U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Mother`s Day to all Moms!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-21-2009, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,360,489 times
Reputation: 4521

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
I'm sorry, but I relied on that term, and you are not going to redefine it for me. I am using the word "parasitic" solely in a biological sense. In that sense, the parasitic relationship ends with birth. "Someone taking care" of the child does not equal having a fetus use your body.

Because men aren't pregnant. Because it's not his body that's being used to support the pregnancy. I support men's rights to their bodily autonomy and women's rights to theirs.

If the moon were made of green cheese, then I would say sure, let's plant grapes on our rooftops. A state has a legitimate interest in regulating third-trimester abortions, so if it banned elective ones, that would be fine by me. The problem arises in how it defines "elective". Some of us "elect" to live. Others "elect" not to risk sepsis or toxic shock. You are talking about a hypothetical so exceedingly rare and so unlikely, it hardly justifies a statute that bans all third-trimester abortions, regardless of medical necessity. I also have a big problem with legislatures (overwhelmingly composed of non-doctors) defining what "medically necessary" is and forcing that definition on physicians.

It wasn't -- but contributing sperm does not give the man any rights over another human being's body, nor does it change the fact that he isn't the one whose body is being parasitized by the fetus.

I would imagine it does, and I am sure you honestly don't consider yourself sexist. But alas, reflexively making the interests of grown, sexually active females subordinate to that of fetuses (even female ones), linking a woman's right to her bodily integrity to her (sexual) conduct, and also reflexively dismissing all women's concerns, cares, etc. as "mere convenience", invariably operating from the assumption that women (or at least women who have sex and don't want to or can't be mothers) are flippant, irrational, slutty and unstable, that women, against all common sense or actual "convenience" like to carry a fetus to 7 months, get fat and bloated, then pay tens of thousands of dollars and undergo a hospitalization and major surgery to have it aborted, claiming that women should have their power to make decisions about their own bodies taken away or curtailed in the name of protecting them (from themselves, of course) -- all of that is quite sexist, I am sorry to say. The fact that you are trying to "save" female children does not change that fact. I was a medievalist in my other life and naturally, read loads of not only sexist but frankly misogynist stuff -- and the peculiar thing is, those authors were invariably enamored of prepubescent virgins.
The simple fact is that until a woman can create a child, a fetus, whatever you want to call it HERSELF, it is not only hers. It may be her uterus sure...but it is not only her fetus. To think of a man as merely a sperm donor, that indicates extreme sexism on your part. I'm wondering why you think he should have rights once the child is born? After all the child never "parasitized" off of him.

As far as the state regulating third trimester abortions, surely you must concede that solely because a person has the "MD" doesn't mean they always have the patient's best interest in mind (and by the third trimester the child is most certainly a patient as well) and it doesn't mean they hold themselves to the highest professional standards in every situation.

When I was referring to "convenience" in third trimester abortions, I was referring more to a woman releasing herself from the responsibility of parenting the child for the next 18+ years.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-21-2009 at 11:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2009, 12:03 AM
 
422 posts, read 543,230 times
Reputation: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlaGrrrl View Post
Whatever Chicka.. I'm tired of you

We started this discussion last night.. you need to read my posts before you can expect me to engage in any real discussion with you.

You're being disrespectful and annoying.
I agree. You are tired. I read EVERY post in this thread before I posted. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you are saying. The truth is usually annoying. I'll leave you alone now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,360,489 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple_Princess View Post
I agree. You are tired. I read EVERY post in this thread before I posted. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you are saying. The truth is usually annoying. I'll leave you alone now.
More people on this forum need to learn that.

Anyway....one more question to those of you who feel that men should have no say in abortion. Why should we be obligated to pay child support when she could simply choose to terminate the pregnancy? That is absolutely sexist. You are assigning almost full responsibility to the man by saying that he should be obligated to support a child whereas a woman gets to whether choose to support the child or call it quits. In short, once a child is conceived, you are suggesting that a woman should have a simple opportunity to relieve herself from the obligations associated with it however the man is not entitled to the same consideration.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-22-2009 at 07:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 08:00 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,822,311 times
Reputation: 3843
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
The simple fact is that until a woman can create a child, a fetus, whatever you want to call it HERSELF, it is not only hers. It may be her uterus sure...but it is not only her fetus. To think of a man as merely a sperm donor, that indicates extreme sexism on your part. [...]
Biologically speaking, a man is merely a sperm donor. The ability to make medical decisions regarding conception, pregnancy and childbirth should be directly proportional to the biological input that is required of the particular person. What really is sexist is your belief that because women are required by nature to invest so much more than men in bringing a child into being, they should have less control over that process. Yeah, nature is unfair. A pregnant woman can be easily fired from her job for being pregnant, but a man who is "expecting" a child can't. Pregnancy can cause all sorts of medical problems for the woman, some life-threatening and some permanent, yet the man who impregnated her is not obligated to support her or pay her medical bills (which makes your suggestion that he should nevertheless have decision-making power over her that much more outrageous). Conversely, since it is the woman's body and not the man's that is implicated here, only the woman does and should have the power to make medical decision regarding it, up to and including terminating the pregnancy after a consultation with her doctor. So you see, it works both ways; and the nature's unfairness really balances out quite nicely. Depositing one's sperm into a woman doesn't make turn her into that man's chattel or breeding beast -- period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
As far as the state regulating third trimester abortions, surely you must concede that solely because a person has the "MD" doesn't mean they always have the patient's best interest in mind (and by the third trimester the child is most certainly a patient as well) and it doesn't mean they hold themselves to the highest professional standards in every situation.
No, I won't concede that because we disagree on what that "best interest" is. It is you, I daresay, who does not have women's best interests in mind, so I hardly think it's appropriate for you to insinuate that about hypothetical doctors. You are saying that it is virtually never in the best interest of the patient to have an abortion past the 12th week, even if she would be made an invalid, and that idea is abhorrent to me. Are there MD's I would consider crooked? Sure. But they are a lot fewer in number than crooked politicians or crazy zealots who don't care how many people they mow down in order to feel good about their own supposed righteousness. Moreover, MD's are subject to various ethical and legal obligations from which fetus-huggers and their representatives are entirely free. A doctor who tricks a patient into undergoing a process that will kill or maim her will lose his license and face a medical malpractice lawsuit; a politician or an activist who does the same faces no such danger -- and thus has a much greater incentive to play dirty. After all, it's not like the families of women who died because a third-trimester abortion was illegal can sue Congress. Accordingly, I'd trust an MD over a politician or a "pro-life" activist any day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
When I was referring to "convenience" in third trimester abortions, I was referring more to a woman releasing herself from the responsibility of parenting the child for the next 18+ years.
And I was referring to your presumption that women who have these abortions do it merely to release themselves from responsibility. It is based on an ugly stereotype, that, I am sorry to say, is quite sexist as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Anyway....one more question to those of you who feel that men should have no say in abortion. Why should we be obligated to pay child support when she could simply choose to terminate the pregnancy? That is absolutely sexist.
She could terminate the pregnancy because it involved her body, not the man's. Abortion is a medical procedure, not an economic one, regardless of one's motivations. And after a child is born, both parents are obligated to support it. In fact, the custodial parent usually pays the lion's share of costs of raising the child, and the one who pays child support gets off easy. If a man chooses to take the child, the mother would be obligated to pay him child support. And adoption requires the consent of both biological parents. But, men do not cover any costs of the pregnancy. They don't pay for prenatal care, they don't pay for childbirth, and they don't pay for postpartum care. They are not obligated to support a woman who becomes unable to support herself as a result of the pregnancy, and they are not obligated to support her if she becomes disabled for life. I am not saying men should, simply pointing out that women are entirely responsible, both biologically and financially, for the progress and outcomes of their pregnancy. And that being the case, there is absolutely no basis to allow men to butt in, regardless of where they put their sperm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,360,489 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Biologically speaking, a man is merely a sperm donor. The ability to make medical decisions regarding conception, pregnancy and childbirth should be directly proportional to the biological input that is required of the particular person. What really is sexist is your belief that because women are required by nature to invest so much more than men in bringing a child into being, they should have less control over that process. Yeah, nature is unfair. A pregnant woman can be easily fired from her job for being pregnant, but a man who is "expecting" a child can't. Pregnancy can cause all sorts of medical problems for the woman, some life-threatening and some permanent, yet the man who impregnated her is not obligated to support her or pay her medical bills (which makes your suggestion that he should nevertheless have decision-making power over her that much more outrageous). Conversely, since it is the woman's body and not the man's that is implicated here, only the woman does and should have the power to make medical decision regarding it, up to and including terminating the pregnancy after a consultation with her doctor. So you see, it works both ways; and the nature's unfairness really balances out quite nicely. Depositing one's sperm into a woman doesn't make turn her into that man's chattel or breeding beast -- period.

No, I won't concede that because we disagree on what that "best interest" is. It is you, I daresay, who does not have women's best interests in mind, so I hardly think it's appropriate for you to insinuate that about hypothetical doctors. You are saying that it is virtually never in the best interest of the patient to have an abortion past the 12th week, even if she would be made an invalid, and that idea is abhorrent to me. Are there MD's I would consider crooked? Sure. But they are a lot fewer in number than crooked politicians or crazy zealots who don't care how many people they mow down in order to feel good about their own supposed righteousness. Moreover, MD's are subject to various ethical and legal obligations from which fetus-huggers and their representatives are entirely free. A doctor who tricks a patient into undergoing a process that will kill or maim her will lose his license and face a medical malpractice lawsuit; a politician or an activist who does the same faces no such danger -- and thus has a much greater incentive to play dirty. After all, it's not like the families of women who died because a third-trimester abortion was illegal can sue Congress. Accordingly, I'd trust an MD over a politician or a "pro-life" activist any day.

And I was referring to your presumption that women who have these abortions do it merely to release themselves from responsibility. It is based on an ugly stereotype, that, I am sorry to say, is quite sexist as well.

She could terminate the pregnancy because it involved her body, not the man's. Abortion is a medical procedure, not an economic one, regardless of one's motivations. And after a child is born, both parents are obligated to support it. In fact, the custodial parent usually pays the lion's share of costs of raising the child, and the one who pays child support gets off easy. If a man chooses to take the child, the mother would be obligated to pay him child support. And adoption requires the consent of both biological parents. But, men do not cover any costs of the pregnancy. They don't pay for prenatal care, they don't pay for childbirth, and they don't pay for postpartum care. They are not obligated to support a woman who becomes unable to support herself as a result of the pregnancy, and they are not obligated to support her if she becomes disabled for life. I am not saying men should, simply pointing out that women are entirely responsible, both biologically and financially, for the progress and outcomes of their pregnancy. And that being the case, there is absolutely no basis to allow men to butt in, regardless of where they put their sperm.
I could agree that abortions should be legally permitted until the 21st week at this point (given that, to the best of my knowledge, that is the earliest age at which a fetus has survived outside the womb). Later than that, only in the case of medical necessity. I find it absolutely repugnant to allow abortions after the 23rd week (due to the science showing the fetus could possibly feel pain around this time), except in the case of medical necessity as I already mentioned.

As far as baby daddy not having a say, I could agree to men being required to support their children only if they choose to exercise their rights (joint custody, visitation, etc.) after the child is born. Unless men have a say in abortion, I cannot agree with requiring them to support their children involuntarily.

I understand that pregnancy and childbirth are difficult even in the best of cases and I understand there are many dangers and risks associated with it. Personally, I'd like to see the technology for artificial wombs. If we could get it right it would be safer for both mother and child and in that case the mother and father would deserve absolutely 100% equal rights. (I do worry, however, that it could result in a far higher birth rate and I worry about issues with the parent/child bond.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 09:09 AM
 
422 posts, read 543,230 times
Reputation: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Biologically speaking, a man is merely a sperm donor. The ability to make medical decisions regarding conception, pregnancy and childbirth should be directly proportional to the biological input that is required of the particular person. What really is sexist is your belief that because women are required by nature to invest so much more than men in bringing a child into being, they should have less control over that process. Yeah, nature is unfair. A pregnant woman can be easily fired from her job for being pregnant, but a man who is "expecting" a child can't. Pregnancy can cause all sorts of medical problems for the woman, some life-threatening and some permanent, yet the man who impregnated her is not obligated to support her or pay her medical bills (which makes your suggestion that he should nevertheless have decision-making power over her that much more outrageous). Conversely, since it is the woman's body and not the man's that is implicated here, only the woman does and should have the power to make medical decision regarding it, up to and including terminating the pregnancy after a consultation with her doctor. So you see, it works both ways; and the nature's unfairness really balances out quite nicely. Depositing one's sperm into a woman doesn't make turn her into that man's chattel or breeding beast -- period.

...there is absolutely no basis to allow men to butt in, regardless of where they put their sperm.

Then by rights the woman should foot all of the bills since she is making all of the decisions. You can't have it both ways. MY body. MY baby. YOUR money. Many women want to be liberated and equal until they are asked to actually back up all of their talk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,360,489 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by purple_princess View Post
then by rights the woman should foot all of the bills since she is making all of the decisions. You can't have it both ways. My body. My baby. Your money. Many women want to be liberated and equal until they are asked to actually back up all of their talk.
THANK YOU!!!! I can't rep you unfortunately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 930,492 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Anyway....one more question to those of you who feel that men should have no say in abortion. Why should we be obligated to pay child support when she could simply choose to terminate the pregnancy?
That is absolutely sexist. You are assigning almost full responsibility to the man by saying that he should be obligated to support a child whereas a woman gets to whether choose to support the child or call it quits. In short, once a child is conceived, you are suggesting that a woman should have a simple opportunity to relieve herself from the obligations associated with it however the man is not entitled to the same consideration.
It doesn't matter if it's the mother or the father that has the child; the parent that does not have custody of the child has to pay child support. So, for example, if the father had custody of the child, the mother would pay. It is simply more common that men end up having to pay child support because more commonly they do not have custody of the child. There is no sexism involved in that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
As far as baby daddy not having a say, I could agree to men being required to support their children only if they choose to exercise their rights (joint custody, visitation, etc.) after the child is born. Unless men have a say in abortion, I cannot agree with requiring them to support their children involuntarily.
Oh sure, men can have a say, but it's not like their say will be valued or change the opinion of what the woman has the right to do with her body and what's in it (which, as we've already made clear, is hers). It is quite funny actually that you think men are only subject to paying child support and that they get the no say in the matter and are the ones that come out worse from the deal. Oh my, I believe they had a say at one point and time, and they sure enough don't have to carry around a parasite for 7-9 months and deal with all the physical problems that come from pregnancy. Yep, you all do have it hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I understand that pregnancy and childbirth are difficult even in the best of cases and I understand there are many dangers and risks associated with it. Personally, I'd like to see the technology for artificial wombs.
I don't think that would happen, and I'm kind of iffy on the possibilty of doing such a thing. It wouldn't happen in the first place because you still have religious people saying now that scientist and such are trying to play god, destroy the institution, and blah, and blah, and blah. Imagine the back lash you would have if you tried to create an artificial womb. Secondly, I don't think it's possible because everytime man has tried to recreate something that occurs naturally it turns out, well, bad (take pharmaceuticals for example; most of the drugs on the market can be found in nature without the side effects). To create a womb where the fetus can be fed all the nutrients it needs (and it constantly needs nutrients), seems a little bit, I don't know, impossible to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
If we could get it right it would be safer for both mother and child and in that case the mother and father would deserve absolutely 100% equal rights. (I do worry, however, that it could result in a far higher birth rate and I worry about issues with the parent/child bond.)
But, right now we are not talking about our if's and dreams for humanity and the future; we are talking about what is within our reachable bounds and what we can do now. As it stands, men have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, and women (as the host) have the right to decide if she wants to abort or keep the fetus: simple as that, nothing more, nothing less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,360,489 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
It doesn't matter if it's the mother or the father that has the child; the parent that does not have custody of the child has to pay child support. So, for example, if the father had custody of the child, the mother would pay. It is simply more common that men end up having to pay child support because more commonly they do not have custody of the child. There is no sexism involved in that.
Of course I understand that mothers pay child support as well. However, the woman can choose to abort and rid herself of ALL responsibilities associated with supporting the child. Until the man can have that option, it IS sexist against men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
Oh sure, men can have a say, but it's not like their say will be valued or change the opinion of what the woman has the right to do with her body and what's in it (which, as we've already made clear, is hers). It is quite funny actually that you think men are only subject to paying child support and that they get the no say in the matter and are the ones that come out worse from the deal. Oh my, I believe they had a say at one point and time, and they sure enough don't have to carry around a parasite for 7-9 months and deal with all the physical problems that come from pregnancy. Yep, you all do have it hard.
My entire point is that the woman had a say herself at the EXACT same time the man did. And WHAT'S IN HER BODY is JUST AS MUCH THE MAN'S AS THE WOMAN'S. PERIOD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
I don't think that would happen, and I'm kind of iffy on the possibilty of doing such a thing. It wouldn't happen in the first place because you still have religious people saying now that scientist and such are trying to play god, destroy the institution, and blah, and blah, and blah. Imagine the back lash you would have if you tried to create an artificial womb. Secondly, I don't think it's possible because everytime man has tried to recreate something that occurs naturally it turns out, well, bad (take pharmaceuticals for example; most of the drugs on the market can be found in nature without the side effects). To create a womb where the fetus can be fed all the nutrients it needs (and it constantly needs nutrients), seems a little bit, I don't know, impossible to me.

But, right now we are not talking about our if's and dreams for humanity and the future; we are talking about what is within our reachable bounds and what we can do now. As it stands, men have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, and women (as the host) have the right to decide if she wants to abort or keep the fetus: simple as that, nothing more, nothing less.
The men do have a say in what happens to the fetus as long as the fetus is 50% theirs.

Those of you who support men not having a say during pregnancy should also support men not having a say after birth. I know you all most likely feel that way but do not have the balls to say it on here. We are not simply checkbooks.

I should also add...I am not opposed to making men legally responsible for 50% of pregnancy related medical expenses as long as he has a say.

The reality is many women feel they should have equal rights without equal responsiblity. You are extremely sexist in your arguments saying things like "you have it easier." You have no clue how easy or hard we have it until you've experienced it yourself. None. Another thing I should say...pregnancy and childbirth have both become far SAFER in recent times. Statistically, the risks involved in a normal pregnancy are very low.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-22-2009 at 09:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 930,492 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Of course I understand that mothers pay child support as well. However, the woman can choose to abort and rid herself of ALL responsibilities associated with supporting the child. Until the man can have that option, it IS sexist against men.
Well a man had the chance to rid himself of all responsibility of a child. But let's not go into that shall we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
My entire point is that the woman had a say herself at the EXACT same time the man did.
Yep, and she gets the final say, because it's her body. If a guy didn't want to have a kid, should've kept it in his pants, or wore a condom, or made damn sure that his partner was on birth control. The whole "I thought she was on the pill" or some other lame brain argument such as that is completely ludicrous and ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
And WHAT'S IN HER BODY is JUST AS MUCH THE MAN'S AS THE WOMAN'S. PERIOD.
Nope. Sorry bud it doesn't work like that. You cannot lay claim over another person's body and what's in it. If someone gave me blood, they cannot come back later and say that they own me because it's in my body.

A baby may be comprised of a sperm and an egg, but it is feeding off of the woman's body. She has the absolute right to decide whether she wants to keep it or not. The man has no say in it, because it's not his body and not his choice. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
The men do have a say in what happens to the fetus as long as the fetus is 50% theirs.
Not his body, not his choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Those of you who support men not having a say during pregnancy should also support men not having a say after birth.
After birth, the responsibility of a child becomes the burden of both parents. It doesn't just shift onto one parent (as it does in pregnancy), it is a mutual burden and should be met with mutual expenses. If a mother has to feed, clothe, raise, and nuture the baby, then the father dropping a couple stacks every month and seeing his offspring every few weeks is a drop in the bucket; and vice versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I know you all most likely feel that way but do not have the balls to say it on here. We are not simply checkbooks.
Dude, get over yourself and get off your high horse. You know damn well that it is the parent that has custody of the child (the one who is raising it) that pays most of the expenses for it. They have to provide shelter, food, clothing, for the baby and themselves. God forbid if the parent that has custody has medical problems (either them or the child) added to the expenses. Baby food is not cheap, diapers are not cheap, a baby in general is not cheap. The parent that does not have custody of the child is usually the one getting the better end of the stick (financially) because they don't have to support another human being. A couple of hundred bucks every few weeks is figuratively and realistically a drop in the bucket compared to the expenses the custodial parent has to pay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I should also add...I am not opposed to making men legally responsible for 50% of pregnancy related medical expenses as long as he has a say.
Okay, so since we are going to be equal and fair share for all, then I'm not opposed to having the man die also if the woman dies from child birth or complications during the pregnancy. Fair share for all right? Rigghhht.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top