1. THE MORAL AND LEGAL FOUNDATIONS
OF
PROLIFE ACTIVISM1
by
Atty. Jo M. Imbong2
“What is man that thou art mindful of him? . . . You
made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned
him with glory and honour.” (Psalm 8: 5-6)
It all started in Day One, when in a Divine Trinitarian will, God said,
“Let us make man in our image, in our likeness . . .
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
he created them.” (Gen. 1:26-27)
Coming from the hand of God who is the sole author of the
universe, we must know what God intended (willed) on how the human
person ought to be. After all, the human person is His likeness. Where
will this knowledge lead us? In knowing our true nature as God willed it to
be, we will know our value. And knowing what is our true worth, we will
safeguard that value.
What is this human being that commands the awe of the Psalmist?
1. Every human being is infused with inherent dignity and infinite
value.
It is not just any image that was infused in man; it is a divine image.
No other creature can claim a divine likeness, that is why, the life of a
human being is intrinsically good, not merely instrumentally good--the only
creature willed for its own sake. From this attribute flows his dignity.
1
Paper read at the 3rd Western Visayas Congress on Family & Life, Jaro, Iloilo City,
October 21-22, 2007.
2
Executive Secretary, Legal Office, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.

2. 2
And because every human person has a soul that cannot die, every
human being is ordered to immortality. This is the transcendent value of
all human life
2. Dignity is inherent in every human being.
Inherent because it is present from the moment of his conception.
Recognized or not, accepted or not, this attribute is present, for its
presence does not depend on the belief or the will of man since this is a
truth of nature. Thus, when a person under custodial investigation is
tortured, his dignity is still there. It is not taken away. Rather, it has been
violated.
This truth has a profound meaning both for the human person and
for human authority. For the human person, this truth commands respect
for his person. Thus, the human person has human rights that serve to
safeguard his dignity. On the other hand, confronted with this undeniable
truth, human authority cannot but acknowledge what is an undeniable
and pre-existing truth about the human person. The State cannot deny the
existence and inherence of human dignity, for the State did not confer it
on its people. Neither is the State the ‘creator’ or human rights. And so,
our Constitution states:
“The State values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights.” (Art. II, Sec. 11,
Constitution)
Since human authority is not the infuser of human dignity, it may not
withhold, diminish, defy, or insult that dignity. In the same token, since
inherent human rights are not attributable to human authority, the State
may not dilute those inherent human rights by ‘creating’ new ‘rights’ which
are against the former. Thus, there cannot be a ‘right to abortion’.
3. The inherent nature of human dignity is a universal principle.
This is acknowledged by the family of nations:
“Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience …” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights3
3
Adopted and proclaimed by United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III),
December 10, 1948

3. 3
4. Human dignity and human value inheres at conception.
It is inherent-- in every human life from the first moment of human
existence. And human life includes the human embryo.
Why is this? Simply because being conceived of human parents, it
cannot be anything but human. This truth is fully accessible, even to
unaided reason. In accord with Biological science the characteristic sign of
humanity is the chromosome count resulting from the fusion of the male
and female gametes at day one, a count that is exclusive to the human
race.4
The United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade pronounced that
“you cannot determine when life begins.” In response to this, when the
essence and substance of something is certain no amount of sophistry can
alter the substance of our being. The central truth remains the same. The
humanity of the zygote is a reality. Human authority may deny truth about
man, but that truth will not change. For only God creates. And only the
Creator can change His work of creation.
This is guaranteed in the Constitution:
“The State . . . shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” (Art. II,
Sec. 12, Constitution)
Therefore, human dignity commands due and rightful respect and
protection even before birth of the con ceived child. For “reason
affirms that if any of us have a right to life, then all of us have it; if we
have it at one stage of life, we have it at both edges. There is no rational
argument that anybody has been able to come up with--and the best and
brightest . . . have struggled for more than 25 years to do so--that shows
that a healthy 13-year old or 40-year old or an unborn child has no right to
life. There is no rational basis for distinguishing a class of human beings
who have a right to life (and other fundamental human rights) and a class
of human beings who do not. This is the moral core of the great ‘self
evident truth’ upon which [the American democratic tradition] was founded:
the proposition that all human beings are ‘created equal’.”5 Therefore, in
4
Rodolfo-Carlos Barra, “The Legal Status of the Human Embryo”, LEXICON :
Ambiguous and Debatable Terms Regarding Family Life and Ethical Questions., Human
Life International, 2006, p. 523.
5
Robert P. George, THE CLASH OF ORTHODOXIES, ISI Books, 2001, p. 14.

4. 4
case of doubt, every life issue must be resolved to uphold the value and
dignity of new life.
While the New Civil Code says that “birth determines personality”, it
also says that:
“The conceived child shall be considered born for all
purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with
the conditions specified in the following article.” (Art. 40, New
Civil Code) 6
That is why,
“Every child is endowed with the dignity and worth of a
human being from the moment of his conception, as generally
accepted in medical parlance, and has, therefore, the rights to
be born well.” (, Art. 3 (1), P.D. 603, Child and Youth Welfare
Code)
This again is a universal principle:
“The child, by reason of his physical and mental
immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including
appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”
(Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child) 7
Our laws provide no exception.
5. Dignity and infinite value subsists in all seasons of human life.
Respect for the dignity and value of the human person continues to
be due and demandable after birth, in childhood, in youth, in adulthood, in
the elderly, in senility, in grave illness, in a vegetative state, until life’s
natural end. Location is not a criteria--whether the conceived human is
implanted in the womb or is journeying towards it after Day One. The law
does not distinguish. Neither should we. For the essence of humanity
6
Article 41. states: “For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the
time it is completely delivered from the mother’s womb. . . . “
7
Convention on the Rights of the Child, U.N. General Assembly res. 44/25, November
20, 1989.

5. 5
is unchanging and permanent, in fact, even after death.8 Our humanity is
boundless.
6. The nature of the human person is permanent and unchangeable.
As stated above, this permanence of human substance inheres at
Day One for the human embryo. Because of this, the human embryo is
the subject of rights, as opposed to being an object of rights.
The choice of words is not accidental. There are substantial
reasons why a human embryo is a subject, and hence, alone an end in
itself, never an object or a means. And once a human being, one is
always a human being. Once a subject and an end in itself, one remains
a subject and end—always. This is what is meant by man being the only
creature “willed for its own sake.”
7. The human embryo has an inherent right to be born.
Being a subject and an end in itself, the human embryo is ordered
to existence Therefore, the human embryo has the right to be nurtured
towards gestation, and to be born. No human factor outside of it may
impede, frustrate, or undermine its path to existence. It is the duty of
human authority to accord it the right to be nurtured and be born. That is
why abortion, in any form, is a serious offense against humanity itself.
The celebrated case of the couple Becky and David Litowitz of
Seattle, called attention to the right to life of the human embryo, versus the
parents’ ‘right’ to decide whether or not to ”end the existence” a frozen
human embryo.
When Becky and David were still husband and wife, they entered
into a contract with a Fertility Center at Loma Linda University in California
to fertilize the ova of a woman donor with the sperms of David.
Unfortunately, Becky and David later procured a divorce. With their
separation, two of those embryos remained in a frozen state. Becky asked
that the embryos be destroyed, to which David objected. In the ensuing
decree of Divorce, the court appointed David as guardian ad litem of the
embryos, “in the interest of the child.” David’s lawyers saw this statement
as an implicit acknowledgement that the embryos are human beings.
8
We may not even desecrate the name of a person long dead, for which one may be
held liable for libel under the Revised Pen
al Code.

6. 6
"They don't appoint a 'guardian ad litem' for property," his lawyers pointed
out, because a piece of property doesn't have rights. Only humans do.
WHAT ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL,
INHERENT HUMAN RIGHTS?
1. Every human being has a right to life.
Necessarily, the human embryo has an inherent right to be born.
Being a subject and an end in itself, the human embryo is ordered
to existence Therefore, the human embryo has the right to be nurtured
towards gestation, and to be born. No human factor outside of it may
impede, frustrate, or undermine its path to existence. It is the duty of
human authority to accord it the right to be nurtured and be born. That is
why abortion, in any form, is a serious offense against humanity itself.
The celebrated case of the couple Becky and David Litowitz of
Seattle, called attention to the right to life of the human embryo, versus the
parents’ ‘right’ to decide whether or not to ”end the existence” a frozen
human embryo.
When Becky and David were still husband and wife, they entered
into a contract with a Fertility Center at Loma Linda University in California
to fertilize the ova of a woman donor with the sperms of David.
Unfortunately, Becky and David later procured a divorce. With their
separation, two of those embryos remained in a frozen state. Becky asked
that the embryos be destroyed, to which David objected. In the ensuing
decree of Divorce, the court appointed David as guardian ad litem of the
embryos, “in the interest of the child.” David’s lawyers saw this statement
as an implicit acknowledgement that the embryos are human beings.
"They don't appoint a 'guardian ad litem' for property," his lawyers pointed
out, because a piece of property doesn't have rights. Only humans do.
2. Inherent in the right to life is the right to health
and the right to the integrity of one’s body.
“The State shall protect consumers from . . . hazardous
products.” (Art. XVI, Sec. 9, Constitution)

7. 7
And—
“ . . . Shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people . . .” (Art. II, Sec. 15., Ibid.)
Let that be authentic health. May I invite you to examine the validity of some
definitions of “health” . The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health
as—
“A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being.”
9
Swedish health-policy analyst Lennart Nordenfelt defines
health as—
“a person’s ability, in standard circumstances, to reach
his vital goals” . . [which are]. necessary and sufficient for a
person’s minimal degree of happiness”.
In the 13th Congress, House Bill 817 defined “reproductive health” as—
“Sec. 4. The state of complete physical, mental and social well-
being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters
relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.
This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life . .
This further implies that women and men and that women and men attain
equal relationships in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction.”
As you might have observed, these definitions come close to identifying
“health” with human happiness. 10 You might ask: Is anything wrong with
that?
1st: No system of technical expertise based on a systemic
knowledge of natural (physical) causes can have human happiness
as its goal, because human happiness is not secured by modifying
the operation of natural causes. That is why a person who is healthy
is not necessarily happy. And vice versa—a person who is ill is not
necessarily unhappy
2nd: By the above definitions, health would then depend on an
individual’s ambitions, values, desired lifestyle or hierarchy of goals
which for him determine his level of minimal happiness. 11 What is
9
“On the Nature of Health, An Action-Theoretic approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer 1987, cited
by Luke Gormally in ISSUES FOR A CATHOLIC BIOETHIC, L. Gormally, (Ed.),
London:Linacre Denter, 1999, p.176.
10
Luke Gormally, “Medicine as a Profession and the Meaning of Health as its Goal”, ”,
Issues for a Catholic Bioethic, London: The Linacre Center, July 1997, p. 175.
11
L. Gormally, Ibid.

8. 8
to count as health for an individual will depend on that individual’s
personal or subjective goals. 12
3rd. In the real sense of the word, health simply refers to somatic
health. It is the well-ordered organic functioning of the body.
The right to bodily integrity forecloses the legality of sterilization
procedures.
3. It is in the nature of the human being to worship.
By the ordinary light of reason, a person can know that there is a
God, an all-powerful Being that orders the movement of everything in the
universe. It is then natural for man to worship that Being. This is human
nature. State authority cannot but acknowledge it. The Philippine
Constitution does this:
“The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference
shall forever be allowed.” (Art. II, Sec. 5, Constitution)
Again, this is a universal principle that applies to all humanity.
Acknowledging that “every human being is endowed with reason and
conscience”, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights further states that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom . . to
manifest his religion or belief in teachin , practice, worship and
observance,” (Article 18)
Should any public officer or employee, or private individual directly
obstruct, defeat, violate or in any manner impede or impair a person’s
freedom of religious belief, he shall be liable to the latter for damages.
(Art. 38, par. 1, New Civil Code)
Freedom of religious belief includes the right to act following one’s
religious belief 13 and the right to protection by the State in the exercise of
consciencious objection.
12
L. Gormally, Same.
Ebralinag et als., vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, G.R. No. 95770.
13
December 29, 1995.

9. 9
In the province of Biliran, a Memorandum was sent to a Barangay
Health Worker, who as a Catholic, had refused to distribute artificial
contraceptives because it was against her moral convictions. The
Memorandum reads:
   

Republic of the Philippines
Province of Biliran, Municipality of Naval
MUNICIPAL HEALTH OFFICE
July 22, 2005
Memorandum(Unnumbered)
TO: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
In order to protect the interest of public service, you are
hereby directed to explain within seventy two (72) hours from
receipt hereof as to why no administrative action shall be
taken against you for your insistent failure to render services
on artificial Family Planning. For proper compliance.
(SGD.) Esterlita I. Dela Peña
Public Health Nurse
Noted: (SGD.) GERARDO S. ESPINA, SR.
Municipal Mayor
In another case, a similar written threat of prosecution was conveyed
to a privately practicing Gynecologist who responded to the needs of
women in Bukidnon province who were suffering from pelvic infections
due to the intra uterine devices implanted by the public Health clinics
whose personnel refused to remove. As strongly pointed out in
Ebralinag14-
14
Ibid.

10. 10
“ Upholding religious freedom as a fundamental right
deserves the "highest priority and amplest protection among
human rights."
4. To marry and found a family.
This is a universal right:
“The spouses have the inalienable right to found a
family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number
of children to be born, taking into full consideration their duties
towards themselves, their children already born, the family
and society, in a just hierarchy of values and in accordance
with the objective moral order which excludes recourse to
contraception, sterilization and abortion.” (Art. 3, Charter of
the Rights of the Family)
“Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any
limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to
marry and to found a family. “ (Universal Declaration of
Human Rights)
In the Philippine Constitution--
“Sec. 3. The State shall defend:
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance
with their religious the demands of responsible
parenthood;” (Article XV, Constitution)
5. The inherent right to PROGENY.
A family is not a static, inorganic entity. After the “I do’s”,
marriage signifies life, and life signifies movement. Family itself is
progeny. This reality of nature excludes State intervention on family
size..
Marriage and family precedes the State, that is why can merely
acknowledge their existence.
“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and
shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution.” (Art. II, Sec. 12, Constitution)

11. 11
“The State recognizes the Filipino family as the
foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its
solidarity and actively promote its total development.” (Art. XV,
Sec. 1, Ibid.)
“Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.”
(Art. XV, Sec. 2, Ibid.)
State authority may not frustrate, diminish, control or restrict the exercise
of this right because it holds no such authority. By this token state-
imposed population control measures including forced sterilization are
human rights violations. Neither may the State legislate an ‘ideal family
size’ or institutionalize ‘contraceptive prevalence’ of 100% by Year 2015
as the Millennium Development Goals adopted by the Philippine
Government declares.
Inherent in the natural institution of marriage is the complementarity
of the male and female spouses. Hence, The State may not make laws
that change the heterosexual nature of marriage or accord legal status to
same-sex partners.
6. Parents have the inherent right to the upbringing
of their children.
As with other natural rights, the State is powerless not to
acknowledge this reality. Thus, the Constitution states:
“ . . . The natural right and duty of parents in the rearing
of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral
character shall receive the support of the Government.” (Art.
II, Sec. 12, Constitution)
As with other inherent human rights, this is universal.
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference
with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence . . .
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against
such interference of attacks.”

12. 12
In the Convention on the Rights of the Child:
“Article 5. State Parties shall respect the
responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where
applicable, the members of the extended family or community
as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other
persons legally responsible for the child.”
The International Conference on Population and Development
recognizes this inherent right of parents:
“11.24. Age-appropriate education, especially for
adolescents . . . taking into account the rights and
responsibilities of parents and the needs of adolescents . . .
should involve the active participation of parents and families.”
So does the Beijing Declaration:
“262. . . . Women and men need to work together
with children and youth to break down persistent gender
stereotypes, taking into account the rights of the child and the
responsibilities rights and duties of parents . . .”
7. The human person has the right to be protected
as a creator of wealth.
Man was infused with intellect and will. That is why unlike other
creatures, man is by nature goal-oriented. Among all of creation, man
alone thinks and dreams. He alone can ask the question “Why?” or “What
is the meaning and purpose of my life?” And because of the infinite
potential of human intelligence, man makes things happen. He is a mover.
He generates ideas which are the seeds of all human undertakings.
This makes every honorable human endeavor fruitful, i.e., capable of
generating material wealth. From this principle emanates the dignity and
value of human work and the infinite value of human work. That is why
we refer to people as human resource.
This is the generative and productive nature of every human person.
And every person has the right to be respected and valued for his human
potential.

13. 13
Economists like Carl Becker call it human capital. By whatever
name it is known, it can only mean one thing—that people are a nation’s
wealth. The Constitution recognizes this reality-
“The State affirms labor as a primary social economic
force. “ (Art. II, Sec. 18, Constitution)
Inherent human rights are inalienable.
In the American democratic tradition, it is said of natural
rights that--
“ . . . they exist before constitutions and independently
of them. Constitutions enumerate such rights and provide
against their deprivation or infringement, but do not create
them. It is supposed that all power, all rights and all authority
are vested in the people before they form or adopt a
constitution.
By such instrument, they create a government, and
define and limit the powers which the constitution is to secure
and the government respect. But they do not thereby invest
citizens of the commonwealth with any natural rights that they
did not before possess.” 15
As explained by our Supreme Court-
“While the constitution guarantees and protects the
fundamental rights of the people, it should be stressed that
it does not create them. As held by many of the American
Revolution patriots, ‘liberties do not result from charters;
charters rather are in the nature of declarations of pre-
exiting rights.’ John Adams, one of the patriots, claimed that
natural rights are founded ‘in the frame of human nature,
rooted in the constitution of the intellect and moral world.’”16
These are our natural rights, without which,
we cannot be human at all:
If we lose these, we lose our humanity.
We lose everything.
15
Ibid.
16
Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003.

14. 14
At this point of our discourse, I invite you to recall two cases.
In Roe v. Wade (1973), the United States Supreme Court spoke
about a "woman's right to not be inconvenienced" and recognized a "right
to privacy" of pregnant women. Today, the language has evolved into the
woman’s “right of control over one’s body,” which heralded the “right” to
abortion.
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the same Court acquitted two males
accused of the crime of Sodomy in Texas law, citing the two men’s “right to
privacy”.
In the previous Congresses, several bills sought to enshrine
“reproductive rights”.
I ask you: Can the State or human society create or accord new
‘human rights’ and use these to override the basic right to life? The State
can do it. But the question is: may the State or society do it? The answer
to the question why the State may not do it lies in the distinction between
Authentic Human Rights and Spurius ‘Rights’. The distinction is critical
because their non-recognition will constitute unequal treatment or
discrimination, whereas non-recognition of what is not a right can never
be discrimination.
Authentic rights are: Spurius ‘rights’ are:
1. Inherent in humanity; not created Contrived and ‘created’ to rationalize
by human authority. certain acts contrary to inherent
rights.
2. For the integral good of the Alien to human nature and
human person. inconsistent with it, they defile, hurt
or corrupt it.
3. Inalienable, hence, outside ‘Created by human authority, hence,
human authority may be denied or extinguished at
will.
4. Can only be acknowledged by ‘Created’ and acknowledged by
human authority. human authority
5. Demandable forbearances Not demandable because nothing is
against the rest of humanity by the

15. 15
bearer of rights. due.
6. At the service of the dignity and Degrade/deprave/destroy the
flourishing of the holder of the right. person demanding the ‘right’.
7. Edifie & dignify both the Destroy/degrade/ debase both the
possessor of the rights and the receiver and giver (or instrument) of
person who accords the rights. the ‘right’.
7. Serve the common good. Harm the community.
8. It will be unjust not to accord 9. There is no injustice or
them. discrimination by their non-
recognition
Counterfeit ‘rights’ being spurious, they are merely liberties that
harm.
Let me end this discourse by inviting you to join me in a brief self-
examination.
Every human being who values his existence is invited to profess
himself as being “pro-life.” What does it take to be truly pro-life?
First, a pro-life track is not a pastime. It is not a diversion, not a
let-me-try-it-once sort of thing which you write about as “What-I-Did-Last-
Summer”. There is no such thing as a pro-life dilettante.
Second, it is not a matter of wearing a pin on your lapel that says,
“Pro Life Ako”. A person does not display his convictions, he lives it,
breathes it, dreams about it. Eventually, he will exude it, like “the sweet
odor of Christ.” ”For where your heart is, there your treasure is too.” It is a
path.
Third, there can be no medium-rare pro-life advocate. This kind of
work is total and uncompromising. If you flip-flop on Truth, you will find
yourself brokering compromises. Eventually, what is true can become
false, and vice versa.
Fourth, you do not type the word “Pro-Lifer” into your Resumé.
Someone else gives you that title because you show it in your life and in
your words –this is the lithmus test—in the way you stubbornly speak out
for the unchangeable truths about human nature such as the undeniable
reality that the human embryo is truly human, a truth as real as the fact--

16. 16
as I am wont to add--that all members of Congress started their Honorable
existence as a human embryo.
Fifth, if you are truly pro-life, you are testifying in favor of no
malevolent agenda. Rather, you are openly a credible witness of the
case for humanity and its right to continue in this planet and be its steward,
not its captive.
Sixth, if you are authentically pro-life, you have no presumptions
about yourself having any power to amend life’s definitions. These
are already written into humanity’s heart with un-erasable ink. Where
others have attempted to define what sort of “thing” is the human embryo,
they have only managed to weave a convoluted twine about themselves.
It is like forcing a size 8 shirt over a size 14 torso.
Seventh, if you are an authentic defender of life, you stand on your
convictions fuelled by nothing personal—whether this be what your
Archbishop expects of you, or what image that will do for you in your next
High School Reunion—that sort of thing. Rather, you embraced the pro-
life agenda because you have freely said “Yes” to an irresistible
invitation that says, “Follow me.” (Matt. 4:19)
You then realize that you did not really choose to be pro-life. You
were hand-picked and called. Adopted, to be more accurate. And you
were prepared for this commissioning not today, not yesterday, not on
every opening of Congress, but even before you were conceived on Day
One.
Finally, if you answered the “call”, you might be tempted to harbor
lofty feelings about yourself. Don’t.
According to Fritz Tillman, a moral theologian, “when a man has
done his best, he may not delude himself into believing that he has
produced something out of the ordinary, something for which he can be
proud or boastful. After all, he has only performed his duty to God by
means of the gifts that God gave Him. . . . ‘We are unprofitable servants;
we have done what it was our duty to do.’ (Luke 17:10)”
For sure, it will not be easy , this pro-life response. There is another
condition attached to it, and this is the willingness to undergo sacrifices for
the sake of the great task enjoined. In Tillman’s words: “If someone puts
his hand to the plow and looks back, he is not fit for the kingdom of God

17. 17
(Luke 9:62). . . . The Saviour confronts man with a decision which allows
no hesitation or vacillation, but demands an unconditional assent.”
The Lord never watered down His demands. Remember when
some of Christ’s disciples could not accept his words to “eat His Body and
drink His Blood if they must have Life Eternal”? Christ allowed them to
leave when their faith proved too weak.
You are pro-life, but, can you take it?
Thank you all, and good day!
T T T