DUmmies nervous over preemies surviving *Now with BONUS TiT sighting!*

[dandi]

Abortion limit baby girl goes home
 Advertisements [?]Abortion limit baby girl goes home

A baby girl born when her mother was just 23 weeks pregnant - and five days before the legal abortion limit - is recovering at home after nine-months in hospital.

Ellie-Suzanne Fish was born nearly four months premature at Southmead Hospital, in Bristol.

Doctors told parents Beverley and Dave Fish their daughter, born weighing 1lb 4.7oz (589 grams) had only a 10% to 15% chance of survival.

After slowly gaining weight and coming through two brain operations Ellie-Suzanne is home with her three brothers David, 18, Martyn, 17, and Joshua, 11, and her sister, Abbie, 15.

Some MPs are calling for the Fertilisation and Embryology Act to be amended so the legal limit for abortion is lowered from its present level of 24 weeks to between 12 and 22 weeks.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iLAU6A4QWkMic9s...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3285143

Iris  (1000+ posts)       Wed May-14-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Perhaps they should wait until this child reaches adulthood
 before they make such an ammendment. Who knows how things will turn out for her in the long run.

Let's wait about twenty years and see if it would have been better to kill her.

TomInTib  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-14-08 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. My sister was a 25-week baby.
 In 1953, no less. Born prematurely as a result of a tremendous car crash.

And she survived and thrived, physically.

But she is crazy as hell.

Man, I could write a book.

Oh, I'm sure at some point you'll be telling everyone you did.

hyphenate  (1000+ posts)       Wed May-14-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Okay
 I don't see that as a victory to anti-choice people. First of all, it was not in the U.S. which does make it a technicality that it could make the law changed here in the U.S.. Second of all, what's the big deal? Yes, the baby got lots of medical care and beat the odds, but isn't that the question? How good is the quality of life going to be for this child? By the news articles, it's apparent that the baby is going to have long term medical problems, with some mental retardation as well as physical problems for the rest of her life. Anyone who proclaims that the abortion age limit should be reviewed and lowered to accommodate for babies like this is kidding themselves. It stands to reason, in my book, that the whole reason most of us support choice is evident in this case: some children can have all the support they need in a family, and some won't. But it's still got to be our choice, and not the choice of politicians or ministers, or anyone else, for that matter.

Having a high-risk birth such as this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, only that this family has enough medical resources and familial support to try and raise a child with severe handicaps. Most of us don't have that kind of choice.

Well now, it does show the viability of the tissue mass, doesn't it?

AspieGrrl  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-14-08 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
19. I'm totally pro choice, but could people quit saying that it's better to not exist than be disabled?
 Because, you know, I find it a little offensive when people would rather be dead than be me.

You may be in the wrong place. There are a shitload of people over there who would have preferred you been scraped out into a metal pan.
 
 
 


 
 

[Toastedturningtidelegs]

Man, I could write a book.

You won't have to TIT we're doing it for you

[Chris_]

There is no choice about it, they want a dead baby dammit. There is no better label than 'anti-life' for them. It suits them.

[PatriotGame]

There is no choice about it, they want a dead baby dammit. There is no better label than 'anti-life' for them. It suits them.

Hmm....interesting premise. Aren't these the same freaks that daily scream in agony over the deaths of all those innocent terrorists in Iraq?

I'm confused....

[morningAngel]

Interesting
a 25 week baby survived in the fifties
yet, the President's son who was further along in gestation died in 62 or was it 63, because they had not yet invented surfactant, which is NECESSARY for all babies born before 32 weeks

unless maybe TIT invented surfactant too?

[morningAngel]

hyphenate  (1000+ posts)       Wed May-14-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Okay
 I don't see that as a victory to anti-choice people. First of all, it was not in the U.S. which does make it a technicality that it could make the law changed here in the U.S.. Second of all, what's the big deal? Yes, the baby got lots of medical care and beat the odds, but isn't that the question? How good is the quality of life going to be for this child? By the news articles, it's apparent that the baby is going to have long term medical problems, with some mental retardation as well as physical problems for the rest of her life. Anyone who proclaims that the abortion age limit should be reviewed and lowered to accommodate for babies like this is kidding themselves. It stands to reason, in my book, that the whole reason most of us support choice is evident in this case: some children can have all the support they need in a family, and some won't. But it's still got to be our choice, and not the choice of politicians or ministers, or anyone else, for that matter.

Having a high-risk birth such as this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, only that this family has enough medical resources and familial support to try and raise a child with severe handicaps. Most of us don't have that kind of choice.

okay this is just pissing me off to no end here!
remind me to tell my severely handicapped child she has NO QUALITY of life when I take her to piano lessons next week.  Shall I tell her in Spanish, English, Tagalog or American Sign Language?  Oh she probably won't listen to me anyway, she's too busy singing along to the Kid Rock CD she memorized...
can I just go off on a total fricken rant here?

[Chris_]

There is no choice about it, they want a dead baby dammit. There is no better label than 'anti-life' for them. It suits them.

Hmm....interesting premise. Aren't these the same freaks that daily scream in agony over the deaths of all those innocent terrorists in Iraq?

I'm confused....

I am too.

But wait, let us not forget the convicted killers on death row either. Meanwhile, evil babies who threaten to ruin an otherwise perfect life by daring to be born.

[Chris_]

Interesting
a 25 week baby survived in the fifties
yet, the President's son who was further along in gestation died in 62 or was it 63, because they had not yet invented surfactant, which is NECESSARY for all babies born before 32 weeks

unless maybe TIT invented surfactant too?

Is that true? My Brother In Law was born at 28 weeks in..... 1966 Besides being a dork, he is perfectly normal.

[Chris_]

hyphenate  (1000+ posts)       Wed May-14-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Okay
 I don't see that as a victory to anti-choice people. First of all, it was not in the U.S. which does make it a technicality that it could make the law changed here in the U.S.. Second of all, what's the big deal? Yes, the baby got lots of medical care and beat the odds, but isn't that the question? How good is the quality of life going to be for this child? By the news articles, it's apparent that the baby is going to have long term medical problems, with some mental retardation as well as physical problems for the rest of her life. Anyone who proclaims that the abortion age limit should be reviewed and lowered to accommodate for babies like this is kidding themselves. It stands to reason, in my book, that the whole reason most of us support choice is evident in this case: some children can have all the support they need in a family, and some won't. But it's still got to be our choice, and not the choice of politicians or ministers, or anyone else, for that matter.

Having a high-risk birth such as this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, only that this family has enough medical resources and familial support to try and raise a child with severe handicaps. Most of us don't have that kind of choice.

okay this is just pissing me off to no end here!
remind me to tell my severely handicapped child she has NO QUALITY of life when I take her to piano lessons next week.  Shall I tell her in Spanish, English, Tagalog or American Sign Language?  Oh she probably won't listen to me anyway, she's too busy singing along to the Kid Rock CD she memorized...
can I just go off on a total fricken rant here?

There was nothing high-risk about my son's birth at all and yet he is not perfect by some people's standards. And yet in all the imperfections, there is a beautiful child of God. I will take his imperfections over the creepy little $#@!'s at the DUmp.... in fact, I will take 10 more kids just like him, thank you very much.

[Lord Undies]

The pro-baby murder crowd does have a problem now.   The real miracle here isn't that the baby survived.  The miracle is how an insignificant blob of tissue became a baby simply by separating from the womb.  There is now positive proof that intentionally stopping the gestation of a human fetus is murder.

[tuolumnejim]

Interesting
a 25 week baby survived in the fifties
yet, the President's son who was further along in gestation died in 62 or was it 63, because they had not yet invented surfactant, which is NECESSARY for all babies born before 32 weeks

unless maybe TIT invented surfactant too?

Is that true? My Brother In Law was born at 28 weeks in..... 1966 Besides being a dork, he is perfectly normal.

A couple of links for you. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/surfactant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_respiratory_distress_syndrome

[Bondai]

The pro-baby murder crowd does have a problem now.   The real miracle here isn't that the baby survived.  The miracle is how an insignificant blob of tissue became a baby simply by separating from the womb.  There is now positive proof that intentionally stopping the gestation of a human fetus is murder.

They won't make that connection..they want dead babies and dead babies they shall have....

[stickyboot]

Interesting
a 25 week baby survived in the fifties
yet, the President's son who was further along in gestation died in 62 or was it 63, because they had not yet invented surfactant, which is NECESSARY for all babies born before 32 weeks

unless maybe TIT invented surfactant too?

If he can't even get when his family likely arrived in Texas right by nearly two hundred years, does anyone really believe his sister was born and survived at barely over six months of gestation in the 50s when eight month and under babies were still expected to die of their pulmonary immaturity in the 60s?

But then, this is TiT's sister, so how could she possibly be a standard issue? Probably had a full set of teeth, too and bit the doctor for his trouble. Just another of his whoppers-either deliberate lies or gross exaggerations.

[BlueStateSaint]

There is no choice about it, they want a dead baby dammit. There is no better label than 'anti-life' for them. It suits them.

Hmm....interesting premise. Aren't these the same freaks that daily scream in agony over the deaths of all those innocent terrorists in Iraq?

I'm confused....

I am too.

But wait, let us not forget the convicted killers on death row either. Meanwhile, evil babies who threaten to ruin an otherwise perfect life by daring to be born.

Schade, you're missing one of the correlations here--It's difficult to type one-handed when my other arm is holding my almost seven-month-old daughter--The convicted killers on death row would all vote Democrat.  The evil babies would mostly grow up to be Republicans.   

[Chris_]

There is no choice about it, they want a dead baby dammit. There is no better label than 'anti-life' for them. It suits them.

Hmm....interesting premise. Aren't these the same freaks that daily scream in agony over the deaths of all those innocent terrorists in Iraq?

I'm confused....

I am too.

But wait, let us not forget the convicted killers on death row either. Meanwhile, evil babies who threaten to ruin an otherwise perfect life by daring to be born.

Schade, you're missing one of the correlations here--It's difficult to type one-handed when my other arm is holding my almost seven-month-old daughter--The convicted killers on death row would all vote Democrat.  The evil babies would mostly grow up to be Republicans.   

You are indeed correct. When these evil ghouls pander for votes, they prey on the stupidity, greed, and sloth of the public. It is truly an evil agenda.

Enjoy every second with your little girl and don't stress over details. It doesn't seem that long ago that my 15, 13, and 9 year old kids were babies.

Hehe, I say that now, but I look around the house and see all the things that have been neglected over the years. I kid, I wouldn't have it any other way.

[jukin]

The pro-baby murder crowd does have a problem now.   The real miracle here isn't that the baby survived.  The miracle is how an insignificant blob of tissue became a baby simply by separating from the womb.  There is now positive proof that intentionally stopping the gestation of a human fetus is murder.

Don't the Duchebags get up in arms when a pregnant women is killed and the DA goes for double murder and thus give credence that the fetus is a person?

Personally, I can think of about 4800+/- retro-active abortions that should be made.

[Chris_]

hyphenate  (1000+ posts)       Wed May-14-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Okay
 I don't see that as a victory to anti-choice people. First of all, it was not in the U.S. which does make it a technicality that it could make the law changed here in the U.S.. Second of all, what's the big deal? Yes, the baby got lots of medical care and beat the odds, but isn't that the question? How good is the quality of life going to be for this child? By the news articles, it's apparent that the baby is going to have long term medical problems, with some mental retardation as well as physical problems for the rest of her life. Anyone who proclaims that the abortion age limit should be reviewed and lowered to accommodate for babies like this is kidding themselves. It stands to reason, in my book, that the whole reason most of us support choice is evident in this case: some children can have all the support they need in a family, and some won't. But it's still got to be our choice, and not the choice of politicians or ministers, or anyone else, for that matter.

Having a high-risk birth such as this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, only that this family has enough medical resources and familial support to try and raise a child with severe handicaps. Most of us don't have that kind of choice.

okay this is just pissing me off to no end here!
remind me to tell my severely handicapped child she has NO QUALITY of life when I take her to piano lessons next week.  Shall I tell her in Spanish, English, Tagalog or American Sign Language?  Oh she probably won't listen to me anyway, she's too busy singing along to the Kid Rock CD she memorized...
can I just go off on a total fricken rant here?

If "quality of life" prepartum is a compelling issue then people should have to be sterilized when they join the democratic party.

[Chris_]

hyphenate  (1000+ posts)       Wed May-14-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Okay
 I don't see that as a victory to anti-choice people. First of all, it was not in the U.S. which does make it a technicality that it could make the law changed here in the U.S.. Second of all, what's the big deal? Yes, the baby got lots of medical care and beat the odds, but isn't that the question? How good is the quality of life going to be for this child? By the news articles, it's apparent that the baby is going to have long term medical problems, with some mental retardation as well as physical problems for the rest of her life. Anyone who proclaims that the abortion age limit should be reviewed and lowered to accommodate for babies like this is kidding themselves. It stands to reason, in my book, that the whole reason most of us support choice is evident in this case: some children can have all the support they need in a family, and some won't. But it's still got to be our choice, and not the choice of politicians or ministers, or anyone else, for that matter.

Having a high-risk birth such as this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, only that this family has enough medical resources and familial support to try and raise a child with severe handicaps. Most of us don't have that kind of choice.

okay this is just pissing me off to no end here!
remind me to tell my severely handicapped child she has NO QUALITY of life when I take her to piano lessons next week.  Shall I tell her in Spanish, English, Tagalog or American Sign Language?  Oh she probably won't listen to me anyway, she's too busy singing along to the Kid Rock CD she memorized...
can I just go off on a total fricken rant here?

There was nothing high-risk about my son's birth at all and yet he is not perfect by some people's standards. And yet in all the imperfections, there is a beautiful child of God. I will take his imperfections over the creepy little $#@!'s at the DUmp.... in fact, I will take 10 more kids just like him, thank you very much.

Careful!  You'll have volunteer guys wanting to help you with that lining out the door...

[BlueStateSaint]

There is no choice about it, they want a dead baby dammit. There is no better label than 'anti-life' for them. It suits them.

Hmm....interesting premise. Aren't these the same freaks that daily scream in agony over the deaths of all those innocent terrorists in Iraq?

I'm confused....

I am too.

But wait, let us not forget the convicted killers on death row either. Meanwhile, evil babies who threaten to ruin an otherwise perfect life by daring to be born.

Schade, you're missing one of the correlations here--It's difficult to type one-handed when my other arm is holding my almost seven-month-old daughter--The convicted killers on death row would all vote Democrat.  The evil babies would mostly grow up to be Republicans.   

You are indeed correct. When these evil ghouls pander for votes, they prey on the stupidity, greed, and sloth of the public. It is truly an evil agenda.

Enjoy every second with your little girl and don't stress over details. It doesn't seem that long ago that my 15, 13, and 9 year old kids were babies.

Hehe, I say that now, but I look around the house and see all the things that have been neglected over the years. I kid, I wouldn't have it any other way.

My next-door neighbor in my apartment building has complained to mutual acquaintances about my daughter's crying (she's got my lungs, my vocal cords, and my temper--an evil combination), but at the same time, he'd much rather have my problems than his--his 17-year-old son tried to call the police on him last night, for what I don't know (or have any desire to know).  Maybe the DUmbasses would agree to a "retroactive abortion."

[Wineslob]

hyphenate  (1000+ posts)       Wed May-14-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Okay
 I don't see that as a victory to anti-choice people. First of all, it was not in the U.S. which does make it a technicality that it could make the law changed here in the U.S.. Second of all, what's the big deal? Yes, the baby got lots of medical care and beat the odds, but isn't that the question? How good is the quality of life going to be for this child? By the news articles, it's apparent that the baby is going to have long term medical problems, with some mental retardation as well as physical problems for the rest of her life. Anyone who proclaims that the abortion age limit should be reviewed and lowered to accommodate for babies like this is kidding themselves. It stands to reason, in my book, that the whole reason most of us support choice is evident in this case: some children can have all the support they need in a family, and some won't. But it's still got to be our choice, and not the choice of politicians or ministers, or anyone else, for that matter.

Having a high-risk birth such as this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, only that this family has enough medical resources and familial support to try and raise a child with severe handicaps. Most of us don't have that kind of choice.

okay this is just pissing me off to no end here!
remind me to tell my severely handicapped child she has NO QUALITY of life when I take her to piano lessons next week.  Shall I tell her in Spanish, English, Tagalog or American Sign Language?  Oh she probably won't listen to me anyway, she's too busy singing along to the Kid Rock CD she memorized...
can I just go off on a total fricken rant here?

There was nothing high-risk about my son's birth at all and yet he is not perfect by some people's standards. And yet in all the imperfections, there is a beautiful child of God. I will take his imperfections over the creepy little $#@!'s at the DUmp.... in fact, I will take 10 more kids just like him, thank you very much.

I dont know why, but this made me  a little.   

[Airwolf]

Man, I could write a book.

You won't have to TIT we're doing it for you

It might even come out as a series like the LOTR trilogy.

[Chris_]

hyphenate  (1000+ posts)       Wed May-14-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Okay
 I don't see that as a victory to anti-choice people. First of all, it was not in the U.S. which does make it a technicality that it could make the law changed here in the U.S.. Second of all, what's the big deal? Yes, the baby got lots of medical care and beat the odds, but isn't that the question? How good is the quality of life going to be for this child? By the news articles, it's apparent that the baby is going to have long term medical problems, with some mental retardation as well as physical problems for the rest of her life. Anyone who proclaims that the abortion age limit should be reviewed and lowered to accommodate for babies like this is kidding themselves. It stands to reason, in my book, that the whole reason most of us support choice is evident in this case: some children can have all the support they need in a family, and some won't. But it's still got to be our choice, and not the choice of politicians or ministers, or anyone else, for that matter.

Having a high-risk birth such as this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, only that this family has enough medical resources and familial support to try and raise a child with severe handicaps. Most of us don't have that kind of choice.

okay this is just pissing me off to no end here!
remind me to tell my severely handicapped child she has NO QUALITY of life when I take her to piano lessons next week.  Shall I tell her in Spanish, English, Tagalog or American Sign Language?  Oh she probably won't listen to me anyway, she's too busy singing along to the Kid Rock CD she memorized...
can I just go off on a total fricken rant here?

There was nothing high-risk about my son's birth at all and yet he is not perfect by some people's standards. And yet in all the imperfections, there is a beautiful child of God. I will take his imperfections over the creepy little $#@!'s at the DUmp.... in fact, I will take 10 more kids just like him, thank you very much.

Careful!  You'll have volunteer guys wanting to help you with that lining out the door...

10 imperfect male specimenz? 

[Chris_]

There is no choice about it, they want a dead baby dammit. There is no better label than 'anti-life' for them. It suits them.

Hmm....interesting premise. Aren't these the same freaks that daily scream in agony over the deaths of all those innocent terrorists in Iraq?

I'm confused....

I am too.

But wait, let us not forget the convicted killers on death row either. Meanwhile, evil babies who threaten to ruin an otherwise perfect life by daring to be born.

Schade, you're missing one of the correlations here--It's difficult to type one-handed when my other arm is holding my almost seven-month-old daughter--The convicted killers on death row would all vote Democrat.  The evil babies would mostly grow up to be Republicans.   

You are indeed correct. When these evil ghouls pander for votes, they prey on the stupidity, greed, and sloth of the public. It is truly an evil agenda.

Enjoy every second with your little girl and don't stress over details. It doesn't seem that long ago that my 15, 13, and 9 year old kids were babies.

Hehe, I say that now, but I look around the house and see all the things that have been neglected over the years. I kid, I wouldn't have it any other way.

My next-door neighbor in my apartment building has complained to mutual acquaintances about my daughter's crying (she's got my lungs, my vocal cords, and my temper--an evil combination), but at the same time, he'd much rather have my problems than his--his 17-year-old son tried to call the police on him last night, for what I don't know (or have any desire to know).  Maybe the DUmbasses would agree to a "retroactive abortion."

There are no guarantees are there? Mother Teresa once said (paraphrasing) that when a mother aborts her child, she robs herself of the opportunity to love another human being. Truer words have not been spoken.

[Chris_]

hyphenate  (1000+ posts)       Wed May-14-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Okay
 I don't see that as a victory to anti-choice people. First of all, it was not in the U.S. which does make it a technicality that it could make the law changed here in the U.S.. Second of all, what's the big deal? Yes, the baby got lots of medical care and beat the odds, but isn't that the question? How good is the quality of life going to be for this child? By the news articles, it's apparent that the baby is going to have long term medical problems, with some mental retardation as well as physical problems for the rest of her life. Anyone who proclaims that the abortion age limit should be reviewed and lowered to accommodate for babies like this is kidding themselves. It stands to reason, in my book, that the whole reason most of us support choice is evident in this case: some children can have all the support they need in a family, and some won't. But it's still got to be our choice, and not the choice of politicians or ministers, or anyone else, for that matter.

Having a high-risk birth such as this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, only that this family has enough medical resources and familial support to try and raise a child with severe handicaps. Most of us don't have that kind of choice.

okay this is just pissing me off to no end here!
remind me to tell my severely handicapped child she has NO QUALITY of life when I take her to piano lessons next week.  Shall I tell her in Spanish, English, Tagalog or American Sign Language?  Oh she probably won't listen to me anyway, she's too busy singing along to the Kid Rock CD she memorized...
can I just go off on a total fricken rant here?

There was nothing high-risk about my son's birth at all and yet he is not perfect by some people's standards. And yet in all the imperfections, there is a beautiful child of God. I will take his imperfections over the creepy little $#@!'s at the DUmp.... in fact, I will take 10 more kids just like him, thank you very much.

I dont know why, but this made me  a little.   

Don't cry slobber, I'll start crying with you.

In all honesty, my son brings joy every day. Some day I would like to write a book.... I think I will title it, "Don't Pity Me".

[BlueStateSaint]

There is no choice about it, they want a dead baby dammit. There is no better label than 'anti-life' for them. It suits them.

Hmm....interesting premise. Aren't these the same freaks that daily scream in agony over the deaths of all those innocent terrorists in Iraq?

I'm confused....

I am too.

But wait, let us not forget the convicted killers on death row either. Meanwhile, evil babies who threaten to ruin an otherwise perfect life by daring to be born.

Schade, you're missing one of the correlations here--It's difficult to type one-handed when my other arm is holding my almost seven-month-old daughter--The convicted killers on death row would all vote Democrat.  The evil babies would mostly grow up to be Republicans.   

You are indeed correct. When these evil ghouls pander for votes, they prey on the stupidity, greed, and sloth of the public. It is truly an evil agenda.

Enjoy every second with your little girl and don't stress over details. It doesn't seem that long ago that my 15, 13, and 9 year old kids were babies.

Hehe, I say that now, but I look around the house and see all the things that have been neglected over the years. I kid, I wouldn't have it any other way.

My next-door neighbor in my apartment building has complained to mutual acquaintances about my daughter's crying (she's got my lungs, my vocal cords, and my temper--an evil combination), but at the same time, he'd much rather have my problems than his--his 17-year-old son tried to call the police on him last night, for what I don't know (or have any desire to know).  Maybe the DUmbasses would agree to a "retroactive abortion."

There are no guarantees are there? Mother Teresa once said (paraphrasing) that when a mother aborts her child, she robs herself of the opportunity to love another human being. Truer words have not been spoken.

Mother Teresa, IMO, is one of the people I hope to meet in Heaven.  Her humility was awesome.

And, one of the tenors in the choir I sing in--matter of fact, he sits immediately to my left--has a developmentally disabled son.  His son is 31, and will be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.  He's had physical deformities from the day he was born (can't speak, either), and he requires constant supervision, but I've found that his mind is razor sharp.  I was talking to said tenor's wife/mother of special-needs son last week, and I had told her the week before of my daughter's latest bug that she had caught.  When I was describing how my daughter recovered from the bug, and bounced right back, the special-needs son had a look of concern on his face, followed by a look of relief, and satisfaction.  It is amazing just how "with it" he is.

The DUmbasses would have had his brain sucked out of his skull while still in the womb.  And, God would have had to use someone else to show me the point, which might not have happened for a while.