Adoption is a calling… there is something in you that can’t be denied.
You just know in the deepest part of your being that you are meant to find this little soul and guide them through life.
~ Celebrity personal trainer Jillian Michaels, sharing her thoughts about being a mother to her adopted daughter Lukensia and newborn son Phoenix (born to her lesbian partner Heidi Rhoades), as quoted by People, May 24
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Following the Bird Supreme Court’s decisive 7-2 ruling to overturn the avian world’s longstanding anti-abortion law, millions of birds across the nation were granted reproductive rights Thursday, prompting thousands to forego parenthood by fatally pushing eggs from their nests….
The landmark ruling, avian law experts confirmed, ends the long-established ban on procedures that involve the removal or expulsion of an egg from a nest. Bird abortion is commonly facilitated by a variety of methods that can include rolling an egg over the side of a nest or thrusting a developing embryo from the roost with the aid of a small stick, feet, or beak.
~ Satire website The Onion reporting on the aftermath of the legalization of bird abortions, April 5
[Photo via Denim and Tweed]
Comments (11)
Can’t wait to read the comments on this post! But good for Jillian.
They look so happy!!!!!!!!!!! It’s a nice change from some of the quotes of the day we’ve seen lately.
(BTW Elizabeth, is that one of the comments you couldn’t wait to read, because I didn’t think I was that interesting.
)
Beautiful babies.
And I am encouraged to see that more and more families seem to be open to interracial (and also special needs) adoptions.
maybe she would not have to adopt if she had a husband instead of a “partner” – the statistics for bad outcomes for children raised by same-sex so-called parents are really bad – is she really doing those kids a favor?
is that better Elizabeth?
I like what she says about adoption. My sister who is adopting feels exactly the same way. Shame these children are being denied a daddy, though.
“the statistics for bad outcomes for children raised by same-sex so-called parents are really bad.”
Care to provide some hard data on that.
Sometimes not having a daddy is better than having a sh*tty one. Sometimes not having a daddy is better than not having a mommy OR a daddy.
As long as no children are being aborted, I’m happy.
@CC – 30 seconds on Google found this among many many other articles discussing the increased risks of various kinds that result among children of same-sex couples – try to get by the fact that it is clearly an article with a moral perspective and note that every stat quoted comes from a study conducted by a reputable organization – some of the stats even come from organizations that support the LGBT agenda
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/GlennGayAdoption.php
Wow, this is a first. I just clicked like on one of CC’s comments. I don’t know how I feel right now.
X – I agree with much of what you are saying – but promulgating the idea that 2 mommies or 2 daddies are just as good for children as one of each is scientifically inaccurate – I would also say that so-called gay marriage is just another symptom of the same overall devaluation of human life that supports abortion
Elizabeth – you should be ecstatic by now
“I would also say that so-called gay marriage is just another symptom of the same overall devaluation of human life that supports abortion”
Please explain.
JDC – I am walking out the door but will come back to this later and explain
See you later Bryan. Remember to close the door on your way out.
Actually, this quote is really helpful to me. I’ve been thinking about special needs adoption for a while, hemming and hawing–which is something I don’t normally do. It helps to hear her say that the call to adopt is Undeniable. Many friends who have adopted use the same sort of language–as though they felt compelled to act. I have no such urges, so God must want me to wait for a while.
I am really thinking about adoption recently, and have spend many days looking at the photos of the children on Reeces Rainbow http://www.reecesrainbow.com/ . I am also in the process becoing a foster parent.
lol, Bryan and Elizabeth are fail-trollin’.
@x – trollin’? me? seriously? I generally agree with you and pretty much everyone on this site – and on the rare occasion my opinion is the minority, you are gonna call me a troll?? there have been times I thought you were out in left field, and I have never accused you of being a troll – fyi, my “are you happy now” comments to Elizabeth were made because I was not going to keep my opinion to myself just because I thought she would not like it
JDC – back to your question…
Children, unborn and born, are God’s creations with inherent dignity and worth as a result of their humanity. When we reduce children to “things” to be discarded when we don’t want them or “procured” when we do, then we strip them of their human dignity and value. That means when we see them as inconveniences to be “taken care of” rather than blessings, and we turn to abortion. It also means when we see them as things that we “want,” and we do whatever we want to do to get them. So gay couples adopt or turn to surrogacy, and they bring children into an environment that will cause problems for them later. Or people turn to IVF discarding dozens of newly-formed human beings to get the one they “want” even though it is not part of God’s plan for them. That is why I do not like adoption by same sex couples. Because to me it is turning children into “things” to be had. That is what I meant. Reading back, I realize I said so-called gay marriage, not gay adoption. Although I really have strong objections to so-called gay marriage, that si not what I meant to say. I was writing in a hurry because I was pressed for time.
I think adoption is a wonderful thing, and I applaud people who do it. I will also concede that there is merit to the argument that adoption into a same sex couple could be seen as better than being left without a loving home. I also accept that same sex couples may very well feel true love for their adopted children. But I continue to believe that same sex couples most often confuse their “feelings” and “wants” with true love which I see as a deliberate choice and commitment and way of acting rather than a “feeling.” And while Jillian may be elated and infatuated with those children right now, I am skeptical about whether that will last and whether her and her “partner” will do what is best for the children over time. And yes, I know that children of hetero couples often have bad outcomes as well. But the facts say that same-sex couples are worse for children.
Sorry to get everyone worked up. But that is my sincere (and most definitely not trolling-inspired) opinion.
Bryan, I have to disagree with you. Believing children deserve a Mom and Dad makes you in the majority in every state that’s voted on whether to redefine marriage- even in liberal states like mine (CA). Despite the pressure and name-calling, you are not alone and your position is not evil or bigoted. You might be a rebel in the eyes of the liberal elite- big whoop.
I’d like to be happy for Jillian and the children she’s adopted. I like her open heart for kids in need of adoption. But it’s not all about what adults want. Fathers matter to kids, and that’s something two women (or one woman or any
number of women) can’t give. While two men or two women can certainly love kids, but they can’t give then all they deserve. That’s pretty basic.
by the way CC, I do appreciate that you just asked politely about data when you questioned what I asserted
“Believing children deserve a Mom and Dad makes you in the majority in every state that’s voted on whether to redefine marriage- even in liberal states like mine (CA).”
Should the state remove minor children from living situations where there is not a (female) mother and (male) father present and try to place them in homes where there is? Because if not, it hardly seems to matter whether or not children “deserve” two opposite-sex parents.
Super duh, Joan.
Due to war, cancer, traffic accidents, broken promises, no fault divorce, etc., children have been living with one parent and/or extended family for a long time.
But we don’t call those domestic arrangements marriage, do we?
The absence of a Dad or a Mom due to war, other death, flakiness, etc. matters to kids. Again, duh Joan. That’s a real hole in their heart. Why would anyone want to set it up that way for them on purpose?
“The absence of a Dad or a Mom due to war, other death, flakiness, etc. matters to kids. Again, duh Joan. That’s a real hole in their heart. Why would anyone want to set it up that way for them on purpose?”
You’re missing the point. Either kids have a legal entitlement to an opposite-sex mother and father (in which case they should be removed from any living arrangements that deviate from this) or they don’t, it doesn’t matter what you think they “deserve”, and the state has no rational, non-discriminatory purpose in preventing gay couples from adopting or producing children with a surrogate or IVF treatment.
the state has no rational, non-discriminatory purpose in preventing gay couples from adopting or producing children with a surrogate or IVF treatment.
except that it is bad for the children
If cc comments on a given day, so does joan. If one doesn’t, neither does the other. What’s up with that ladies?
joan: “You’re missing the point. Either kids have a legal entitlement to an opposite-sex mother and father (in which case they should be removed from any living arrangements that deviate from this) or they don’t, it doesn’t matter what you think they ‘deserve’ “
I’m going to call this out as point-blank stupidity on parade.
“It doesn’t matter what you think they ‘deserve’” because, as we all know, we live in a totalism where the only thing that matters is “legal entitlement.” The State Is All.
Caring is retrograde. Human relations are only about operations of power where the personal is the political.
Sheer, utter, ludicrous, fatuous and moronic stupidity.
So why does an otherwise intelligent joan go there?
So true, rasqual. Its like there’s no basis for morality or rationality beyond the scope of the state.
Bummer for Joan when no one will stand up for the care she deserves. If human relations are dependent upon the concept of a wantedness defined by those of us who are bigger and stronger, there’s a generation of Boomers (and beyond) headed for really sad times.
Bryan was right when he talked about the link between people wanting or not wanting children. The prochild answer is treating children as human beings whose lives and natural desires for a Mom and Dad are not to be subject to
adult desires. That goes for a whole range of topics.
“If cc comments on a given day, so does joan. If one doesn’t, neither does the other. What’s up with that ladies?”
Speaking of strange coincidences, isn’t it rather odd that the site’s resident nosy cat lady/bitter, childless spinster is utterly obsessed with the commenting behaviors of others? What’s up with that? What void in Ninek’s life is being filled by apparently maintaining a detailed spreadsheet recording the days and times that two anonymous people she’ll never meet (or even one, for that matter) post? I have a feeling the answer would be very depressing.
““It doesn’t matter what you think they ‘deserve’” because, as we all know, we live in a totalism where the only thing that matters is “legal entitlement.” The State Is All. ”
The posts I’m responding to are specifically referencing and justifying a legal outcome on the basis of such and such entitlements that children supposedly deserve. I’m directly responding to that line of thought, in kind.
“The prochild answer is treating children as human beings whose lives and natural desires for a Mom and Dad are not to be subject to adult desires.”
You mean like a single widower or non-parental legal custodian of a child apparently being unwilling to do right by their charge and surrender them for adoption to a home with two opposite-sex parents? Are they not also motivated by adult desires rather than a purely detached, mathematically precise consideration of what would truly be best for the children in their care? Why are you holding gay couples to a vastly different moral and legal standard than other non-traditional parental units? All I’m looking for here is a little consistency.
joan just broke “Commenting Rule #1″ :
“Criticize ideas, not people.”
For those who find this adoption so objectionable,
Would this child struggling to survive on the streets of Haiti in horrendous poverty we can’t even comprehend be preferable?
How about single mother Mia Farrow who adopted several special needs children and foreign children? Do you have an issue with her?
Sorry folks, we don’t live in an idyllic world. Children are raised by parents who are drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill, abusive, neglectful. Children are abandoned to the streets, homeless shelters(recently in Portland). Children struggle to survive on a daily basis.
Certainly there are far more horrendous situations than Jillian Michaels and her partner.
How about the gay men who cared for AIDS infected newborns abandoned by their straight parents? Or the lesbian couple who cared for the child mentally and physically damaged by her heterosexual drug addict parents? Any thoughts on these men and women?
As long a the number of parentless children is so much more than the number of stable mom and dad couples seeking to adopt, then “better” will have to do when “best” is unavailable.
Hi Hans,
I think “best” is a matter of perspective. Many abused and neglected, damaged children come from “best” homes and situations.
“As long a the number of parentless children is so much more than the number of stable mom and dad couples seeking to adopt, then “better” will have to do when “best” is unavailable”
Except in the case of special needs and older children or sibling groups, the “best” list is much longer than the list of parentless children legally available for adoption. In the case of those children that’s the only place this “better than nothing” debate belongs. Is her adopted daughter special needs? I haven’t seen that in any article. If she’s not then let’s forget this “better than homeless on the streets of haiti” nonsense b/c there’s a waiting list to adopt healthy children from Haiti.
CT,
Being homeless on the streets of Haiti is hardly nonsense CT and may be the only alternative for children, healthy or not, who are not adopted or put on adoption lists.
I work with a mission that began sewing diapers for orphaned Haitians, so desperately poor they sat in their own waste. Diapers were a luxury, so don’t talk to me about nonsense. Until you have been to Haiti you cannot comprehend the poverty. The children, special needs or not, live in desperate poverty, often abandoned to the streets to survive.
What difference does it make if Jillian’s daughter is special needs or not? Why are gay and single parents fine for harder to place children but not others?
It’s possible that kids raised in lesbian homes, especially girls, might be LESS prejudiced against men than others. When one mom is mad at the other, she can’t blame it on “what men are like.”
“Being homeless on the streets of Haiti is hardly nonsense CT and may be the only alternative for children, healthy or not, who are not adopted or put on adoption lists…so don’t talk to me about nonsense. Until you have been to Haiti you cannot comprehend the poverty.”
I’ve been to Haiti. And the poverty there is as far from nonsense as you can get. But since I never said the poverty was nonsense maybe we can address what I actually said. Not all or even most of the children in Haiti who are living in abject poverty are available for adoption. That pool of children face very dire circumstances, and YES, a real possibility of dying in the streets whether gay parents can adopt or not. However it IS nonsense to suggest that among the pool of children waiting to be adopted, there is a shortage of mother/father adoptive homes for them, such that we HAVE to turn to single parents and gay couples. It is nonsense and false to say that the kids waiting to be adopted are facing a choice between gay parents and death on the street. It’s simply not true.
“What difference does it make if Jillian’s daughter is special needs or not? Why are gay and single parents fine for harder to place children but not others”
I didn’t say they were fine for harder to place children. I was specifically countering the argument that there is a shortage of adoptive families such that if we exclude gay couples, children will not be adopted. The only pool of children for whom that is true (and thus the only area where that line of reasoning makes any sense) is among special needs, older children, and sibling groups. In those cases, it is true that there are often a shortage of couples willing to adopt them and that’s the only time the “better than nothing” argument makes sense.
If someone is just arguing that two mommies is just as good as two daddies or a mommy and a daddy and it makes no difference in a child’s life to have a mother and a father, that’s one thing. But I see this all the time where people implicitly admit that gay couples are less ideal than a mother and a father, but then defend allowing them to adopt by saying “it’s better than nothing.” Well that argument doesn’t usually apply b/c aside from notable exceptions, gay couples are adopting healthy children from the pool of children for whom there is NO shortage of mother-father households willing to adopt them. So in the majority of cases, it’s just intentionally depriving children of a mother and a father, not keeping them from death on the street.
CT,
That’s my point. This child became available for adoption. What if she had not? What would her fate have been then? BTW, I acted as a translator for a Haitian child here for medical care. The mother’s poverty was so desperate she begged the doctor and his family to adopt her son. I understand he was adopted here and has remained in the US.
To say a child like Jillian’s may have faced a life of poverty if not adopted is hardly a stretch. How did she become available for adoption? What is her story? We can only speculate. I understand that as a single mother Angelina Jolie adopted her Ethipian daughter, the product of a rape, at the mother’s request. What might have been that child’s fate had single mother Angelina not adopted her?
I never said there was a shortage of adoptive heterosexual parents. I never said there was no choice for these children. I said that Jillian adopting this child may well have been an alternative to a life of poverty and abandonment, and being we do not know the child’s history, this is certainly a possibility. Is it possible a desperate Haitian mother asked her to adopt her child?
I have a problem with your “better than nothing” argument concerning special needs children for adoption. Gay and single parents who open their homes and hearts to special needs children and let’s face it, children no one wants, are “better than nothing”? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying. My encounters with such adoptive parents have left me deeply humbled by their devotion, self sacrifice, and love.
I have trouble understanding why these extraordinary people aren’t considered fit to adopt healthy children, but they are just fine when the going gets rough.
My argument is that we do not live in an idyllic world. No family is perfect, all children are not raised in the best circumstances, and a mommy and daddy by virture of being heterosexual are not always good parents. Also, gay parents are as old as the human race. When people of either sexual orientation, single, married, in partnerships, open their homes to children in need, they have only my deepest admiration.
And yes, that includes Jillian Michaels. And Mia Farrow.
cc’joan, are you going to answer the question? Personal insults won’t deflect it. Besides, cc you know that if I use the word crone, you get all hurt, so don’t be such a hypocrite.
“To say a child like Jillian’s may have faced a life of poverty if not adopted is hardly a stretch.”
It’s not a stretch at all. But my point was that there are lots of heterosexual couples who would have adopted this child. There is NOT a shortage of heterosexual couples willing to adopt healthy children. So, if this child is not of a special needs group, then the choice was NOT Jillian Michaels or death from poverty. It was Jillian Michaels and her partner or a mother and father. You’re setting up a false choice. Yes, children who are not put up for adoption for whatever reason face terrible odds. There is no debate about that. What we are debating is the choice facing children who ARE placed for adoption.
“I understand that as a single mother Angelina Jolie adopted her Ethipian daughter, the product of a rape, at the mother’s request. What might have been that child’s fate had single mother Angelina not adopted her?”
I don’t know – are you trying to say that the mother was willing to adopt her daughter to Angelina Jolie, but if she said no, then the mother would not have adopted her daughter to someone else?
“I never said there was a shortage of adoptive heterosexual parents. I never said there was no choice for these children.”
Ok, but others have made this argument – In fact, I wasn’t even responding to you in my initial comment but to Hans who said (and I quoted this originally): “As long a the number of parentless children is so much more than the number of stable mom and dad couples seeking to adopt, then “better” will have to do when “best” is unavailable”
“I said that Jillian adopting this child may well have been an alternative to a life of poverty and abandonment, and being we do not know the child’s history, this is certainly a possibility. Is it possible a desperate Haitian mother asked her to adopt her child?”
It is nearly impossible that it unfolded like that. International adoption is so highly regulated that you HAVE to go through certain agencies both in the US and in the country from which you are adopting. Assuming that Jillian was wandering around Haiti and was approached by some random woman, you’d have to be saying that this woman was willing to place her child with Jillian Michaels, but otherwise would not have placed her child. That scenario makes no sense. Typically what happens is parents place the child with the orphanages and agencies who make the match with prospective parents. I guarantee that’s what happened here.
“I have a problem with your “better than nothing” argument concerning special needs children for adoption. Gay and single parents who open their homes and hearts to special needs children and let’s face it, children no one wants, are “better than nothing”? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying.”
Yes, you are completely misunderstanding what I’m saying and I don’t know how to explain it differently to make it clearer. First, it is not my argument. It’s an argument that is implicitly made by people who say, “well these kids have no one to adopt them, so a gay couple is better than sitting in foster care or better than poverty or whatever.” All I’m saying is that the ONLY place that argument even comes into play is with these groups of children who are harder to adopt. But gay couples often adopt kids who are perfectly healthy and could be adopted by many heterosexual couples too. So in that case, you need to make an argument that there is no harm in denying a child a mother and a father. The other argument is irrelevant b/c alternatives are available.
“My encounters with such adoptive parents have left me deeply humbled by their devotion, self sacrifice, and love. I have trouble understanding why these extraordinary people aren’t considered fit to adopt healthy children, but they are just fine when the going gets rough.”
It’s not that they are or are not fit in either case. But in the case of healthy children, their adoption deliberately deprives the child of a mother and a father. Those who support gay adoption need to argue that there is no harm in that – that a mother provides nothing special, a father provides nothing special, and any combination of competent adults is an equally good enviornment for kids. They need to STOP saying, “well, if gay couples didn’t adopt this child he would die in poverty.” NO he or she would be adopted by someone else. The only situation in which that is not true is in cases of harder to adopt children. Do you see what I’m saying?
“My argument is that we do not live in an idyllic world. No family is perfect, all children are not raised in the best circumstances, and a mommy and daddy by virture of being heterosexual are not always good parents.”
I’m sure in the mix of potential adoptive parents, the homosexuals and heterosexuals both have their incompetent losers who somehow make it through the screening process. That’s not unique to heterosexuals.
“Also, gay parents are as old as the human race. When people of either sexual orientation, single, married, in partnerships, open their homes to children in need, they have only my deepest admiration.”
Ok, so there’s your answer – you are saying a gay couple (or any combination of one or more adults) is EQUALLY as good as a mother and father. You need to stop making the other argument then – about a choice between a gay couple and poverty. That is not the choice. Just say, “gay couples make great parents and there’s no harm to a child to deliberately create a situation where they lack a mother or father.” Typically in our society we think of those situations as something that people make the best of – not something to aspire to. If you think differently, I disagree with you, but it has nothing to do with the argument I was making in the first place. I’m just tired of the gay couples or poverty argument b/c it feeds into the pro-choice LIE that we need abortion b/c there is a lack of adoptive homes. Except in limited cases, It.is.not.true.
CT,
Again I never argued there was a shortage of heterosexual couples. Do we know the circumstances or reasons this child was placed with Jillian? How did Jillian obtain the child? Again I argue that if a hetero or homosexual couple adopts her, they are to be commended for opening their home to a child in need, a child who might otherwise live in grinding poverty or crowded orphanages.
My point about Angelina is that as a single mother, she opened her home and heart to this child. Who knows the child’s fate otherwise, being the result of a rape in her society, or what hardship her mother would have faced. Perhaps meeting Angelina the mother felt secure in making her request and truly felt her daughter had a chance for a better life.
Like Jillian, Angelina opened her home to a child in need. I have no issue if she is gay, straight, single, married, or in a partnership.
Thank you for clarifying “better than nothing”. As I said, I find this argument troubling, but that is not a reflection on you. I must say thought I have some trouble understanding your argument here.
I’m not getting into debates on straight/gay adoptions, but will only point out that gay parents are as old as the human race and far worse happens to children.
You have an issue with the argument that if gay parents didn’t adopt these children they would die in poverty. You know they would be adopted by heterosexuals….how? You know Jillian’s child would have been adopted by heterosexuals…how? You know she wouldn’t have died in poverty and adopted by heterosexuals…how? Do you understand what I am saying? I mentioned the Haitian child who wasn’t even placed with an adoption agency, but adopted in the US by his mother’s request.
I’m saying there are no set rules that gay parents are always less desirable than heterosexual, or that heterosexual parents are always good parents. When I see any people open their homes and hearts to children in need, be they from poverty stricken countries, special needs, children no one else wants, I can only commend and respect them. Whether they are gay, straight, single, married, or in partnership is of no relevance to me, and I believe of no relevance to the children to who they give love and care.
A minister challenged his congregation to take in foster children and provide homes to children in need. Single men and women and married couples in the church, all wound up fostering and adopting children, some groups of siblings, who had spent their lives in foster care.
Yes, ideally the children should have all had two parents, but they all finally had homes, a parent, stability, love and security. A nine year old boy adopted by his single foster mother was so grateful to finally just have a home and to be loved and wanted by someone. One “grandmother” couldn’t name all the children adopted by her single daughters but was overjoyed about her suddenly expanded family.
This probably best illustrates the point I am trying to make.
A mother and a father don’t necessarily make 2 parents. They often make a parent (mother) and a paycheck (father).
“You know they would be adopted by heterosexuals….how?”
B/c there are waiting lists in every country for healthy, young children. There are couples who would gladly take more than one child, but are limited to one at a time. It is a myth (that pro-choice people LOVE to repeat) that there is, in general, a lack of adoptive homes. It’s just not true (except in the cases mentioned), and in an effort to defend gay adoptions many pro-life people unwittingly make the argument for them.
The 11 likes to my initial question prove that I’m not the only one who notices.
You see, readers, if a person is commenting from two different sources (a lap top, plus a pc, or a mac plus a smart phone, or a work computer plus a home computer) using different ID’s, then, the feedback on a particular quote or newstory is not what it appears on the surface.
If I came to Jill’s or any other site under two different ID’s, then I’d be perpetrating a lie to pretend that I was two persons. It wouldn’t be the most damaging lie in the world, but it would be dishonest. Now, if it is indeed one person commenting, then said person has gone to lengths to maintain a slightly separate set of characteristics.
On the other hand, for example, Carla could IM to me and say, “Oh, ninek, those comments on Jezebel are so bad, get on over there and put up a comment of your own to echo mine…” That would also be slightly misleading, perhaps giving the impression that two people just happened to notice something and be outraged by it. Sure, it can be done, and we’ve seen it here when a troll (that’s someone on a subject’s website that disagrees with said subject) posts a comment and suddenly it gets an uncharacteristic 30 likes. Yes, we do organize ourselves on the internet too. But if Joan and cc are working together, then why not admit it? If you met on Jill’s site, wouldn’t you WANT us to know? If so, wouldn’t pro-lifers be responsible for consolidating YOUR alliance? Wouldn’t it discourage us? I’m suprised you’d so deliberately miss an opportunity.
Maybe I’m snarky, but I’d fight as hard for your life even though you disagree with me as I’d fight for anyone’s right to live. It’s never too late to embrace life. You don’t have to give anything up, and you have everything to gain.