Abortion. Pro or anti?.

[Raggs]

With all the contraceptives available in this day and age I don't understand why we are still having this argument.

Accidents happen, people have a bad understanding of risk (especially when alcohol is involved) and even if you take all the precautions, they are not 100% effective. I have one friend who is a parent because her IUD failed, and another whose birth control pills didn't work, probably due to a stomach bug.

Ever heard of the morning after pill?

Sure no contra is 100% effective but even ECP's are 89% effective up to 72 hours after. Normal BC is at 99% effectiveness if taken consistently, Condoms 98%. Yes there's always a small chance all these might fail but considering those percentages, the number of abortions should be inconsequential.

Because you know that the condom didn't work straight away? Or that the coil failed this time? You are aware that there's not a little signal that goes off saying "You're pregnant." once a woman is impregnated, right?

[Calculon]

The problem is that many, if not most of the children of the underclass are incapable of benefitting from education. They will be unable to hold down a job and be unemployed, living on benefits , just like their parents and grandparents before them.

Truly a cunt of a post.

Why? It's the reality of the situation.

[MungoMan]

The problem is that many, if not most of the children of the underclass are incapable of benefitting from education. They will be unable to hold down a job and be unemployed, living on benefits , just like their parents and grandparents before them.

Truly a cunt of a post.

Why? It's the reality of the situation.

In your fúcked up head, perhaps. Here in the physical world, yeah nah.

[freddie]

The problem is that many, if not most of the children of the underclass are incapable of benefitting from education. They will be unable to hold down a job and be unemployed, living on benefits , just like their parents and grandparents before them.

Truly a cunt of a post.

I'm afraid as ugly and elitist a statement as that is in the way he posed it, there is much weight behind it. We have a population explosion and those with the least means to support themselves are the ones driving it.

Er, which exact population explosion are you talking about?

Crude Birth Rate

Screenshot_20220531-091725_Chrome.jpg (177.48 KiB) Viewed 979 times

[Torquemada 1420]

Truly a cunt of a post.

I'm afraid as ugly and elitist a statement as that is in the way he posed it, there is much weight behind it. We have a population explosion and those with the least means to support themselves are the ones driving it.

Er, which exact population explosion are you talking about?

Maybe you require some rudimentary maths lessons? Happy to assist if you like.

[Calculon]

Truly a cunt of a post.

Why? It's the reality of the situation.

In your fúcked up head, perhaps. Here in the physical world, yeah nah.

Have you ever met these kids, spoken to their parents, spoken to their teachers.

[Calculon]

With all the contraceptives available in this day and age I don't understand why we are still having this argument.

Accidents happen, people have a bad understanding of risk (especially when alcohol is involved) and even if you take all the precautions, they are not 100% effective. I have one friend who is a parent because her IUD failed, and another whose birth control pills didn't work, probably due to a stomach bug.

Ever heard of the morning after pill?

Sure no contra is 100% effective but even ECP's are 89% effective up to 72 hours after. Normal BC is at 99% effectiveness if taken consistently, Condoms 98%. Yes there's always a small chance all these might fail but considering those percentages, the number of abortions should be inconsequential.

Many of the pro life people consider contraception that can prevent the implantation of the zygote as a form of abortion.

[laurent]

Why? It's the reality of the situation.

In your fúcked up head, perhaps. Here in the physical world, yeah nah.

Have you ever met these kids, spoken to their parents, spoken to their teachers. Some of you are living in a world completely divorced from reality

Quite a bit unlike you it seems. Our club rugby school is 90% kids from "problem" neighbourhoods.

[Guy Smiley]

Why? It's the reality of the situation.

In your fúcked up head, perhaps. Here in the physical world, yeah nah.

Have you ever met these kids, spoken to their parents, spoken to their teachers. Some of you are living in a world completely divorced from reality

One of my best mates in Western Australia went into teaching. He started his career in a remote school way out in the bush... admittedly in a townsite but a long way removed from city life. He spent two years there and realised he had a bit of a passion for helping yer avridge lower class type, as many European background locals like to consider the indigenous people being. Sam developed his teaching skills there and took a posting back in town but specifically asked for a 'difficult' socio economic region. He got posted to a school with the lowest pupil engagement metrics in the metro area. Attendance, achievment, general delinquency... this place scored all of that and more.

I'm telling you this because I love my mate Sam and I'm incredibly proud of what he achieved.

He left that school about 15 years later with some of the highest achievement rates across the metro area... with added engagement throughout the wider community through ex pupils staying involved and families participating in school activities, sports days, camps, outings...

all of the local people are poor. Many are longterm benificiaries, some are intergenerational beneficiaries... they live on welfare. Their parents lived on welfare.

The current crop of kids that Sam and his team are turning out are going on after leaving, attending uni or gaining work through trade training and the like.

To write off an entire class of people as being not worthy of help because you see them as beyond help is a profoundly ignorant and arrogant perspective. Most people from poor backgrounds want to improve their lot and suffer through neglect from people like you... who consider it not worth the effort. Given adequate resources, empathy and understanding, those people are equally capable of the same or greater achievements as their more well off contemporaries.

Likewise... I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances gained through years of working in the mining game across Western and South Australia. Many of those mining ventures are engaged in providing employment and training for locals... the despised by many Aboriginals viewed as lower class animals who live in dirt.... these people have suffered for years under systemic deprivation and discrimination. Their children were taken from them for decades for fucksake. It's hard to imagine what it must be like to grow up as a member of a race viewed as troublesome property by many...

and yet there are numerous stories of young people from those areas growing successful careers through the training programs or through pursuing the educational opportunities offered and graduating with degrees across any number of fields.


Fuck you and your attitude to the lower classes. It's a cunt of an attitude. It smacks of arrogance, ignorance and entitlement.

[sockwithaticket]

I taught in a secondary school with bizarrely mixed catchment - barrack kids rubbing shoulders with travellers, and some pretty well monied upper-middle class plus everything in between - and you could find kids so thick that you'd question what they can actually do once they leave school in each group, just as you could find brilliant minds who would surely go on to do great things in each one.

When it comes to meeting the parents, again, you could find rubbish ones with disdain for the school and society in every group. The main difference being that the ones from higher socio-economic brackets are more likely to be in positions where they can inflict more societal harm. At the very least the latter were the kind of people who have no issue with the vulture capitalist approach of the Tory party and consider public servants like teachers as being utterly beneath them.

Generalising an 'underclass' is as unhelpful as it is abhorrent.

[inactionman]

My late Father in Law worked at a school for disadvantaged kids in the East Midlands, as far as he was concerned they were just kids who might need a bit more support to make up for shortfalls elsewhere, but they were just kids with the exact same potential as all others.

There's some truth in the argument that many kids from sink estates will end up in long-term unemployment and reliant upon benefits, but that's a fault of broader society - lack of opportunity, support and direction. They're not congenitally 'incapable'.

[MungoMan]

Why? It's the reality of the situation.

In your fúcked up head, perhaps. Here in the physical world, yeah nah.

Have you ever met these kids, spoken to their parents, spoken to their teachers.

Have you ever considered sticking your head up a dead bear's bum?

[Raggs]

In your fúcked up head, perhaps. Here in the physical world, yeah nah.

Have you ever met these kids, spoken to their parents, spoken to their teachers.

Have you ever considered sticking your head up a dead bear's bum?

I reckon him trying to do it with a live one would be better.

[Tilly Orifice]

I'm afraid as ugly and elitist a statement as that is in the way he posed it, there is much weight behind it. We have a population explosion and those with the least means to support themselves are the ones driving it.

Er, which exact population explosion are you talking about?

Maybe you require some rudimentary maths lessons? Happy to assist if you like.

Population trends are certainly a bit worrying, but I assume you do realise that, through the magic of mathematics, any part of that graph can be drawn to look like the whole, and the whole can be drawn to look like any part. All you do is adjust the scale. The scale in that one is adjusted to make it look as alarming as possible.

[Calculon]

My late Father in Law worked at a school for disadvantaged kids in the East Midlands, as far as he was concerned they were just kids who might need a bit more support to make up for shortfalls elsewhere, but they were just kids with the exact same potential as all others.

There's some truth in the argument that many kids from sink estates will end up in long-term unemployment and reliant upon benefits, but that's a fault of broader society - lack of opportunity, support and direction. They're not congenitally 'incapable'.

Of course it's the fault if society. A kid from a sink estate "raised" by a single mom who provides no discipline, doesn't provide proper nutrition, has no interest in her child's education, a child whose friends all have the same background, goes to school where pupils threaten and attacks teachers during the class, as a result teacher turnover is shockingly high at schools like this. The idea that it only takes this one amazing teacher to transform them into productive members of society is a nice fantasy.

[average joe]

Accidents happen, people have a bad understanding of risk (especially when alcohol is involved) and even if you take all the precautions, they are not 100% effective. I have one friend who is a parent because her IUD failed, and another whose birth control pills didn't work, probably due to a stomach bug.

Ever heard of the morning after pill?

Sure no contra is 100% effective but even ECP's are 89% effective up to 72 hours after. Normal BC is at 99% effectiveness if taken consistently, Condoms 98%. Yes there's always a small chance all these might fail but considering those percentages, the number of abortions should be inconsequential.

Because you know that the condom didn't work straight away? Or that the coil failed this time? You are aware that there's not a little signal that goes off saying "You're pregnant." once a woman is impregnated, right?

A coil (whatever in fucks name that is) or the pill failing is one thing and I can see how you'd have an argument but how many of these cases are there in realty?

To be honest with you I have no idea what the world wide figures for abortions are but I would think that it has reduced significantly since the 70'. I'm a bit concerned with South Africa were it seems we have many repeat abortions and not limited to twice but even up to four times. It concerns me because its state sponsored meaning I'm paying for it through my taxes.

[Calculon]

In your fúcked up head, perhaps. Here in the physical world, yeah nah.

Have you ever met these kids, spoken to their parents, spoken to their teachers. Some of you are living in a world completely divorced from reality

One of my best mates in Western Australia went into teaching. He started his career in a remote school way out in the bush... admittedly in a townsite but a long way removed from city life. He spent two years there and realised he had a bit of a passion for helping yer avridge lower class type, as many European background locals like to consider the indigenous people being. Sam developed his teaching skills there and took a posting back in town but specifically asked for a 'difficult' socio economic region. He got posted to a school with the lowest pupil engagement metrics in the metro area. Attendance, achievment, general delinquency... this place scored all of that and more.

I'm telling you this because I love my mate Sam and I'm incredibly proud of what he achieved.

He left that school about 15 years later with some of the highest achievement rates across the metro area... with added engagement throughout the wider community through ex pupils staying involved and families participating in school activities, sports days, camps, outings...

all of the local people are poor. Many are longterm benificiaries, some are intergenerational beneficiaries... they live on welfare. Their parents lived on welfare.

The current crop of kids that Sam and his team are turning out are going on after leaving, attending uni or gaining work through trade training and the like.

To write off an entire class of people as being not worthy of help because you see them as beyond help is a profoundly ignorant and arrogant perspective. Most people from poor backgrounds want to improve their lot and suffer through neglect from people like you... who consider it not worth the effort. Given adequate resources, empathy and understanding, those people are equally capable of the same or greater achievements as their more well off contemporaries.

Likewise... I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances gained through years of working in the mining game across Western and South Australia. Many of those mining ventures are engaged in providing employment and training for locals... the despised by many Aboriginals viewed as lower class animals who live in dirt.... these people have suffered for years under systemic deprivation and discrimination. Their children were taken from them for decades for fucksake. It's hard to imagine what it must be like to grow up as a member of a race viewed as troublesome property by many...

and yet there are numerous stories of young people from those areas growing successful careers through the training programs or through pursuing the educational opportunities offered and graduating with degrees across any number of fields.


Fuck you and your attitude to the lower classes. It's a cunt of an attitude. It smacks of arrogance, ignorance and entitlement.

That's a no then. It quite funny that you're thinking I'm talking about poor people with ambition who want to improve their lot.

[Torquemada 1420]

Er, which exact population explosion are you talking about?

Maybe you require some rudimentary maths lessons? Happy to assist if you like.

Population trends are certainly a bit worrying, but I assume you do realise that, through the magic of mathematics, any part of that graph can be drawn to look like the whole, and the whole can be drawn to look like any part. All you do is adjust the scale. The scale in that one is adjusted to make it look as alarming as possible.

Don't really require a lesson on how scaling can have that sort of impact (fractals has been an interest of mine since the 1980s). And not really to your point because whatever meaningful frame you take will tell you the same: in the whole course of human existence, we have exploded out of control in the last 150 years. A "bit" worrying. 99.99999% of biodiversity on the planet would take that as an understatement.

[Tilly Orifice]

Maybe you require some rudimentary maths lessons? Happy to assist if you like.

Population trends are certainly a bit worrying, but I assume you do realise that, through the magic of mathematics, any part of that graph can be drawn to look like the whole, and the whole can be drawn to look like any part. All you do is adjust the scale. The scale in that one is adjusted to make it look as alarming as possible.

Don't really require a lesson on how scaling can have that sort of impact (fractals has been an interest of mine since the 1980s). And not really to your point because whatever meaningful frame you take will tell you the same: in the whole course of human existence, we have exploded out of control in the last 150 years. A "bit" worrying. 99.99999% of biodiversity on the planet would take that as an understatement.

No need to be snotty about it, you posted the graph. I don't disagree with your point, but the graph is deliberately exaggerated (12 000 years squeezed into about two inches?)

[Torquemada 1420]

No need to be snotty about it, you posted the graph. I don't disagree with your point, but the graph is deliberately exaggerated (12 000 years squeezed into about two inches?)

Graph was fastest one I found (Wiki). I kinda take your point except since the line is pretty much asymptotic in time reverse, I'm not sure cutting it anywhere makes a difference. If it were chopped, say at 1800, the presumption by most would be for anything preceding there to be near linear. Such is the scale of increase that the Black Death can't even be seen!

PS I am this board's grumpy old man. Sorry.

[Tilly Orifice]

Yeah, my thought was that taking it that far back it looks more like a graph of humanity's increasing ability to support itself in growing numbers using the world's resources, rather than an illustration of the developing catastrophe... anyway I'll stop now since I don't think we seriously disagree.

[freddie]

I'm afraid as ugly and elitist a statement as that is in the way he posed it, there is much weight behind it. We have a population explosion and those with the least means to support themselves are the ones driving it.

Er, which exact population explosion are you talking about?

Maybe you require some rudimentary maths lessons? Happy to assist if you like.

That's a useless response. The same projection says growth rate will be 0 by 2100. So your upcoming population explosion is really just a 25% increase on today.
There are major challenges for the world for sure but the current population is already an issue, rather than future growth being an enormous problem on its own.

[petej]

Er, which exact population explosion are you talking about?

Maybe you require some rudimentary maths lessons? Happy to assist if you like.

That's a useless response. The same projection says growth rate will be 0 by 2100. So your upcoming population explosion is really just a 25% increase on today.
There are major challenges for the world for sure but the current population is already an issue, rather than future growth being an enormous problem on its own.

Also over 5 years out of date. UN projections are over optimistic on birthrates. The article below estimated global population to fall in about 3 decades time.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/ ... y-matters/

[Torquemada 1420]

Er, which exact population explosion are you talking about?

Maybe you require some rudimentary maths lessons? Happy to assist if you like.

That's a useless response. The same projection says growth rate will be 0 by 2100. So your upcoming population explosion is really just a 25% increase on today.
There are major challenges for the world for sure but the current population is already an issue, rather than future growth being an enormous problem on its own.

Maybe you are just being wilfully obtuse or maybe you simply can't grasp the issue. We are in the midst of the population explosion i.e. precisely when it started is a complete sideshow. The planet is already massively overpopulated with humans. It's irrelevant now whether the rate of acceleration is declining: it's still +ve which means every addition is another problem.

[Raggs]

Maybe you are just being wilfully obtuse or maybe you simply can't grasp the issue. We are in the midst of the population explosion i.e. precisely when it started is a complete sideshow. The planet is already massively overpopulated with humans. It's irrelevant now whether the rate of acceleration is declining: it's still +ve which means every addition is another problem.

Now all you've got to do is show how we have an overpopulation problem. Rather than an economic one.

[petej]

Maybe you are just being wilfully obtuse or maybe you simply can't grasp the issue. We are in the midst of the population explosion i.e. precisely when it started is a complete sideshow. The planet is already massively overpopulated with humans. It's irrelevant now whether the rate of acceleration is declining: it's still +ve which means every addition is another problem.

Now all you've got to do is show how we have an overpopulation problem. Rather than an economic one.

We really aren't in the midst of a population explosion. The population explosion has been and gone in terms of birth rates what you have is a smaller pre baby boom generations dying and being replaced with larger but not larger than the boom generation. So same number of young people but more old people. Unlike the boom generation where governments built housing they just haven't bothered for later generations even though demographics experts would have told them this. India is only at replacement birth rate. China and western countries are well under that.

[MungoMan]

Maybe you are just being wilfully obtuse or maybe you simply can't grasp the issue. We are in the midst of the population explosion i.e. precisely when it started is a complete sideshow. The planet is already massively overpopulated with humans. It's irrelevant now whether the rate of acceleration is declining: it's still +ve which means every addition is another problem.

Now all you've got to do is show how we have an overpopulation problem. Rather than an economic one.

We really aren't in the midst of a population explosion. The population explosion has been and gone in terms of birth rates what you have is a smaller pre baby boom generations dying and being replaced with larger but not larger than the boom generation. So same number of young people but more old people.

That's a country-by-country thing.

In Australia, for example, it became clear about six years ago (following a census) that millenials had overtaken boomers. They're not manufacturing any more of either group, but a damned sight more of the former are imported than the latter whereas more of the latter are dying than the former. Consequently, the gap will expand.

[petej]

Now all you've got to do is show how we have an overpopulation problem. Rather than an economic one.

We really aren't in the midst of a population explosion. The population explosion has been and gone in terms of birth rates what you have is a smaller pre baby boom generations dying and being replaced with larger but not larger than the boom generation. So same number of young people but more old people.

That's a country-by-country thing.

In Australia, for example, it became clear about six years ago (following a census) that millenials had overtaken boomers. They're not manufacturing any more of either group, but a damned sight more of the former are imported than the latter whereas more of the latter are dying than the former. Consequently, the gap will expand.

It is a country by country thing but the patterns are broadly the same everywhere. Lots of kids, lots of them die then they don't die due to development (education, urbanisation, contraception, etc...) then the birth rate slowly adjusts to replacement or less.

[sturginho]

I'm afraid as ugly and elitist a statement as that is in the way he posed it, there is much weight behind it. We have a population explosion and those with the least means to support themselves are the ones driving it.

Er, which exact population explosion are you talking about?

Maybe you require some rudimentary maths lessons? Happy to assist if you like.

D'you take that chart from a lib dem campaign leaflet?

[sockwithaticket]

Maybe you are just being wilfully obtuse or maybe you simply can't grasp the issue. We are in the midst of the population explosion i.e. precisely when it started is a complete sideshow. The planet is already massively overpopulated with humans. It's irrelevant now whether the rate of acceleration is declining: it's still +ve which means every addition is another problem.

Now all you've got to do is show how we have an overpopulation problem. Rather than an economic one.

I'll have a stab. I'm perhaps not as forthright on it as Torq, but I have come to think we've got a good 2 - 3 billion people more than is desirable if we intend to keep the planet habitable unless everyone massively drops their expectations around living standards (constant hot and running cold water, as much power on demand as we like, being able to buy mangos in the super market all year round, etc.).

Insect and animal populations the world over are suffering massively due largely to habitat destruction, either for settlement or economic activity. They are still at the heart of a lot of agriculture, whether we like it or not. Particularly insects. There's all sorts of unintended consequences to things just vanishing out of food chainsMore equitable sharing of resources among the current global population doesn't fill the oceans back up or restore pollinators to the numbers of previous decades. Even if we stopped polluting and poisoning, so much habitat has been chopped down and built on or used to grow food. Then there's climate change.

Close to 8 billion people has an ecological impact that I'm not sure is compatible with an earth people (or anything else bar single cell organisms and cockroaches) can live on.

[weegie01]

To pick up the over population theme, if global warming does not get us, soil degradation will.

The fertile soils of the world took centuries if not millennia to establish. We are depleting that natural capital at an ever increasing rate as we drive the soil harder and harder to generate enough food for the human population.

In some of the key arable areas of the world the depth of topsoil is now less than a third it was a hundred years ago. And what is left is less fertile. Globally, we are losing fertile land at an unsustainable rate, either due to it becoming less fertile through over use, or actually being blown away or otherwise destroyed.

As our population expands, the capacity of the planet to produce food is declining.

The problem is that almost all means of reversing the process result in lower food production. So the Catch-22 is either we reduce food production now, and people starve, or people starve in the future as the soil can no longer produce enough food.

There are numerous examples of this from the past. Civilisations outgrew the capacity of the local environment to support them, the environment collapsed, then the civilisation followed suit. The difference is that we are now doing it on a global scale.

[sefton]

The sooner certain environmental groups get their head out of their arses and realise that GMO is our best hope of feeding the growing world population the better.

[petej]

To pick up the over population theme, if global warming does not get us, soil degradation will.

The fertile soils of the world took centuries if not millennia to establish. We are depleting that natural capital at an ever increasing rate as we drive the soil harder and harder to generate enough food for the human population.

In some of the key arable areas of the world the depth of topsoil is now less than a third it was a hundred years ago. And what is left is less fertile. Globally, we are losing fertile land at an unsustainable rate, either due to it becoming less fertile through over use, or actually being blown away or otherwise destroyed.

As our population expands, the capacity of the planet to produce food is declining.

The problem is that almost all means of reversing the process result in lower food production. So the Catch-22 is either we reduce food production now, and people starve, or people starve in the future as the soil can no longer produce enough food.

There are numerous examples of this from the past. Civilisations outgrew the capacity of the local environment to support them, the environment collapsed, then the civilisation followed suit. The difference is that we are now doing it on a global scale.

Is this true? I thought we are past peak cropland?
https://ourworldindata.org/peak-agriculture-land

Screenshot_20220601-212722.png (201.62 KiB) Viewed 594 times

The second largest food exporter in the world is the Netherlands and that land has been farmed for 100s of years.

[salanya]

The world is overpopulated, and it's screwing the planet - if only the richest people had the same motivation to save the planet as they have to make money we'd be in a much better place.

However, countries are already concerned that by the middle and end of the century the working population will have shrunk to an extent that it will affect society and the economy; people are getting older but they are also having fewer children, so populations will decrease sooner or later.

And then there are still illnesses, viruses, wars and pandemics etc. Obviously hugely upsetting on a personal level, but as Ian Malcolm would say: 'life finds a way'.

On actual abortions: until we live in a fairytale world in which foetuses will always be healthy and safe, and in which women don't get raped, there should always be a choice. Not saying it's an easy choice or that everybody would/should make the same choice, but it has to be an option.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The world is overpopulated, and it's screwing the planet - if only the richest people had the same motivation to save the planet as they have to make money we'd be in a much better place.

However, countries are already concerned that by the middle and end of the century the working population will have shrunk to an extent that it will affect society and the economy; people are getting older but they are also having fewer children, so populations will decrease sooner or later.

And then there are still illnesses, viruses, wars and pandemics etc. Obviously hugely upsetting on a personal level, but as Ian Malcolm would say: 'life finds a way'.

On actual abortions: until we live in a fairytale world in which foetuses will always be healthy and safe, and in which women don't get raped, there should always be a choice. Not saying it's an easy choice or that everybody would/should make the same choice, but it has to be an option.

if they were all safe and healthy, which is to say many didn't abort for natural reasons well inside 10 weeks, the global population might look very different again

[Guy Smiley]

Colour me surprised that a discussion over the rights of women and their bodily autonomy should turn into a bunch of white guys arguing semantics over a graph.

[Tilly Orifice]

Colour me surprised that a discussion over the rights of women and their bodily autonomy should turn into a bunch of white guys arguing semantics over a graph.

Does anybody really want an abortion thread?

[Thor Sedan]

Colour me surprised that a discussion over the rights of women and their bodily autonomy should turn into a bunch of white guys arguing semantics over a graph.

This x lots

[Calculon]

Colour me surprised that a discussion over the rights of women and their bodily autonomy should turn into a bunch of white guys arguing semantics over a graph.

Does anybody really want an abortion thread?

I've not read every post on this thread but it seems all the (white) guys, and the one (white) woman, are largely in agreement regarding abortion rights. Only the one (non white) guy is opposed to abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, and he has not given a reason for his beliefs.

[Random1]

Colour me surprised that a discussion over the rights of women and their bodily autonomy should turn into a bunch of white guys arguing semantics over a graph.

What has the sex and race of anyone on this thread got to do with anything?

The only person here being sexist or racist is you.

Edit: spelling.