Krause loves to cut and paste, so one should deserve another.


Mark Steyn hit the nail on the head when he accused a Canadian appeals
court of allowing for a “fourth-trimester abortion” — that’s right,
the killing of a baby that is already born.

The case emerged from the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, where a
judge faced the fact that a woman had been convicted of strangling her
newborn son and then throwing the baby’s body over the fence into her
neighbor’s yard.

As CBC News reported, the woman was given a three-year suspended
sentence and will spend no time in jail for the killing of her baby.
Katrina Efferts “will have to abide by conditions for the next three
years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her own
son.”

Justice Joanne Veit, whose name should now go down in legal and moral
infamy, tied this woman’s act of infanticide to Canada’s lack of legal
restrictions on abortion. The judge’s decision stated that “while many
Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to
unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand,
accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and
childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

She continued: “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death,
especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also
grieve for the mother.” She also stated that the Canadian approach is
a “fair compromise of all the interests involved.”

Two juries had found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but an
appeals court had reduced her conviction to infanticide.

Mark Steyn got right to the point:

So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is
happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order
to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who
has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those
mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first
month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six
months in? The terrible twos?

That is exactly the point. Judge Veit did indeed “extend the
principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the
killing of a living person.” The only problem with that statement is
that this baby was “a living person” before his birth. The issue of
birth is artificial and deadly. The willingness to kill within the
womb leads logically to a willingness to kill outside the womb. The
horrifying illogic of abortion, even in the United States, means that
this mother could have aborted her baby in the hours prior to his
birth with no legal consequence. This woman was convicted by juries of
killing her son just after his birth. The appeals court reduced the
crime, and then Judge Veit suspended the sentence.

The moral dishonesty of the entire tragedy comes down to the fact
that, in legalizing abortion, liberal societies claimed to be making a
bargain. We will not protect unborn life, but we will defend all those
who make it to birth. Of course, the dividing line was always
dishonest. Are we seriously to believe that human personhood is a
matter of mere location, inside or outside the womb?

Now, this judge has simply extended the logic of abortion, and
catastrophically so. If the “onerous demands” of parenthood justify
killing one’s own child, there is no logical reason to confine
permissive infanticide to newborns, or even to younger children.

We have seen this coming. As far back as 1993, ethicist Peter Singer
was arguing openly that babies “are not born self-aware, or capable of
grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” He went on
to argue that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of
a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” Singer, to our shame, now holds an
honored chair in ethics at Princeton University.

Other ethical philosophers, such as Michael Tooley and Jeffrey Reiman,
had argued similarly. Tooley asserted that human infants do not
qualify for personhood and Reiman argued that infants do not “possess
in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.”

Enter, Judge Veit. The philosophical foundations for the acceptance of
infanticide were laid long ago. Now, an appeals court in Canada has
applied them to law.

Add to this the moral inversion of motherhood in the eyes of this
court. What kind of twisted logic produced this sentence from Judge
Veit’s decision? “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s
death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians
also grieve for the mother.”

Just imagine saying that out loud. A society is naturally to grieve an
infant’s death, “especially at the hands of the infant’s mother,” but
the society is also to grieve for the mother?

Adding insult to injury, the CBC report reveals that Katrina Effert
just might actually spend time behind bars — not for killing her son
but for throwing the boy’s body over the fence. For that infraction,
she might serve 16 days in jail.

Mark this well — the horrific logic of this judge’s decision will not
remain in Canada. Indeed, it did not even start in Canada. Those
arguments are already in place in the United States. If we will not
defend life in the womb, eventually the dignity of every single human
life is thrown over the fence.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 04:22:34 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog wrote:


Krause loves to cut and paste, so one should deserve another.


Mark Steyn hit the nail on the head when he accused a Canadian appeals
court of allowing for a “fourth-trimester abortion” — that’s right,
the killing of a baby that is already born.

The case emerged from the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, where a
judge faced the fact that a woman had been convicted of strangling her
newborn son and then throwing the baby’s body over the fence into her
neighbor’s yard.

As CBC News reported, the woman was given a three-year suspended
sentence and will spend no time in jail for the killing of her baby.
Katrina Efferts “will have to abide by conditions for the next three
years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her own
son.”

Justice Joanne Veit, whose name should now go down in legal and moral
infamy, tied this woman’s act of infanticide to Canada’s lack of legal
restrictions on abortion. The judge’s decision stated that “while many
Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to
unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand,
accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and
childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

She continued: “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death,
especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also
grieve for the mother.” She also stated that the Canadian approach is
a “fair compromise of all the interests involved.”

Two juries had found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but an
appeals court had reduced her conviction to infanticide.

Mark Steyn got right to the point:

So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is
happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order
to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who
has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those
mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first
month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six
months in? The terrible twos?

That is exactly the point. Judge Veit did indeed “extend the
principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the
killing of a living person.” The only problem with that statement is
that this baby was “a living person” before his birth. The issue of
birth is artificial and deadly. The willingness to kill within the
womb leads logically to a willingness to kill outside the womb. The
horrifying illogic of abortion, even in the United States, means that
this mother could have aborted her baby in the hours prior to his
birth with no legal consequence. This woman was convicted by juries of
killing her son just after his birth. The appeals court reduced the
crime, and then Judge Veit suspended the sentence.

The moral dishonesty of the entire tragedy comes down to the fact
that, in legalizing abortion, liberal societies claimed to be making a
bargain. We will not protect unborn life, but we will defend all those
who make it to birth. Of course, the dividing line was always
dishonest. Are we seriously to believe that human personhood is a
matter of mere location, inside or outside the womb?

Now, this judge has simply extended the logic of abortion, and
catastrophically so. If the “onerous demands” of parenthood justify
killing one’s own child, there is no logical reason to confine
permissive infanticide to newborns, or even to younger children.

We have seen this coming. As far back as 1993, ethicist Peter Singer
was arguing openly that babies “are not born self-aware, or capable of
grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” He went on
to argue that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of
a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” Singer, to our shame, now holds an
honored chair in ethics at Princeton University.

Other ethical philosophers, such as Michael Tooley and Jeffrey Reiman,
had argued similarly. Tooley asserted that human infants do not
qualify for personhood and Reiman argued that infants do not “possess
in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.”

Enter, Judge Veit. The philosophical foundations for the acceptance of
infanticide were laid long ago. Now, an appeals court in Canada has
applied them to law.

Add to this the moral inversion of motherhood in the eyes of this
court. What kind of twisted logic produced this sentence from Judge
Veit’s decision? “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s
death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians
also grieve for the mother.”

Just imagine saying that out loud. A society is naturally to grieve an
infant’s death, “especially at the hands of the infant’s mother,” but
the society is also to grieve for the mother?

Adding insult to injury, the CBC report reveals that Katrina Effert
just might actually spend time behind bars — not for killing her son
but for throwing the boy’s body over the fence. For that infraction,
she might serve 16 days in jail.

Mark this well — the horrific logic of this judge’s decision will not
remain in Canada. Indeed, it did not even start in Canada. Those
arguments are already in place in the United States. If we will not
defend life in the womb, eventually the dignity of every single human
life is thrown over the fence.

The liberal's wet dream.

On 9/27/2011 7:22 AM, TopBassDog wrote:

Krause loves to cut and paste, so one should deserve another.


Mark Steyn hit the nail on the head when he accused a Canadian appeals
court of allowing for a “fourth-trimester abortion” — that’s right,
the killing of a baby that is already born.

The case emerged from the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, where a
judge faced the fact that a woman had been convicted of strangling her
newborn son and then throwing the baby’s body over the fence into her
neighbor’s yard.

As CBC News reported, the woman was given a three-year suspended
sentence and will spend no time in jail for the killing of her baby.
Katrina Efferts “will have to abide by conditions for the next three
years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her own
son.”

Justice Joanne Veit, whose name should now go down in legal and moral
infamy, tied this woman’s act of infanticide to Canada’s lack of legal
restrictions on abortion. The judge’s decision stated that “while many
Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to
unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand,
accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and
childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

She continued: “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death,
especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also
grieve for the mother.” She also stated that the Canadian approach is
a “fair compromise of all the interests involved.”

Two juries had found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but an
appeals court had reduced her conviction to infanticide.

Mark Steyn got right to the point:

So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is
happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order
to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who
has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those
mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first
month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six
months in? The terrible twos?

That is exactly the point. Judge Veit did indeed “extend the
principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the
killing of a living person.” The only problem with that statement is
that this baby was “a living person” before his birth. The issue of
birth is artificial and deadly. The willingness to kill within the
womb leads logically to a willingness to kill outside the womb. The
horrifying illogic of abortion, even in the United States, means that
this mother could have aborted her baby in the hours prior to his
birth with no legal consequence. This woman was convicted by juries of
killing her son just after his birth. The appeals court reduced the
crime, and then Judge Veit suspended the sentence.

The moral dishonesty of the entire tragedy comes down to the fact
that, in legalizing abortion, liberal societies claimed to be making a
bargain. We will not protect unborn life, but we will defend all those
who make it to birth. Of course, the dividing line was always
dishonest. Are we seriously to believe that human personhood is a
matter of mere location, inside or outside the womb?

Now, this judge has simply extended the logic of abortion, and
catastrophically so. If the “onerous demands” of parenthood justify
killing one’s own child, there is no logical reason to confine
permissive infanticide to newborns, or even to younger children.

We have seen this coming. As far back as 1993, ethicist Peter Singer
was arguing openly that babies “are not born self-aware, or capable of
grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” He went on
to argue that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of
a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” Singer, to our shame, now holds an
honored chair in ethics at Princeton University.

Other ethical philosophers, such as Michael Tooley and Jeffrey Reiman,
had argued similarly. Tooley asserted that human infants do not
qualify for personhood and Reiman argued that infants do not “possess
in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.”

Enter, Judge Veit. The philosophical foundations for the acceptance of
infanticide were laid long ago. Now, an appeals court in Canada has
applied them to law.

Add to this the moral inversion of motherhood in the eyes of this
court. What kind of twisted logic produced this sentence from Judge
Veit’s decision? “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s
death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians
also grieve for the mother.”

Just imagine saying that out loud. A society is naturally to grieve an
infant’s death, “especially at the hands of the infant’s mother,” but
the society is also to grieve for the mother?

Adding insult to injury, the CBC report reveals that Katrina Effert
just might actually spend time behind bars — not for killing her son
but for throwing the boy’s body over the fence. For that infraction,
she might serve 16 days in jail.

Mark this well — the horrific logic of this judge’s decision will not
remain in Canada. Indeed, it did not even start in Canada. Those
arguments are already in place in the United States. If we will not
defend life in the womb, eventually the dignity of every single human
life is thrown over the fence.

That Judge needs to be institutionalized along with the mother.
Canadians! Sheesh.

On Sep 27, 8:39*am, Drifter wrote:
On 9/27/2011 7:22 AM, TopBassDog wrote:







Krause loves to *cut and paste, so one should deserve another.

Mark Steyn hit the nail on the head when he accused a Canadian appeals
court of allowing for a fourth-trimester abortion that s right,
the killing of a baby that is already born.

The case emerged from the Court of Queen s Bench in Alberta, where a
judge faced the fact that a woman had been convicted of strangling her
newborn son and then throwing the baby s body over the fence into her
neighbor s yard.

As CBC News reported, the woman was given a three-year suspended
sentence and will spend no time in jail for the killing of her baby.
Katrina Efferts will have to abide by conditions for the next three
years but she won t spend time behind bars for strangling her own
son.

Justice Joanne Veit, whose name should now go down in legal and moral
infamy, tied this woman s act of infanticide to Canada s lack of legal
restrictions on abortion. The judge s decision stated that while many
Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to
unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand,
accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and
childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.

She continued: Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant s death,
especially at the hands of the infant s mother, but Canadians also
grieve for the mother. She also stated that the Canadian approach is
a fair compromise of all the interests involved.

Two juries had found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but an
appeals court had reduced her conviction to infanticide.

Mark Steyn got right to the point:

So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is
happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order
to mitigate the killing of a legal person that s to say, someone who
has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those
mitigating factors apply? I mean, onerous demands -wise, the first
month of a newborn s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six
months in? The terrible twos?

That is exactly the point. Judge Veit did indeed extend the
principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the
killing of a living person. The only problem with that statement is
that this baby was a living person before his birth. The issue of
birth is artificial and deadly. The willingness to kill within the
womb leads logically to a willingness to kill outside the womb. The
horrifying illogic of abortion, even in the United States, means that
this mother could have aborted her baby in the hours prior to his
birth with no legal consequence. This woman was convicted by juries of
killing her son just after his birth. The appeals court reduced the
crime, and then Judge Veit suspended the sentence.

The moral dishonesty of the entire tragedy comes down to the fact
that, in legalizing abortion, liberal societies claimed to be making a
bargain. We will not protect unborn life, but we will defend all those
who make it to birth. Of course, the dividing line was always
dishonest. Are we seriously to believe that human personhood is a
matter of mere location, inside or outside the womb?

Now, this judge has simply extended the logic of abortion, and
catastrophically so. If the onerous demands of parenthood justify
killing one s own child, there is no logical reason to confine
permissive infanticide to newborns, or even to younger children.

We have seen this coming. As far back as 1993, ethicist Peter Singer
was arguing openly that babies are not born self-aware, or capable of
grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons. He went on
to argue that the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of
a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee. Singer, to our shame, now holds an
honored chair in ethics at Princeton University.

Other ethical philosophers, such as Michael Tooley and Jeffrey Reiman,
had argued similarly. Tooley asserted that human infants do not
qualify for personhood and Reiman argued that infants do not possess
in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.

Enter, Judge Veit. The philosophical foundations for the acceptance of
infanticide were laid long ago. Now, an appeals court in Canada has
applied them to law.

Add to this the moral inversion of motherhood in the eyes of this
court. What kind of twisted logic produced this sentence from Judge
Veit s decision? Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant s
death, especially at the hands of the infant s mother, but Canadians
also grieve for the mother.

Just imagine saying that out loud. A society is naturally to grieve an
infant s death, especially at the hands of the infant s mother, but
the society is also to grieve for the mother?

Adding insult to injury, the CBC report reveals that Katrina Effert
just might actually spend time behind bars not for killing her son
but for throwing the boy s body over the fence. For that infraction,
she might serve 16 days in jail.

Mark this well the horrific logic of this judge s decision will not
remain in Canada. Indeed, it did not even start in Canada. Those
arguments are already in place in the United States. If we will not
defend life in the womb, eventually the dignity of every single human
life is thrown over the fence.

That Judge needs to be institutionalized along with the mother.
Canadians! Sheesh.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This happened in Alberta.. which thinks of themselves as half
'merican..... a far cry from real Canadians.
I think someone should perform a fourth trimester procedure on the
judge.

In article 6cfc0a26-f278-45db-9a16-b45b4193cf23
@c1g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 27, 8:39*am, Drifter wrote:
On 9/27/2011 7:22 AM, TopBassDog wrote:







Krause loves to *cut and paste, so one should deserve another.

Mark Steyn hit the nail on the head when he accused a Canadian appeals
court of allowing for a fourth-trimester abortion that s right,
the killing of a baby that is already born.

The case emerged from the Court of Queen s Bench in Alberta, where a
judge faced the fact that a woman had been convicted of strangling her
newborn son and then throwing the baby s body over the fence into her
neighbor s yard.

As CBC News reported, the woman was given a three-year suspended
sentence and will spend no time in jail for the killing of her baby.
Katrina Efferts will have to abide by conditions for the next three
years but she won t spend time behind bars for strangling her own
son.

Justice Joanne Veit, whose name should now go down in legal and moral
infamy, tied this woman s act of infanticide to Canada s lack of legal
restrictions on abortion. The judge s decision stated that while many
Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to
unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand,
accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and
childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.

She continued: Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant s death,
especially at the hands of the infant s mother, but Canadians also
grieve for the mother. She also stated that the Canadian approach is
a fair compromise of all the interests involved.

Two juries had found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but an
appeals court had reduced her conviction to infanticide.

Mark Steyn got right to the point:

So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is
happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order
to mitigate the killing of a legal person that s to say, someone who
has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those
mitigating factors apply? I mean, onerous demands -wise, the first
month of a newborn s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six
months in? The terrible twos?

That is exactly the point. Judge Veit did indeed extend the
principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the
killing of a living person. The only problem with that statement is
that this baby was a living person before his birth. The issue of
birth is artificial and deadly. The willingness to kill within the
womb leads logically to a willingness to kill outside the womb. The
horrifying illogic of abortion, even in the United States, means that
this mother could have aborted her baby in the hours prior to his
birth with no legal consequence. This woman was convicted by juries of
killing her son just after his birth. The appeals court reduced the
crime, and then Judge Veit suspended the sentence.

The moral dishonesty of the entire tragedy comes down to the fact
that, in legalizing abortion, liberal societies claimed to be making a
bargain. We will not protect unborn life, but we will defend all those
who make it to birth. Of course, the dividing line was always
dishonest. Are we seriously to believe that human personhood is a
matter of mere location, inside or outside the womb?

Now, this judge has simply extended the logic of abortion, and
catastrophically so. If the onerous demands of parenthood justify
killing one s own child, there is no logical reason to confine
permissive infanticide to newborns, or even to younger children.

We have seen this coming. As far back as 1993, ethicist Peter Singer
was arguing openly that babies are not born self-aware, or capable of
grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons. He went on
to argue that the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of
a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee. Singer, to our shame, now holds an
honored chair in ethics at Princeton University.

Other ethical philosophers, such as Michael Tooley and Jeffrey Reiman,
had argued similarly. Tooley asserted that human infants do not
qualify for personhood and Reiman argued that infants do not possess
in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.

Enter, Judge Veit. The philosophical foundations for the acceptance of
infanticide were laid long ago. Now, an appeals court in Canada has
applied them to law.

Add to this the moral inversion of motherhood in the eyes of this
court. What kind of twisted logic produced this sentence from Judge
Veit s decision? Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant s
death, especially at the hands of the infant s mother, but Canadians
also grieve for the mother.

Just imagine saying that out loud. A society is naturally to grieve an
infant s death, especially at the hands of the infant s mother, but
the society is also to grieve for the mother?

Adding insult to injury, the CBC report reveals that Katrina Effert
just might actually spend time behind bars not for killing her son
but for throwing the boy s body over the fence. For that infraction,
she might serve 16 days in jail.

Mark this well the horrific logic of this judge s decision will not
remain in Canada. Indeed, it did not even start in Canada. Those
arguments are already in place in the United States. If we will not
defend life in the womb, eventually the dignity of every single human
life is thrown over the fence.

That Judge needs to be institutionalized along with the mother.
Canadians! Sheesh.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This happened in Alberta.. which thinks of themselves as half
'merican..... a far cry from real Canadians.
I think someone should perform a fourth trimester procedure on the
judge.

Oh, man Suckling Don, you're in trouble now. Harry was all over Scotty
for wishing someone dead. I hope in all fairness he'll call you the same
things he called Scotty.

.....but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” She also stated that
the Canadian approach is a “fair compromise of all the interests
involved.”


What in the heck does that mean?

On 9/27/2011 7:33 PM, Tim wrote:
....but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” She also stated that
the Canadian approach is a “fair compromise of all the interests
involved.”


What in the heck does that mean?

It means they are selfish, self centered progressives with no morals and
no conscience...

On 27/09/2011 8:04 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/27/2011 7:33 PM, Tim wrote:
....but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” She also stated that
the Canadian approach is a “fair compromise of all the interests
involved.”


What in the heck does that mean?

It means they are selfish, self centered progressives with no morals and
no conscience...

Canadian judges are notorious Liberal lefty fleabaggers.

--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs.
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

On 9/27/11 10:04 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/27/2011 7:33 PM, Tim wrote:
....but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” She also stated that
the Canadian approach is a “fair compromise of all the interests
involved.”


What in the heck does that mean?

It means they are selfish, self centered progressives with no morals and
no conscience...

Selfish, self-centered, with no morals and no conscience...that's a apt
description of you, Ingersoll.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

On Sep 28, 8:34*am, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/27/11 10:04 PM, JustWait wrote:

On 9/27/2011 7:33 PM, Tim wrote:
....but Canadians also grieve for the mother. She also stated that
the Canadian approach is a fair compromise of all the interests
involved.

What in the heck does that mean?

It means they are selfish, self centered progressives with no morals and
no conscience...

Selfish, self-centered, with no morals and no conscience...that's a apt
description of you, Ingersoll.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Not to mention.. highly irresponsible!