Aganist abortion (4 Viewers)

[ix3powerrangers]

what about

if you were raped and became pregnant

if the embryo showed a strong probability of intellectual or physical disability

the possibility that the child would not be 'loved and cared for' even if it was adopted

the rights of the pregnant woman to make decisions that affect her own body

possible physical, social or vocational implications of pregnancy/maternity

i would like to respond to the quote above

imagine you have two friends one who was born because of rape and the other who was born because a man and a woman love eachother very much yada yada...
what difference do they have in their rights? is the other less human?
because one was born of rape does it make it okay to kill him/her?
if you know someone with a disability does it make it okay to kill them!?

we all know someone with a disability don't we? whether it be a mental one or physical one? imagine if that person is gone from your life? imagine if they were killed during birth?

do you have any idea of the people with disabilities that changed society? imagine if they were aborted or shall i say MURDERED in their mother's womb
examples are:

• Albert Einstein - he couldn't speak till 3 and did poor in school, but revolutionised physics with all the work he's done
• Steven Spielberg - he's autistic
• Stevie Wonder - wasn't it because of his disability he had to put in an incubator and therefore causing his blindness?
• Robin Williams - he was diagnosed with ADHD
• Alexander Graham Bell - the guy that invented the telephone had a learning disability
• Isaac Newton - Stuttering and Epilepsy
• Leonardo devinci - was dyslesic

just to name a few.
what would society be like today without them? what would it be like that because of their disability they were aborted?

and isn't it selfish for a woman to think of herself rather than her son/daughter? isn't it like SUPER SELFISH for them to MURDER and KILL their OWN CHILD because of A MERE INCONVENIENCE!

and if you say it's alright to kill someone because 'they're only an embryo or their not born yet' weren't you once just like them, what if YOU were killed in the womb because of being an inconvenience (like unplanned pregnancy, disability).

Just think about it.

if you wna look up more people celebrities with disabilities(Celebrities and Famous People with Disabilities in History)

 

[scarybunny]

How do you feel about the morning after pill?

The sperm and egg have united, does it count as murder?


AND I'd hardly call a 9 month pregnancy and raising a child an 'inconvenience'. Sounds pretty life-changing to me.

 

[Graney]

and if you say it's alright to kill someone because 'they're only an embryo or their not born yet' weren't you once just like them, what if YOU were killed in the womb because of being an inconvenience (like unplanned pregnancy, disability).

Just think about it.

Yeah, that's something that could have happened, and if it had happened I wouldn't have really been feeling aggrieved about it, it's not like the embryo that would later become me would have felt pain or existential distress if this had happened.

It'd just be a thing that happened, who cares, there are billions of other useless cunts out there, I'm not so egocentric to assume for myself the role of center of the universe.

do you have any idea of the people with disabilities that changed society? imagine if they were aborted or shall i say MURDERED in their mother's womb
examples are:

But what about all the dictators and murderers and popes who could have been aborted? Wouldn't the world be better off if a lot of these people had been aborted? What makes you think you have any better chance of giving birth to someone good than to someone evil?

 

[DVDVDVDV]

Wow, what a thread. I'd like to say a few things

1. Rape victims often don't conceive, their stress levels preventing any fusion between the cells. While this is only usually the case, it still very often is the case.
2. Most disabilities don't screw your life up beyond repair. I'm mentally retarded but I love life and am glad to experience it, regardless of the infringements I have. Should I never have be born? The same goes with some of the people who have revolutionised the world.

This topic is just about all centering on the order of one values and assumptions

There are the people who value comfort over life itself. These people who see a baby as a remnant of the past (children from rape) rather than a possible future. All of the people who say "woman's choice" are (probably, sorry if I'm wrong) basing that on the fact that discomfort is grounds to end life. There are others, (who have been grouped by Rothbard as the Christians) who think that one's life is more important than another's comfort.

Another debate within this is when a baby becomes a baby. There are those who think it's at conception, and those who reckon its some time after, but before birth. (I wouldn't be surprised if I heard cases unfortunately of murders because they believed a 6 month old baby wasn't truly alive. Upset, but not surprised).

Personally, I value life over comfort and believe that life starts at conception. Thus all those scenarios thrown up: rape, failure of contraception, disability of the child and pretty much, if not all other scenarios you could come up with, are not grounds for abortion.

@Graney. Some good points, however

1. You may not feel important, comparatively useless. But more people prefer you dead than alive? I don't think so. You're probably a benefit to society on average or at the very least will be.

2. I love how you put Popes your that list. I mean come on, like they're the sole remaining human in a direct relationship with God. However, on the topic at hand, statisticallly speaking would any child you have be a benefit to society or not? Would it probably be better for your child to live or to die? I'm going to say that, probably, almost certainly, it would be better for that child to live.

 

[Rothbard]

Graney should probably graney himself

 

[Graney]

There are the people who value comfort over life itself. These people who see a baby as a remnant of the past (children from rape) rather than a possible future. All of the people who say "woman's choice" are (probably, sorry if I'm wrong) basing that on the fact that discomfort is grounds to end life. There are others, (who have been grouped by Rothbard as the Christians) who think that one's life is more important than another's comfort.

It's a bit rich framing the issue as simply one of 'comfort'.

If you force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child, you run the serious risk of causing permanent psychological damage. How can think the issue for women is so flippantly as 'comfort', is your theory of mind that messed up? You fuck with woman's heads if you force them to go through with this shit against their will. You fuck up their bodies when abortion is criminalized and the psychological distress forces them to get an unsafe backyard operation.

1. You may not feel important, comparatively useless. But more people prefer you dead than alive? I don't think so. You're probably a benefit to society on average or at the very least will be.

I don't believe in a fascist state that criminalizes the actions of individuals to support a supposed 'society'. Tyranny of the majority[/URL], if 51% of society want to enslave the other 49%, is it just?

The only way you can provide 'benefit' to 'society' is by allowing individuals total freedom to pursue improving their own happiness by any route they desire, so long as they do not cause harm to another sapient, sentient being. This is the freedom prospective mothers deserve.

2. I love how you put Popes your that list. I mean come on, like they're the sole remaining human in a direct relationship with God.

“Oh isn’t it scary this new pope used to be a Nazi?” And you go, “Not when you look at their track record side by side.” The Nazi’s versus the Catholic church? The Nazi’s only lasted a dozen years and they got their ass handed to them in a high hat. The Catholic church has a far more prosperous and prestigious record of murder and torture and tyranny and oppression and nonsense. Not to mention the kid fucking, and they’re still around and more popular than ever. I’d be far more afraid to hear someone go, “You know that new Nazi…he used to be a pope!”

The pope is going to be put on trial for crimes against humanity, god willing.
Geoffrey Robertson

 

[Graney]

dan do you really think I should kill myself gee whiz

 

[Lolsmith]

2. I love how you put Popes your that list. I mean come on, like they're the sole remaining human in a direct relationship with God. However, on the topic at hand, statisticallly speaking would any child you have be a benefit to society or not? Would it probably be better for your child to live or to die? I'm going to say that, probably, almost certainly, it would be better for that child to live.

Popes are the worst kind of people on the fucking planet. They are worse than any criminal, any despotic dictator and any genocidal psychopath. You are just as bad as them by enabling their disgusting practice of 'moral' superiority and their fucking insane god delusions. You all deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity and rot in prison.

You have no right in any sense of the word to have an opinion on such a debate because the basis of your belief is completely fucking stupid and derived from indoctrination from childhood. You are brainwashed and would sooner see nooses hanging around homosexuals necks than see a woman make her own decision.

 

[abbeyroad]

Popes are the worst kind of people on the fucking planet. They are worse than any criminal, any despotic dictator and any genocidal psychopath. You are just as bad as them by enabling their disgusting practice of 'moral' superiority and their fucking insane god delusions. You all deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity and rot in prison.

You have no right in any sense of the word to have an opinion on such a debate because the basis of your belief is completely fucking stupid and derived from indoctrination from childhood. You are brainwashed and would sooner see nooses hanging around homosexuals necks than see a woman make her own decision.

shut the fuck up you dumb fucking atheist how dare you insult our popes, you can't disprove that god, aka the flying spaghetti monster, or the invisible pink unicorn, doesn't exist!!1!!1111!!!!1!!!~1231!!

 

[DVDVDVDV]

First and foremostly, I will say this,
I am not Catholic!

Ahem... To continue

It's a bit rich framing the issue as simply one of 'comfort'.

If you force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child, you run the serious risk of causing permanent psychological damage. How can think the issue for women is so flippantly as 'comfort', is your theory of mind that messed up? You fuck with woman's heads if you force them to go through with this shit against their will. You fuck up their bodies when abortion is criminalized and the psychological distress forces them to get an unsafe backyard operation.

There is still adoption. Would one go to the point of insanity merely over 9 months of big belly and 9 hours of pain? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand this train of logic. You'd need to explain in more depth to me.

I don't believe in a fascist state that criminalizes the actions of individuals to support a supposed 'society'. Tyranny of the majority, if 51% of society want to enslave the other 49%, is it just?

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said "want" or "prefer". It was a poor word choice, "benefit" or words of that calibre would have been more appropriate. But anyway...

If the majority wants something does that make it beneficial for them? Look at most people with obesity problems they want lots of food and no exercise, and that doesn't help them in the slightest. Likewise, being served hand and foot doesn't really benefit anyone. Hard work does one wonders.

The only way you can provide 'benefit' to 'society' is by allowing individuals total freedom to pursue improving their own happiness by any route they desire, so long as they do not cause harm to another sapient, sentient being. This is the freedom prospective mothers deserve.

So what you're saying is that abortion is fine because life is all about ensuring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people? If this is the case, I'd like to forward you to a book called "Brave New World". It's a fascinating portrayal of what Huxley saw the future as.

“Oh isn’t it scary this new pope used to be a Nazi?” And you go, “Not when you look at their track record side by side.” The Nazi’s versus the Catholic church? The Nazi’s only lasted a dozen years and they got their ass handed to them in a high hat. The Catholic church has a far more prosperous and prestigious record of murder and torture and tyranny and oppression and nonsense. Not to mention the kid fucking, and they’re still around and more popular than ever. I’d be far more afraid to hear someone go, “You know that new Nazi…he used to be a pope!”

Just before I say anything regarding this, I have this to say again: I am not catholic. However, in the defense of catholics, you can't say that being catholic is bad because some catholics are child molesters or that the pope is evil because of the stuff that other popes have done or even what the current pope has done. Some atheists are child molesters. Does that mean that you shouldn't be an atheist? You can't judge a religion based on its followers really, only on the claims it makes and the validity of its claims. I'll say it again just to try and avoid a flame war, I am not a catholic.

Also lol @ Gowin's law

You all deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity and rot in prison...

Likewise, you seem to have judged a group of people based on past experiences of other people. Just because some catholics are dodgy doesn't mean all are. I strongly doubt that most catholics are child pedophiles and ruin other peoples' lives. Some do, don't get me wrong, and it's really sad, but many more don't.

You have no right in any sense of the word to have an opinion on such a debate because the basis of your belief is completely fucking stupid and derived from indoctrination from childhood. You are brainwashed and would sooner see nooses hanging around homosexuals necks than see a woman make her own decision.

Peoples' opinions aren't the same as their parents. Children and their parents are different people and with different sets of values, beliefs and experiences.

I personally don't want gays to be hung, just like I don't want someone who stole a CD to be hung and frankly, Jesus came so that we don't have to do that sort of thing: stoning homosexuals and the like. Those who judge people for their homosexuality and claim to be Christians missed something really big somewhere along the line.

The pope is going to be put on trial for crimes against humanity, god willing.
Geoffrey Robertson

Love the irony, "god willing". Brilliant.

But it's the result of the trial that will mean something, not the fact that someone took him to court. However this could prove to be interesting none-the-less. I wonder how the catholic church will respond...

...Wait a second, I just noticed something. The article was written in April, do you have any more recent updates?

--------------------------------------

Oh, and just so you all know, when I said "I love how you put Popes your that list. I mean come on, like they're the sole remaining human in a direct relationship with God." I wasn't endorsing the pope in any way shape or form. It seemed like I was misinterpreted

 

[Graney]

There is still adoption. Would one go to the point of insanity merely over 9 months of big belly and 9 hours of pain? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand this train of logic.

That's because you're not a human being.

If the majority wants something does that make it beneficial for them? Look at most people with obesity problems they want lots of food and no exercise, and that doesn't help them in the slightest. Likewise, being served hand and foot doesn't really benefit anyone. Hard work does one wonders.

You were the one advocating that abortion should not be performed because most people would want most children to be alive. Legislating for what 51% of the population wants isn't sound basis for forming policy.

So what you're saying is that abortion is fine because life is all about ensuring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people? If this is the case, I'd like to forward you to a book called "Brave New World". It's a fascinating portrayal of what Huxley saw the future as.

Brave new world is about a totalitarian state that uses hedonism to control and subdue a population. Hedonism =/= happiness. When individuals are freed of external controls to pursue their own well being, they will often see the wisdom in persuing eudaimonia rather than hedonism.

I would like people to be free to pursue eudaimonic satisfaction.

that the pope is evil because of the stuff that other popes have done or even what the current pope has done.

I can say the current pope is evil because of the crimes the current pope has committed, with the deliberate cover-up of abuse

 

[mes ami]

i would like to respond to the quote above

imagine you have two friends one who was born because of rape and the other who was born because a man and a woman love eachother very much yada yada...
what difference do they have in their rights? is the other less human?
because one was born of rape does it make it okay to kill him/her?
if you know someone with a disability does it make it okay to kill them!?

we all know someone with a disability don't we? whether it be a mental one or physical one? imagine if that person is gone from your life? imagine if they were killed during birth?

do you have any idea of the people with disabilities that changed society? imagine if they were aborted or shall i say MURDERED in their mother's womb
examples are:

• Albert Einstein - he couldn't speak till 3 and did poor in school, but revolutionised physics with all the work he's done
• Steven Spielberg - he's autistic
• Stevie Wonder - wasn't it because of his disability he had to put in an incubator and therefore causing his blindness?
• Robin Williams - he was diagnosed with ADHD
• Alexander Graham Bell - the guy that invented the telephone had a learning disability
• Isaac Newton - Stuttering and Epilepsy
• Leonardo devinci - was dyslesic

just to name a few.
what would society be like today without them? what would it be like that because of their disability they were aborted?

and isn't it selfish for a woman to think of herself rather than her son/daughter? isn't it like SUPER SELFISH for them to MURDER and KILL their OWN CHILD because of A MERE INCONVENIENCE!

and if you say it's alright to kill someone because 'they're only an embryo or their not born yet' weren't you once just like them, what if YOU were killed in the womb because of being an inconvenience (like unplanned pregnancy, disability).

Just think about it.

if you wna look up more people celebrities with disabilities(Celebrities and Famous People with Disabilities in History)

I'd like to point out that you are actually going into the science (medicine) vs. natural selection debate there with the whole such and such was born with diabetes. You are a moron and this is no related to the topic whatsoever. As I have already said the Earth has a high enough population and abortion in no way hinders our progression as a race. We already have a plethora of great individuals whose work/s have greatly influenced and progressed us technologically and scientifically etc. It can even be argued that we are progressing far too rapidly. Shut the fuck up.

An embryo is not born and brought into the world as a child is. In many cultures it is believed that birth is when you become alive. Animals have the ability to abort embryos in unfavorable circumstances. Humans are a evolved race with far better means to abort embryos. We have a high enough population as it is, a world stricken with greed and poverty. Why the fuck would you want to bring more unwanted children into this mess? You are being selfish. Sure you couldn't have been born. So what? It all boils down to chance. Your existence is merely chance. Even if you don't abort a child, you have no guarantee that it will survive the pregnancy, birth or even infancy.

Wow, what a thread. I'd like to say a few things

1. Rape victims often don't conceive, their stress levels preventing any fusion between the cells. While this is only usually the case, it still very often is the case.
2. Most disabilities don't screw your life up beyond repair. I'm mentally retarded but I love life and am glad to experience it, regardless of the infringements I have. Should I never have be born? The same goes with some of the people who have revolutionised the world.

This topic is just about all centering on the order of one values and assumptions

There are the people who value comfort over life itself. These people who see a baby as a remnant of the past (children from rape) rather than a possible future. All of the people who say "woman's choice" are (probably, sorry if I'm wrong) basing that on the fact that discomfort is grounds to end life. There are others, (who have been grouped by Rothbard as the Christians) who think that one's life is more important than another's comfort.

You forget that procreation is the survival of the specicies. It is not up to the species to decide on whether one is allowed to abort or not. It is an individual issue. A woman's quality of life should not be lessened because of a unwanted child. There are serious psychological issues for the mother that comes out of unwanted pregnancies. Futhermore pregnany can endanger the life of the mother. Yes with modern medicine we have greatly decreased the risk but it still is undeniable that the risk remains for pregnant mothers, many of which who die in child birth. It is not only comfort. I have already pointed out that children born to low socioeconomic families (those that have the highest abortion rate) have a lesser quality of life to a degree and are more prone to social issues and substance abuse. These knocked up women, if forced to keep the baby, are not guaranteed a stable home life. An unwanted child can put strain on a couples relationship and bring economic strain for a family. Furthermore, these women are not gaurenteed to have a partner, and as a plethora of studies in the public domain has shown, children with single parent upbringings are more likely to be a drain on society. This brings forth issues of substance abuse and crime and strain on the economy to support the boom of government allowances for single parent families.

First and foremostly, I will say this,
I am not Catholic!

Ahem... To continue



There is still adoption. Would one go to the point of insanity merely over 9 months of big belly and 9 hours of pain? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand this train of logic. You'd need to explain in more depth to me.



I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said "want" or "prefer". It was a poor word choice, "benefit" or words of that calibre would have been more appropriate. But anyway...

If the majority wants something does that make it beneficial for them? Look at most people with obesity problems they want lots of food and no exercise, and that doesn't help them in the slightest. Likewise, being served hand and foot doesn't really benefit anyone. Hard work does one wonders.



So what you're saying is that abortion is fine because life is all about ensuring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people? If this is the case, I'd like to forward you to a book called "Brave New World". It's a fascinating portrayal of what Huxley saw the future as.

Again you are delving into the science (medicine) vs. natural selection debate. Nature vs. Nurture. Completely off topic.

Pregnancy can affect the mental health of the mother. If you do not know this/overlook this you are an absolute moron. I actually do wonder if you have ever heard of postnatal depression.


You forget that you are too busy trying to protect lives of the unborn. Lives of which have not began in the same sense as a child born into the world. You forget that there is so many alive with a lesser quality of life. They are first priority over the unborn. I'd like to point out those stricken by poverty and those starving like say Africa and Central Asia. These people are already suffering. How dare you diminish their importance! You don't care about life after birth. This is what it boils down to. Those already living in this world, suffering etc come first, without a doubt.

 

[mes ami]

How do you feel about the morning after pill?

The sperm and egg have united, does it count as murder?


AND I'd hardly call a 9 month pregnancy and raising a child an 'inconvenience'. Sounds pretty life-changing to me.

this. obviously the posters are far too immature to realise this. a child is so incredibly life changing and brings forth new responsibilities etc.

 

[mes ami]

those that condemn abortion deprioritize the poor, those in need etc. there is no guarantee that the embryo will survive utero. by spending so much effort, time and resources to abolish abortion rights you are deprioritising major socioeconomic and health issues of those already living for a life that hasn't even been brought into our insufferable world yet. these issues are first and foremost our priority. look at the sheer number of those in need who are not only from third world countries but are also in first world countries.

 

[mes ami]

I also bet you are all the type to complain about the way Islam is practiced in Islamic countries and abroad but you all want to control women in the western world by forcing them to keep their possible babies.

 

[ix3powerrangers]

Yeah, that's something that could have happened, and if it had happened I wouldn't have really been feeling aggrieved about it, it's not like the embryo that would later become me would have felt pain or existential distress if this had happened.

It'd just be a thing that happened, who cares, there are billions of other useless cunts out there, I'm not so egocentric to assume for myself the role of center of the universe.


But what about all the dictators and murderers and popes who could have been aborted? Wouldn't the world be better off if a lot of these people had been aborted? What makes you think you have any better chance of giving birth to someone good than to someone evil?

embryo's do feel pain. have you ever seen a video of a baby beeing aborted? there's one where whilest the needle is being injected you can see the baby edging away from it. There's another where whilest the baby is beeing aborted you can see it making a scream position. of course it feels things!

is it worth killing your kid because of the possibility that it'll turn out as an evil dictator?

 

[Rothbard]

No scientifically proven that embryos don't feel pain up till 24 weeks

due to magical things called FMRIs

 

[Rothbard]

No scientifically proven that embryos don't feel pain up till 24 weeks

due to magical things called FMRIs

 

[DVDVDVDV]

That's because you're not a human being.

lolwut

You were the one advocating that abortion should not be performed because most people would want most children to be alive. Legislating for what 51% of the population wants isn't sound basis for forming policy.

I did say I made a mistake, the words "prefer" and "want" should never have been used. Benefit would have been better word choice.

Brave new world is about a totalitarian state that uses hedonism to control and subdue a population. Hedonism =/= happiness. When individuals are freed of external controls to pursue their own well being, they will often see the wisdom in persuing eudaimonia rather than hedonism.

I would like people to be free to pursue eudaimonic satisfaction.

The scenario displayed would have had a transition period from that of 1931. I personally believe that we are in that transition period. The arguments put forward for abortion seem to be of the mindset that Hedonism is the path to Eudaimonia.

Also do you think that "freed of external controls to pursue their own well being" will ever happen? Personally I don't. There will always be pressure, from peers, banks and just about everyone else you could possible list.

I can say the current pope is evil because of the crimes the current pope has committed, with the deliberate cover-up of abuse

The defense of popes I gave was mostly aimed at Lolsmith who condemned the actions of all of them as a group.

It can even be argued that we are progressing far too rapidly.

How do you argue that?

An embryo is not born and brought into the world as a child is. In many cultures it is believed that birth is when you become alive. Animals have the ability to abort embryos in unfavorable circumstances. Humans are a evolved race with far better means to abort embryos.

We also have a conscience that apparently tells us off for these things.

Yay for moral decline

We have a high enough population as it is, a world stricken with greed and poverty. Why the fuck would you want to bring more unwanted children into this mess? You are being selfish. Sure you couldn't have been born. So what?

Using the same logic, you could argue that no one should have any children: Why would you bring children into this world if they're going to suffer in this world stricken with greed and poverty?

It all boils down to chance. Your existence is merely chance. Even if you don't abort a child, you have no guarantee that it will survive the pregnancy, birth or even infancy.

But, as you yourself said, modern medicine means the chance of survival is significantly higher. Also, personally, I think that this enters "God's will" territory. And that's off topic and not something debatable.

You forget that procreation is the survival of the specicies. It is not up to the species to decide on whether one is allowed to abort or not. It is an individual issue. A woman's quality of life should not be lessened because of a unwanted child.

It's not like the child could still live a semi-normal life and fix up the mother's life. A child's life should not be valued over an adult's quality of life.

I have already pointed out that children born to low socioeconomic families (those that have the highest abortion rate) have a lesser quality of life to a degree and are more prone to social issues and substance abuse... This brings forth issues of substance abuse and crime and strain on the economy to support the boom of government allowances for single parent families...as a plethora of studies in the public domain has shown, children with single parent upbringings are more likely to be a drain on society.

You're ignoring the fact that these people still make their own choices. Sure they may have a higher chance of substance abuse to determine whether or not they will involve themselves in that, not their parents.

Also their quality of life is better than them never living at all right?

Pregnancy can affect the mental health of the mother. If you do not know this/overlook this you are an absolute moron. I actually do wonder if you have ever heard of postnatal depression.

Yes, but postnatal depression rarely lasts more than another 9 months. Still little in comparison to the rest of their life.

You forget that you are too busy trying to protect lives of the unborn. Lives of which have not began in the same sense as a child born into the world. You forget that there is so many alive with a lesser quality of life. They are first priority over the unborn. I'd like to point out those stricken by poverty and those starving like say Africa and Central Asia. These people are already suffering. How dare you diminish their importance! You don't care about life after birth. This is what it boils down to. Those already living in this world, suffering etc come first, without a doubt.

UNCROC basically says children are to be protected above all. I view unborn babies as part of the children category. This opinion is incredibly personal and based on that opinion. This isn't exactly something that can really be debated because my opinion is based on little evidence, but so is the alternative.

Although it would be nice if people were selfless enough to actually help remove poverty, past the point of taking out of their excess.

 

[Jimmy Recard]

DVNO four capital letters

good song