A Child is not Property

[BruceRGilbert]

Abortion as a form of "Birth Control" is a heinous sin. I am of the opinion that a person who justifies this action ought to be sterilized and deprived of the opportunity to procreate. The inevitability of this happening in God's plan has been established.

[MMbelieve]

Abortion as a form of "Birth Control" is a heinous sin. I am of the opinion that a person who justifies this action ought to be sterilized and deprived of the opportunity to procreate. The inevitability of this happening in God's plan has been established.

Yeah, not sure why sterilization is not part of the abortion process. If babies arent wanted couldnt they offer that service too? Then people can have all the sex they want. Especially for repeat patients who have made it clear that they do not want babies. Im sure tons of people would volunteer for free sterilization.

I wonder if thats why so many people are becoming less fertile or infertile as a curse to the land for this sin.

[MMbelieve]

Not only can an fetus possess its' own distinct blood type, but it possesses all it's own organs, genetic material, and can be a "boy" meaning a different gender from the mother, and that's just for starters. A fetus is no way just some appendage like piece of the mother and that's all.

I am not one of those who believes abortion is murder, but to argue that a woman has rights over her own body, so therefore should not be denied abortion on demand is just plain stupid because obviously an fetus is NOT her own body, it is SOMEBODY ELSE'S BODY, even if just in potential.

FYI, the pro-choice people who use woman's rights of bodily sovereignty to support abortion are essentially saying that the baby is an intruding parasite that can put the mother in harms way. Therefore, she must consent to its presence or its got to go, the same way we attack and kill other parasites like ringworm, tapeworms, etc.

And about who or what a child belongs to, a child properly carries his Father's name. Even before last names were invented, a child was known by who his/her father was, and that father was known by who his father was, etc, and this is evident even in the scriptures. A father is ultimately the one responsible for his children. Religiously speaking, the blessings of the "fathers" sought by Abraham are the blessings of posterity. Even temple work is done in the name of turning the hearts of the children to their "fathers" etc. A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone, with the idea that this relationship will be eternal.

Therefore I believe that children rightly belong to their father, and certainly not to society at large.

Citation please. For the bolded part.

For the "bolded part" a child can be sealed to a father for the time being, or temporarily, until when the mother can be documented. I didn't mean that this would remain a permanent situation forever. I learned this by experience with helping other people submit temple work, and I remember it well, not by learning it somewhere that can be "cited".

While I was a family history consultant and a worker in the family history center, the practice of putting a name in the temple with just a Mrs was discontinued because it caused a whole lot more problems than it solved with people really abusing it. I wouldn't know right now if this has been reinstated but I hope not.

I didn't mean to derail this thread. I still believe that children inherently belong to their fathers and the scriptures and the Patriarchal order support this.

Now about what you said about abortion rights. So you are saying that women are no longer thinking that the fetus is just a part of their own body but a parasite, and they should have the right to get that parasite removed? OK, so a parasite and a fetus might have a few things things in common, but that does not make them the same thing at all. What an inhumane, low and ghastly comparison.

Would these women enjoy thinking their own mothers thought of them as "parasites"? I mean, if we are going to go with this, then a newborn infant, though disconnected, is still a parasite if nursed, so I guess is going to be expendable until a fully independent adult ( as if there are any these days!)

By nature of a fetus it is parasitic not a parasite. I have no problem calling a fetus parasitic because thats exactly how it is. Its a way of saying the fetus/baby will take what it needs from its host, the mother. Its just a nerdy way of looking at pregnancy thats harmless unless someone uses it to say its a parasite that needs to be killed, thats just dumb and makes zero sense.

[Juliet]

People killing children are parasites to the propogation of society.

A human in embreyo is not a harmful organism. It requires nutrients in order to preserve the life and dna of the prior generation which is of benefit to the survival of the species.That makes it of the highest value in what it offers the human species. It is more than a symbiotic relationship, since not only does it benefit the mother and father by preserving their dna, but it benefits all of society by preserving and diversifying the gene pool.

So instead of call it a parasite, how about bow down and worship it, it does more for the human race than God.

Of course, knowing that a child is a miracle and the greatest gift God can ever give the human species... And furthermore since society is quick to blame God for all of its ills, God will consequentially be blamed for everything that society does to destroy it's own offspring.

Sorry, God, you can't win.

[BruceRGilbert]

Of course, knowing that a child is a miracle and the greatest gift God can ever give the human species... And furthermore since society is quick to blame God for all of its ills, God will consequentially be blamed for everything that society does to destroy it's own offspring.

Sorry, God, you can't win.

Ah, Juliet - with OUR help, He can and will.

2 Nephi 30:
10 For the time speedily cometh that the Lord God shall cause a great division among the people, and the wicked will he destroy; and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must destroy the wicked by fire.

11 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

12 And then shall the wolf dwell with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling, together; and a little child shall lead them.

[Thinker]

Not only can an fetus possess its' own distinct blood type, but it possesses all it's own organs, genetic material, and can be a "boy" meaning a different gender from the mother, and that's just for starters. A fetus is no way just some appendage like piece of the mother and that's all.

I am not one of those who believes abortion is murder, but to argue that a woman has rights over her own body, so therefore should not be denied abortion on demand is just plain stupid because obviously an fetus is NOT her own body, it is SOMEBODY ELSE'S BODY, even if just in potential.

FYI, the pro-choice people who use woman's rights of bodily sovereignty to support abortion are essentially saying that the baby is an intruding parasite that can put the mother in harms way. Therefore, she must consent to its presence or its got to go, the same way we attack and kill other parasites like ringworm, tapeworms, etc.

And about who or what a child belongs to, a child properly carries his Father's name. Even before last names were invented, a child was known by who his/her father was, and that father was known by who his father was, etc, and this is evident even in the scriptures. A father is ultimately the one responsible for his children. Religiously speaking, the blessings of the "fathers" sought by Abraham are the blessings of posterity. Even temple work is done in the name of turning the hearts of the children to their "fathers" etc. A child can be sealed in the temple to their father alone, with the idea that this relationship will be eternal.

Therefore I believe that children rightly belong to their father, and certainly not to society at large.

Citation please. For the bolded part.

For the "bolded part" a child can be sealed to a father for the time being, or temporarily, until when the mother can be documented. I didn't mean that this would remain a permanent situation forever. I learned this by experience with helping other people submit temple work, and I remember it well, not by learning it somewhere that can be "cited".

While I was a family history consultant and a worker in the family history center, the practice of putting a name in the temple with just a Mrs was discontinued because it caused a whole lot more problems than it solved with people really abusing it. I wouldn't know right now if this has been reinstated but I hope not.

I didn't mean to derail this thread. I still believe that children inherently belong to their fathers and the scriptures and the Patriarchal order support this.

Now about what you said about abortion rights. So you are saying that women are no longer thinking that the fetus is just a part of their own body but a parasite, and they should have the right to get that parasite removed? OK, so a parasite and a fetus might have a few things things in common, but that does not make them the same thing at all. What an inhumane, low and ghastly comparison.

Would these women enjoy thinking their own mothers thought of them as "parasites"? I mean, if we are going to go with this, then a newborn infant, though disconnected, is still a parasite if nursed, so I guess is going to be expendable until a fully independent adult ( as if there are any these days!)

By nature of a fetus it is parasitic not a parasite. I have no problem calling a fetus parasitic because thats exactly how it is. Its a way of saying the fetus/baby will take what it needs from its host, the mother. Its just a nerdy way of looking at pregnancy thats harmless unless someone uses it to say its a parasite that needs to be killed, thats just dumb and makes zero sense.

I don’t know about you, but while I’ve been to many baby showers, I’ve never been to a “parasitic shower.” Words do have power and “parasite” or “parasitic” are terms that abortion advocates use to devalue human life.

[MMbelieve]

FYI, the pro-choice people who use woman's rights of bodily sovereignty to support abortion are essentially saying that the baby is an intruding parasite that can put the mother in harms way. Therefore, she must consent to its presence or its got to go, the same way we attack and kill other parasites like ringworm, tapeworms, etc.



Citation please. For the bolded part.

For the "bolded part" a child can be sealed to a father for the time being, or temporarily, until when the mother can be documented. I didn't mean that this would remain a permanent situation forever. I learned this by experience with helping other people submit temple work, and I remember it well, not by learning it somewhere that can be "cited".

While I was a family history consultant and a worker in the family history center, the practice of putting a name in the temple with just a Mrs was discontinued because it caused a whole lot more problems than it solved with people really abusing it. I wouldn't know right now if this has been reinstated but I hope not.

I didn't mean to derail this thread. I still believe that children inherently belong to their fathers and the scriptures and the Patriarchal order support this.

Now about what you said about abortion rights. So you are saying that women are no longer thinking that the fetus is just a part of their own body but a parasite, and they should have the right to get that parasite removed? OK, so a parasite and a fetus might have a few things things in common, but that does not make them the same thing at all. What an inhumane, low and ghastly comparison.

Would these women enjoy thinking their own mothers thought of them as "parasites"? I mean, if we are going to go with this, then a newborn infant, though disconnected, is still a parasite if nursed, so I guess is going to be expendable until a fully independent adult ( as if there are any these days!)

By nature of a fetus it is parasitic not a parasite. I have no problem calling a fetus parasitic because thats exactly how it is. Its a way of saying the fetus/baby will take what it needs from its host, the mother. Its just a nerdy way of looking at pregnancy thats harmless unless someone uses it to say its a parasite that needs to be killed, thats just dumb and makes zero sense.

I don’t know about you, but while I’ve been to many baby showers, I’ve never been to a “parasitic shower.” Words do have power and “parasite” or “parasitic” are terms that abortion advocates use to devalue human life.

Obviously there are no parasitic showers, thats just dumb.
Just because a evil group uses the term to devalue doesnt change the nature of it. I never refer to a baby as such but you cant deny the truth. By the way, I dont go around saying parasitic.

Im against abortion 100%

[Elizabeth]

Man Who Regrets Transitioning to Woman Exposes Trans Movement: It's Grooming, It's Child Abuse

"There are plenty of controversial topics to discuss regarding transgender issues, but among the two most controversial are puberty blockers for young children with gender dysphoria and the efficacy of gender transitioning story.
In the story of a young child named James and an activist named Walt Heyer, the two issues converge — or intersect, as some might say — in a dramatic manner.
James is the subject of a bitter custody dispute that could have lifelong consequences for him. According to his father, his mother says he prefers to be girl named “Luna” and dress in women’s clothing. Yet, when he’s with his father, Jeff Younger, James prefers to dress as a boy and shows no sign of gender dysphoria.
Younger claims on his website SaveJames.com that James, now 6, has been dressed as a girl by his mother since he was 3. He also claims that his son is undergoing “social transitioning” therapy as a prelude to receiving puberty-blocking drugs as early as age 8. The therapy is meant to make it easier for a full gender transition therapy at an older age, as the drugs inhibit features like facial hair and Adam’s apples germane to biological males.
In Heyer, Younger has found a high-profile advocate.
“The case of James is very troubling to me because I know how the story unfolds,” Heyer writes in a piece for The Federalist.
“My grandmother dressed me as a girl when I was 4, 5, and 6 years old. Like James, I was far too young to comprehend the long-term consequences of being encouraged to cross-dress at such a young age, much less fight back. In my child’s mind, it felt good to be the center of her attention. Now I call what grandma did to me ‘child abuse’ because her grooming of me as a female negatively affected my entire life.
“In adulthood, I was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and underwent unnecessary cross-gender hormone therapy and surgical gender change,” he continues. “I lived eight years as a woman and tried my best to make it work, but after surgery I still had gender dysphoria. Even worse, I was suicidal. Before giving me hormones and surgery, my medical providers should have helped me explore the possible psychological roots of my desire to escape into a female persona, but none did.”
Heyer began re-identifying as his biological sex and has since been a staunch adversary of the vast expansion of the procedure. As he notes in his article, published Wednesday, the vast majority of young people with gender dysphoria grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood.
Yet, for those given puberty blockers, a paper by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health notes that “in a follow-up study of 70 adolescents who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria and given puberty suppressing hormones, all continued with the actual sex reassignment, beginning with feminizing/masculinising hormone therapy.”
That’s one study, but a world of difference which could suggest the puberty blocker drugs themselves could affect outcomes in gender dysphoria. That’s not a trifle when it comes to children like James: Studies are mixed as to whether gender transitioning actually helps, with two major studies showing doctors finding the procedure ineffective and higher mortality rates among those who underwent reassignment surgery.
Even the Obama-era Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services, certainly not a covert hive of transphobia, found that “based on a thorough review of the clinical evidence available at this time, there is not enough evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria” and refused to cover the procedure.
Heyer says the results of the process on James would be horrifying.
“Puberty blockers and the following step, cross-sex hormones, are known to cause serious side effects, including infertility. Children are not able to understand these consequences or give informed consent,” Heyer writes. “James is on track to be given these drugs.”
“Another opinion is so clearly needed. It’s easy to see why this father is alarmed and fights so hard for his boy. An intervention is clearly needed and needed now. A second opinion needs to come from someone who is not a cheerleader for diagnosing gender dysphoria and preparing a child for a sex change. The ideal counselor will explore the family dynamics and other contributing factors.”
More importantly, he says, he’s spent time with James and his family and says that if the child is putting on an act while he’s with his father, it’s certainly an impressive one for a 6-year-old.
“Jeff and I drove across town to the mother’s home to pick up the boys,” Heyer writes.
“As we pulled up, the front door opened, and the two young boys came flying out. James was dressed as a boy, like his brother. Into the backseat they went, saying hi to their dad and to me before they started talking about Ninja Turtles and other things they had done at school. Not one smidgeon of gender dysphoria or ‘girl talk’ appeared during the drive back to the Scott home.”
“I observed James’ mannerisms, voice inflections, and interactions, looking for evidence of gender dysphoria. I can emphatically say that during the two hours of the visit I saw no sign of gender dysphoria. James indicated no desire to be a girl, nor did he behave like a girl or talk like a girl during the entire time. Both James and his brother happily engaged with the four Scott children and the adults. Both were talkative, demonstrated strong vocabularies, and eagerly showed off their artwork created during a previous playdate.”
Instead, this all seems to manifest when he’s with his mother, who has pressed the court into transgender therapy with Jeff Younger footing the bill, according to the father.
Heyer isn’t a medical professional, although he’s an expert on his own experience, I suppose. He’s also well-versed in the treatment regimen for transitioning when gender dysphoria has been diagnosed, which is called the Dutch protocol. He says that it’s normalizing parental “grooming.”
“Social transition is the first step. James’ mother has enrolled him in first grade as a girl with a girl name and dresses him as a girl for school,” he said. “Social transition for a young child is not harmless. It’s grooming. My grandmother dressed me as a girl when I was 4, 5, and 6 years old, which led to my own gender confusion.”
But this is what’s being pushed as compassionate and progressive among liberal activists at the moment, even though we have roughly zero idea what will happen to children treated with the Dutch protocol 10, 20, 30 years down the line. Our knowledge is limited as to what damage puberty-blocking and this cocktail of pharmaceuticals will wreak on the bodies of individuals who made these choices long before they were adults — if there was any volition in the first place.
That’s not progressive. That’s abusive, and it’s time that society started realizing that. It’s one thing when an adult decides to transition on their own, even if we can debate the efficacy of the process. It’s quite another when it’s done to children as young as 8, people who don’t have the ability to comprehend decisions they’re making about their health and are at the mercy — or the whim — of parents who have their own agenda."

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

A baby cannot be seen as a part of the woman's body because he or she has his or her own blood type. Furthermore, if the baby needs nutrients, it can receive them from the mother's blood. However, if the mother is malnourished, the umbilical cord has a one way valve to make sure nutrients are not taken from the baby in order to nourish the mother. A pregnant woman is a living body with two separate lives in it, proven by two different blood types.

The baby can subsist off of the mother, but nature has designed it so that the mother has no possible way to subsist off of the nutrients of the baby...
Therefore, nature has chosen that of the two lives sharing the same body, the baby's rights to nourishment is more important than the mother's.
There is no indication that a woman has a right to any part of the baby's life, body, or blood. But the opposite is true. The baby has a right to the mother's life, body, and blood.

If you value sinning against the laws of nature than this is proof positive of mental insanity and justification enough for your right to choose to be taken away.

Good points, Juliet!
I’ve heard and argued that the only time abortion may be moral is when the life of the mother is in fatal danger and aborting the baby would save at least one life, rather than lose 2. Yet, the way nature works, once new life is conceived, begins human LIFE and everything works toward developing that little, miraculous body.

One aspect that I believe constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” is that these babies are often killed by ripping their bodies apart, after 8 weeks gestation when all body systems (including nervous/pain system) are intact. Utah is the 1st state to require pain killers to babies over 20 weeks gestation, before killing the baby in abortion - because it is undeniable that babies can feel it at that point and likely way before. The following ultrasound video of an abortion at 12 weeks ought to be required viewing of any woman wanting an abortion...

As you mentioned, to deny this right to life that nature generally ensures, is insane. Yet, how many of us have done stupid things - especially when young when we didn’t realize the full impact? So, although it breaks my heart to know of the suffering of these little ones who have no voice, I also try to remember that media, government etc has deceived many into believing that abortion is ok - because it’s “legal.” They don’t show the ugly facts - like the pain the child endures in being killed, the psychological and often reproductive illness mothers who had abortions, face - often for the rest of their lives.

You'll like this one!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F134iKB1TZU

[Moon1943]

[Thinker]

A baby cannot be seen as a part of the woman's body because he or she has his or her own blood type. Furthermore, if the baby needs nutrients, it can receive them from the mother's blood. However, if the mother is malnourished, the umbilical cord has a one way valve to make sure nutrients are not taken from the baby in order to nourish the mother. A pregnant woman is a living body with two separate lives in it, proven by two different blood types.

The baby can subsist off of the mother, but nature has designed it so that the mother has no possible way to subsist off of the nutrients of the baby...
Therefore, nature has chosen that of the two lives sharing the same body, the baby's rights to nourishment is more important than the mother's.
There is no indication that a woman has a right to any part of the baby's life, body, or blood. But the opposite is true. The baby has a right to the mother's life, body, and blood.

If you value sinning against the laws of nature than this is proof positive of mental insanity and justification enough for your right to choose to be taken away.

Good points, Juliet!
I’ve heard and argued that the only time abortion may be moral is when the life of the mother is in fatal danger and aborting the baby would save at least one life, rather than lose 2. Yet, the way nature works, once new life is conceived, begins human LIFE and everything works toward developing that little, miraculous body.

One aspect that I believe constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” is that these babies are often killed by ripping their bodies apart, after 8 weeks gestation when all body systems (including nervous/pain system) are intact. Utah is the 1st state to require pain killers to babies over 20 weeks gestation, before killing the baby in abortion - because it is undeniable that babies can feel it at that point and likely way before. The following ultrasound video of an abortion at 12 weeks ought to be required viewing of any woman wanting an abortion...

As you mentioned, to deny this right to life that nature generally ensures, is insane. Yet, how many of us have done stupid things - especially when young when we didn’t realize the full impact? So, although it breaks my heart to know of the suffering of these little ones who have no voice, I also try to remember that media, government etc has deceived many into believing that abortion is ok - because it’s “legal.” They don’t show the ugly facts - like the pain the child endures in being killed, the psychological and often reproductive illness mothers who had abortions, face - often for the rest of their lives.

You'll like this one!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F134iKB1TZU

I LOVE that! It’s a beautiful reminder of the incredible potential each new life brings! I read that during a certain window of time, parents laugh MORE than their kids! Children take a lot - but they also give a lot of JOY! Thanks for sharing that song.

I like the way this guy portrays as if his spirit is trying to convince his mom to not go through with aborting him. I believe the spirits of many little ones are indeed much bigger than they may seem.

[Dusty52]

A baby cannot be seen as a part of the woman's body because he or she has his or her own blood type.

Furthermore, if the baby needs nutrients, it can receive them from the mother's blood.

However, if the mother is malnourished, the umbilical cord has a one way valve to make sure nutrients are not taken from the baby in order to nourish the mother.

A pregnant woman is a living body with two separate lives in it, proven by two different blood types.

The baby can subsist off of the mother, but nature has designed it so that the mother has no possible way to subsist off of the nutrients of the baby.

Therefore, nature has chosen that of the two lives sharing the same body, the baby's rights to nourishment is more important than the mother's.

Nature doesn't care about woman's feelings. It cares about survival of the species.

And in the case of whose life is more important, it chooses the baby.

Therefore, the baby has the right to live and recieve proper nutrients via the mother's body even if it means to the detriment of the mother.

Therefore, according to nature, the baby has the right to life ahead of the mothers' right to life.

There is no indication that a woman has a right to any part of the baby's life, body, or blood. But the opposite is true. The baby has a right to the mother's life, body, and blood.

If you value sinning against the laws of nature than this is proof positive of mental insanity and justification enough for your right to choose to be taken away.

I like your post, it opened my eyes as to the baby and mother relationship, and how the needs of the one born overides that of the mother, I've never thought of it in that way before, it makes sense

[Fiannan]

Did you know that in Sweden a midwife is required by law to assist in abortions?

Ask your typical leftist friends how they feel about that. Bet their answers will support that policy.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

A baby cannot be seen as a part of the woman's body because he or she has his or her own blood type. Furthermore, if the baby needs nutrients, it can receive them from the mother's blood. However, if the mother is malnourished, the umbilical cord has a one way valve to make sure nutrients are not taken from the baby in order to nourish the mother. A pregnant woman is a living body with two separate lives in it, proven by two different blood types.

The baby can subsist off of the mother, but nature has designed it so that the mother has no possible way to subsist off of the nutrients of the baby...
Therefore, nature has chosen that of the two lives sharing the same body, the baby's rights to nourishment is more important than the mother's.
There is no indication that a woman has a right to any part of the baby's life, body, or blood. But the opposite is true. The baby has a right to the mother's life, body, and blood.

If you value sinning against the laws of nature than this is proof positive of mental insanity and justification enough for your right to choose to be taken away.

Good points, Juliet!
I’ve heard and argued that the only time abortion may be moral is when the life of the mother is in fatal danger and aborting the baby would save at least one life, rather than lose 2. Yet, the way nature works, once new life is conceived, begins human LIFE and everything works toward developing that little, miraculous body.

One aspect that I believe constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” is that these babies are often killed by ripping their bodies apart, after 8 weeks gestation when all body systems (including nervous/pain system) are intact. Utah is the 1st state to require pain killers to babies over 20 weeks gestation, before killing the baby in abortion - because it is undeniable that babies can feel it at that point and likely way before. The following ultrasound video of an abortion at 12 weeks ought to be required viewing of any woman wanting an abortion...

As you mentioned, to deny this right to life that nature generally ensures, is insane. Yet, how many of us have done stupid things - especially when young when we didn’t realize the full impact? So, although it breaks my heart to know of the suffering of these little ones who have no voice, I also try to remember that media, government etc has deceived many into believing that abortion is ok - because it’s “legal.” They don’t show the ugly facts - like the pain the child endures in being killed, the psychological and often reproductive illness mothers who had abortions, face - often for the rest of their lives.

You'll like this one!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F134iKB1TZU

I LOVE that! It’s a beautiful reminder of the incredible potential each new life brings! I read that during a certain window of time, parents laugh MORE than their kids! Children take a lot - but they also give a lot of JOY! Thanks for sharing that song.

I like the way this guy portrays as if his spirit is trying to convince his mom to not go through with aborting him. I believe the spirits of many little ones are indeed much bigger than they may seem.

The crazy thing to me is the belief that babies come as an empty vessel. The reality is that they do many things in utero that show personality and once they are born, even right away they laugh and dream and smile and have big personalities crammed into little bodies. I never knew that before having kids! To the world they have nothing to dream having blurry vision at best and zero experience and yet they do. To science they could not grasp communication or life experience (even if they had it) sufficient to find anything amusing and yet they laugh and laugh so angelically.

The reality is that they are full and complete personalities who I believe are still coming and going between worlds for a time before and after birth. I do not believe that their spirits are trapped in utero, nor do I think that there spirits are absent in utero.

With each of our children there was a very noticeable and definitive point at which they stopped coming and going and we could tell that they were here to stay. For us always around 3-4 months.