions in very methodical, planned out ways (i.e., premeditation).



Do you think that the beliefs of the doctor about the unborn baby not being human should be taken into account? The Doctor does not think he is killing a person, at least I would hope not. Because of that I think third degree murder is perhaps the most suitable charge.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 5, 2009)

Homocide isn't punting. There are always circumstances surrounding homocide.

If it can be shown that the doctor was trying to save the life of the mother, then those matters have to be considered.

If the doctor just wanted to end an inconvenient pregnancy then send him away for life.

-----Added 2/5/2009 at 12:23:31 EST-----

It's a good question. The answer is NO.

This was the excuse when PT Barnum was putting stuffed cadavers of Africans in his museum. The was the excuse of Darwin's grandfather regarding black people. A doctor above all others knows a baby is human.



no1special18 said:


> Do you think that the beliefs of the doctor about the unborn baby not being human should be taken into account? The Doctor does not think he is killing a person, at least I would hope not. Because of that I think third degree murder is perhaps the most suitable charge.


----------



## Iakobos_1071 (Feb 5, 2009)

Wow, good question. My answer: Depends on the case, most likely a Murder charge of some kind, possibly involuntary Manslaughter if they HONESTLY followed the non human fetal assumption, but even the Nazi following orders will go down with the Fuhrer. 

What about the woman choosing to have the abortion, should she be charged as well?


----------



## cih1355 (Feb 5, 2009)

no1special18 said:


> I was listening to an atheist podcast the other day and they started to talk about questions they stump pro-lifers with. One of the questions went like this: If you believe that abortion should be illegal and that it is murder then what do you think the legal punishment for performing an abortion should be? I had never thought of it that way before, but I believe that if abortion were to be made illegal than the doctor who performed one illegaly should receive at least some sort of murder charge. I thought it was an interesting question and wanted to know what everyone thought.



They should get the same kind of punishment that other murderers receive.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Feb 5, 2009)

Iakobos_1071 said:


> Wow, good question. My answer: Depends on the case, most likely a Murder charge of some kind, possibly involuntary Manslaughter if they HONESTLY followed the non human fetal assumption, but even the Nazi following orders will go down with the Fuhrer.
> 
> What about the woman choosing to have the abortion, should she be charged as well?


Yes, and doctors should report her to have counseling sort of like a suicide watch.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 5, 2009)

I have a hard time placing equal culpability on the woman simply because of the abundance of misinformation about the baby she carries. The abortionists have carried the day as to the perceptions of the baby. 

We are vilified for trying to make the woman feel bad about her 'choice'. All we are trying to say is here is the science, here is the baby. If young girls were getting an accurate picture of what they are doing, they would all feel bad. That's not false guilt your feeling, that's real guilt but there is forgiveness.

The doctor on the other hand is a false teacher, a peddler in death and euphemisms.




Iakobos_1071 said:


> Wow, good question. My answer: Depends on the case, most likely a Murder charge of some kind, possibly involuntary Manslaughter if they HONESTLY followed the non human fetal assumption, but even the Nazi following orders will go down with the Fuhrer.
> 
> What about the woman choosing to have the abortion, should she be charged as well?


----------



## Zenas (Feb 5, 2009)

How is this a "stumper"? Murder is murder is murder is murder is murder is murder. 

A better question to the atheist is if abortion is not murder, why is it illegal for me to walk up to them and shoot them in the head?

There's a stumper.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 5, 2009)

Before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down virtually all 50 state's laws proscribing abortion, it was generally treated in the same class as voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter, lower tier felonies often plead down to lesser offenses.

For example, it would routinely be plead to a charge of something like 18 months prison suspended on condition of completing 1 year probation. A doctor performing illegal abortion might get a stronger sentence.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Feb 5, 2009)

Homocide, or murder depending on the situation.

If found guilty of murder the death penalty should at least be considered, if not administered.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 5, 2009)

I happened to catch half of a very fascinating movie called, The Story of Women. It was about the last woman to be executed on the guillotine in France. She was an amateur abortionist.

The fascinating thing about the movie was that the director didn't try to make a moral message out of it. The woman was totally mercenary and capitalistic in her drive to abort babies.

The feminist, of course, will see this execution as a gross miscarriage of justice and a warning that it could happen again.

To the pro lifers will see a woman so driven by greed and selfishness that she would kill children for money.

So you can get the gist of the story I am going to include a review written by a feminist. The review is very good but her conclusions are very predictable. 

It's an interesting part of the debate over what should be done should baby murder ever be prosecuted.



> The Story of Women
> Reviewed by Linda Lopez McAlister
> For The Women's Show, WMNF-FM, Tampa, FL
> 
> ...


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 5, 2009)

Treat the fetus like a human, and then treat the murder the same way you would the murder of any other human, taking into account the usual factors like premeditation. The typical case is premeditated, so probably I'd charge the people involved with the highest degree of homicide within that state. I would charge the doctor, the woman (who would, I think, be more likely to have factors possibly lowering the degree of homicide than the doctor), and anyone else who substantially aided the murder. For instance, if the woman's boyfriend/husband drove her to the doctor and paid for the murder, I would charge him with the highest degree of murder, too, as an accomplice. But accomplice liability would vary by situation.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 5, 2009)

BobVigneault said:


> I have a hard time placing equal culpability on the woman simply because of the abundance of misinformation about the baby she carries. The abortionists have carried the day as to the perceptions of the baby.
> 
> We are vilified for trying to make the woman feel bad about her 'choice'. All we are trying to say is here is the science, here is the baby. If young girls were getting an accurate picture of what they are doing, they would all feel bad. That's not false guilt your feeling, that's real guilt but there is forgiveness.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more, Bawb. 

I have absolutely no patience with my "colleagues" who perform elective abortions. They are murderers, plain and simple. Anyone with a medical degree knows without a doubt they are taking a life by performing an abortion. Many, if not most, of the mothers are ignorant about what they're doing. The abortionists know full well. They should be punished for their actions to a much greater degree.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 5, 2009)

Many of the objections to a murder charge are presupositionaly based on an underlying (and possibly unrecognised) feeling that morality is subjective. However whether people think that abortion is murder or not does not alter the reality of their crime.

I really do not think that you have to even approach Theonomy to advocate the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for abortion. 



> And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
> 6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
> by man shall his blood be shed,
> for God made man in his own image.
> ...


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 5, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I have absolutely no patience with my "colleagues" who perform elective abortions. They are murderers, plain and simple. Anyone with a medical degree knows without a doubt they are taking a life by performing an abortion. Many, if not most, of the mothers are ignorant about what they're doing. The abortionists know full well. They should be punished for their actions to a much greater degree.



Well, I agree that the doctors are more morally culpable. However, if abortion were criminalized, the women involved would (a) have the information that society regards what they are doing as murder and (b) know in their hearts that what they are doing is murder. Most of them may be less blameworthy than the doctors, but I think they are still blameworthy enough to be charged with the highest degree of murder, unless there are other factors (like duress) present in that particular case. But if neither gets the death penalty, I can't say it would be unreasonable for the woman to get a lesser sentence.

-----Added 2/5/2009 at 02:16:58 EST-----



Hippo said:


> Many of the objections to a murder charge are presupositionaly based on an underlying (and possibly unrecognised) feeling that morality is subjective. However whether people think that abortion is murder or not does not alter the reality of their crime.



Exactly, and (in my understanding) in any ordinary case, we wouldn't treat someone as less culpable just because he didn't regard his victim as human. The question is what the law (hopefully based on God's law) says about the act, not what the murderer subjectively thought about the morality of his act. I don't think there is any sort of good-faith-belief-that-what-I-was-doing-wasn't-that-bad defense. There is the insanity defense if the person supposedly did not right from wrong at all, but that would hardly ever apply. But I might be wrong about all of this. I have probably forgotten most of substantive criminal law.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 5, 2009)

> (a) have the information that society regards what they are doing as murder and (b) know in their hearts that what they are doing is murder.



Yes and not to trivialize this but,

c) their child will appreciate it very much
d) a "culture of life" will impact other aspects of culture in a way that restrains evil, spreads safety and a better quality of life for all


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 5, 2009)

Ex Nihilo said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > I have absolutely no patience with my "colleagues" who perform elective abortions. They are murderers, plain and simple. Anyone with a medical degree knows without a doubt they are taking a life by performing an abortion. Many, if not most, of the mothers are ignorant about what they're doing. The abortionists know full well. They should be punished for their actions to a much greater degree.
> ...





I'm not saying the woman is guilt-free or shouldn't be culpable at all. I'm simply saying the doctors, who know full well and completely what they're doing, are guilty to a much greater degree.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 5, 2009)

When I said homicide I did not mean to lessen the charges. If a doctor performs an abortion it is murder. Perhaps argument could be made that if the procedure is to save the life of the mother it is not murder, but I think that is debatable. From what I've read that instance is almost nonexistent.


----------



## Iconoclast (Feb 5, 2009)

29So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 

30Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. 

31Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death. 

32And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest. 

33So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. 

34Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 5, 2009)

I am quite bemused as to why this question would stump a Calvinistic pro-lifer, I suppose it may be harder for those who do not have an understanding of world view, presuppositionalism or systematic theology.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 5, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> When I said homicide I did not mean to lessen the charges. If a doctor performs an abortion it is murder. *Perhaps argument could be made that if the procedure is to save the life of the mother it is not murder*, but I think that is debatable. From what I've read that instance is almost nonexistent.



If I were drafting the statute, I would explicitly exclude medically "necessary" abortions -- which, I think, are a small percentage of abortions performed, but really do exist. I think there is room for all kinds of debate on how much risk there has to be for the abortion to be morally "okay," and I'm uncomfortable having the law draw too hard of a line on the distinction. But I can see the argument that a statutory exception, or allowing the defendants to affirmatively plead a necessity or justification defense, assumes that the mother's life is of higher value than the child's -- so I don't know!

Another possibility would be to create a statutory safe harbor for a woman who acts on a doctor's advice that the abortion is medically necessary, even if that advice somehow turns out to be incorrect. This option would have the benefit of holding the doctor liable in a reasonable way for his or her higher level of knowledge. But still, this poses the same underlying moral problem of assuming the mother's life is of higher value than the child's. At the same time, the law isn't equipped to handle all fine moral distinctions -- but if it handles them anywhere, shouldn't it be in protecting the lives of the defenseless? Hmm.


----------



## Jon Peters (Feb 5, 2009)

BobVigneault said:


> Homocide isn't punting. There are always circumstances surrounding homocide.
> 
> If it can be shown that the doctor was trying to save the life of the mother, then those matters have to be considered.
> 
> ...



Good point. Although, when most discuss the immorality of abortion they are not discussing those that may be considered medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Or perhaps they are. In any event, I agree with what you wrote.


----------



## Craig (Feb 5, 2009)

no1special18 said:


> > I think to answer homicide is to punt. What type of homicide? The laws vary with the states, but should it be the type of homicide that carries with it the death penalty (for those states that have it)? It strikes me that if one believes that abortion is the premeditated taking of a human life, one should advocate for the harshest penalty. We are, after all, talking about doctors who perform abortions in very methodical, planned out ways (i.e., premeditation).
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that the beliefs of the doctor about the unborn baby not being human should be taken into account? The Doctor does not think he is killing a person, at least I would hope not. Because of that I think third degree murder is perhaps the most suitable charge.



Abortionists *know* they're killing children...in fact, some of them offer a bereavement service to aid in bereavement:


> There are some people who feel that these malformations and disorders are blessings to be embraced; that dealing with them builds character, and that you should not be permitted to have an abortion under these circumstances. It is Dr. Pendergraft's view that decisions to carry a pregnancy to term with such problems is a private, personal matter which cannot be regulated by any government, and that couples who decide to terminate such pregnancies should be able to do so without interference from other parties
> 
> For the women and families who come to us with these problems, we are ready to help get through this crisis as safely, and with as much support, as is possible. We are prepared to arrange for whatever procedures will help you - holding your baby, having a footprint, having a private cremation or burial, having private religious services, or any other special requests that are possible.



Oh yeah, abortionists and the women who have abortions (and anyone else aiding and abetting) should be charged with pre-meditated murder...then receive a swift death penalty after being fairly convicted.


----------



## Adonis (Feb 5, 2009)

I could see this somewhere down the road: A parent kills one of their children and its defended on the grounds that it is only a late term abortion. lawlz


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 5, 2009)

Adonis said:


> I could see this somewhere down the road: A parent kills one of their children and its defended on the grounds that it is only a late term abortion. lawlz



Honestly, I really can't. Liberals are all about interfering with parents' rights once the children are born.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 5, 2009)

Joshua said:


> It's me being technical. Man cannot make what God's Law says is _illegal_, legal.



Josh,

I think it would be helpful if you would elaborate. I want to make sure you're not commiting something that I see folks do all the time: equating the legality of something with the morality of it. 

Legality refers to what is permissible and/or punishable in accordance with the penal code of a given society.

Morality refers to what is right or wrong at a transcendent level. Specifically, morality is revealed in God's Word. 

Of course we do not have the authority to declare "right" what God has declared "wrong," and of course our laws which enforce a view of right and wrong should be in conformity with what God says on the matter, but it is nonetheless possible for a society to pass laws and thereby endorse behavior that is contrary to what is morally right.

-----Added 2/5/2009 at 04:31:35 EST-----

BTW - I don't buy the argument that abortion providers should be charged with manslaughter on the grounds that "they don't think they're killing a person." The Nazis didn't think they were killing "persons" either! But beyond that, what they've deluded themselves into believing is really moot. They've cooly, rationally, and premeditatedly killed a human being. Therefore, I would support the death penalty.


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 5, 2009)

Adonis said:


> I could see this somewhere down the road: A parent kills one of their children and its defended on the grounds that it is only a late term abortion. lawlz


Not quite the same, but we have these abominations happen: 

In 'wrongful life' suit, disabled woman blames doctor for letting her be born - CourtTV.com - Top News


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 5, 2009)

no1special18 said:


> I was listening to an atheist podcast the other day and they started to talk about questions they stump pro-lifers with. One of the questions went like this: If you believe that abortion should be illegal and that it is murder then what do you think the legal punishment for performing an abortion should be? I had never thought of it that way before, but I believe that if abortion were to be made illegal than the doctor who performed one illegaly should receive at least some sort of murder charge. I thought it was an interesting question and wanted to know what everyone thought.



Well, it would be no different if you hired an assassin to kill someone you wanted eliminated. Same activity, same laws would cover it.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 5, 2009)

Theoretical said:


> Adonis said:
> 
> 
> > I could see this somewhere down the road: A parent kills one of their children and its defended on the grounds that it is only a late term abortion. lawlz
> ...



Truly disgusting!!!


----------



## reformed trucker (Feb 5, 2009)

I think the abortionist should have his arms and legs ripped from his torso;
or shove a scalpel into the base of his head and suck his brains out.

Oh, wait, wait... that would be cruel and unusual punishment because he's
OUTSIDE the womb! 

Must...stop...using...logic!


----------



## smhbbag (Feb 5, 2009)

> Of course we do not have the authority to declare "right" what God has declared "wrong," and of course our laws which enforce a view of right and wrong should be in conformity with what God says on the matter, but it is _nonetheless possible for a society to pass laws and thereby endorse behavior that is contrary to what is morally right._



I think his point would be that, when a society has passes things of that nature, they cannot properly be called "law." Sure, they are edicts from proper authority that, unless obeyed, carry punishment. But, there is more to law than that. The view you espouse is called legal positivism (though, there are many forms), and the predominance of that view has brought sweeping, and negative, change to our legal system.

You, of course, would not use it in any of those negative ways, and I don't mean to assert as much. But, it should make one uncomfortable to look around at who else views law the same way. 

Just because a legislature (or judge, king, magistrate, et al) says so doesn't make something law.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 5, 2009)

the Bible explicitly mandates the death penalty. I do not think that there is any woman alive today that is ignorant of the fact that she is engaging in murder when she haves an abortion. Both the woman and the doctor should be stoned forthwith.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 5, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > Of course we do not have the authority to declare "right" what God has declared "wrong," and of course our laws which enforce a view of right and wrong should be in conformity with what God says on the matter, but it is _nonetheless possible for a society to pass laws and thereby endorse behavior that is contrary to what is morally right._
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps we're just looking at it from different ways, but as I see it, you are incorrect. There are just and unjust laws (and along a sliding scale: more just and less just) laws, but when the legislature - in our case - says so... yes, it IS a law.


----------



## Theognome (Feb 5, 2009)

I think that the punishment should fit the crime. Therefore, wrap the abortionist tightly in thick rubber, and then slowly stick a blender through the back of his/her skull. Turn blender on high and then suck the abortionist out of the rubber wrap through a 1/2" diameter straw.

Theognome


----------



## Grymir (Feb 5, 2009)

We also should not forget the dude that got her pregnant either. I know in this liberal society, that "woman's right's" trumps all, but it's not just her baby. I'm all for anything that will help marriages in our society. Single parents, shack-ups, abortion, homosexuality are all related as a symptom of our turning away from God. 

I don't know how or what he should be punished, just like the woman. But doctors know it's murder and should be punished as such.


----------



## smhbbag (Feb 5, 2009)

> Perhaps we're just looking at it from different ways, but as I see it, you are incorrect. There are just and unjust laws (and along a sliding scale: more just and less just) laws, but when the legislature - in our case - says so... yes, it IS a law.



I come to my conclusion mostly based on passages such as Galations 5:22-23.



> 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. _Against such things there is no law. _



Almost the entirety of Christ's disciples were martyred because of laws against love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Preaching the gospel is all of those wonderful things, and so is any other right worship of Him. Yet, the civil authorities had them killed for it.

So how can Paul say there is no law against these things, when there quite plainly is?

The answer is that so-called laws against these good deeds are, in fact, not law at all. And Christians are not just free to disobey them because they are unjust laws, but they are even _more_ free to ignore them because they are not law at all.

It's not that the magistrate _should_ not outlaw preaching the gospel, but that he _cannot._ In the same way, it's not that he should not make abortion legal; it's that it is not possible at all.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 5, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > Perhaps we're just looking at it from different ways, but as I see it, you are incorrect. There are just and unjust laws (and along a sliding scale: more just and less just) laws, but when the legislature - in our case - says so... yes, it IS a law.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If that is the basis for your argument... I'm sorry, but I think you've grossly misinterpreted this text...


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 5, 2009)

According to Scripture, abortion is murder. Murder is to be punished by the death penalty. If the civil magistrate refuses to enforce the death penalty in this case, they will answer to God for it. They are after all God's "ministers" and are therefore required to administer what is written in the Book (the Bible).


----------



## smhbbag (Feb 5, 2009)

In the end, the practical difference between our views is minimal. It is only regarding the proper application of a specific word, and is not necessarily a sign of differing principles. I do, though, believe the bible teaches that God is the only law-giver, and as such we can only apply the word "law" to the extent that man's rule is faithful to God's laws. Instead of a scale of just vs. unjust, it is a sliding scale of law vs. not-law.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 5, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> In the end, the practical difference between our views is minimal. It is only regarding the proper application of a specific word, and is not necessarily a sign of differing principles.



Agreed!



> I do, though, believe the bible teaches that God is the only law-giver, and as such we can only apply the word "law" to the extent that man's rule is faithful to God's laws. Instead of a scale of just vs. unjust, it is a sliding scale of law vs. not-law.



Ok, fair enough. I disagree, but I can respect your position.


----------



## reformed trucker (Feb 6, 2009)

Grymir said:


> We also should not forget the dude that got her pregnant either. I know in this liberal society, that "woman's right's" trumps all, but it's not just her baby. I'm all for anything that will help marriages in our society. Single parents, shack-ups, abortion, homosexuality are all related as a symptom of our turning away from God.
> 
> I don't know how or what he should be punished, just like the woman. But doctors know it's murder and should be punished as such.




I think that this is a major contributor to the abortion issue. Men aren't men anymore; many are just snivelling, self-centered little sallies. They need to man up and own their responsibilities.

Many years ago (mid 80's) I befriended a gal who worked at a gas station close to where I fueled up. Guess I'm easy to talk to; she told me her boyfriend (who loooooved her) got her pregnant. She couldn't tell her parents, because her dad would have killed her (figure of speach, I'm sure).
Her boyfriend gave her 200$ to get it "taken care of". Didn't even go with her.
She did, and I could tell it tore her up inside. My heart just broke as she told me this story. I could never, ever ask a woman to do this. I don't care if I hated her guts & I had to pay for 18 years!

I've also heard some lame justifications for abortion also. The best man at my wedding got married 6 months after me. Two years down the road he found out his wife was 3 1/2 months pregnant before their wedding, and she had an abortion without telling him because she wanted to look good in her wedding dress. Their marriage lasted less than 10 years.

I better quit before I get too revved up...


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 6, 2009)

reformed trucker said:


> she wanted to look good in her wedding dress. Their marriage lasted less than 10 years.


talk about having the right priorities.


----------

