Support NeoGAF

[PantherLotus]

I'm pro-death, except in cases where it directly causes me pain. And then i'm pro-pain.

 

[Goldrush]

Even though I believe that abortion is immoral, I'm pro-choice. Simply, punishing a woman for having an abortion is absolutely unacceptable to me. Since I'm unwilling to criminalize the behavior, I do believe a system needs to be available that would provide safe place for abortion, especially considering alternative methods.

 

[LCGeek]

So you're against the death penalty, and the war in Iraq?

Why start there ask him how he feels about his country military complex policies and the CIA? Sanctity of life with those types is a crock and only applies understand certain circumstances.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm pro-death, except in cases where it directly causes me pain. And then i'm pro-pain.

Yeah, I'm pro-death too. Pro death-penalty (with sufficient safeguards), pro-choice, pro-doctor assisted suicide, let the families pull the plug on vegetables, etc.

The population is growing too much as is . . . no need to slow down those that wish to move along.

 

[White Man]

Yeah, I'm pro-death too. Pro death-penalty (with sufficient safeguards), pro-choice, pro-doctor assisted suicide, let the families pull the plug on vegetables, etc.

The population is growing too much as is . . . no need to slow down those that wish to move along.

I could be pro death penalty, but not the way it is implemented in the US. It's too costly and takes too long for it to have any sort of threat or effect. If the intended effect is to scare potential felons, the fact that it takes a decade of appeals before you may or may not die kills any chance of it being a deterrent. So, pro death penalty, anti US death penalty.

 

[rainking187]

Really? People here actually think they can enforce what women do with their own bodies? They're the ones who have to go through the pain of child birth and the costs and life-changing effects of raising a child. I don't give a flying fuck if a couple of cells could one day acheive sentience, it's like trying to enforce drug laws, prostitution laws you CAN NOT control what people do with their bodies.

Er...what? Drug laws and prostitution laws are enforced.

 

[wayward archer]

I don't think a woman who is raped or whose life is threatened by the pregnancy should have to carry it to term just because some people see this as a easy way out of being promiscuous.

I have no problem with banning second or third trimester abortions, but at the core of this argument all I see is the other side of this issue not necessarily wanting to protect the sanctity of life but wanting to promote abstinence by removing control women have over their own bodies in every circumstance imaginable (because to allow it in any circumstance keeps the foot in the door for the situations they are actually trying to prevent). The day after conception it's just a clump of cells. It doesn't have dreams or aspirations or fear of death or pain or have any thoughts at all for that matter. It can't exist outside of the woman. Biologically it's still very much a part of the woman at that point and I don't see the two as being different entities.

Anyone who would mandate that a woman potentially live in hell for the rest of her life because every single day after she was raped she is reminded of that experience by the changes pregnancy had on her body or by the emotional and physcial toil of being responsible for a living being forced upon her that was created out of that experience is the greater evil than anyone who advocates for abortion any time for any reason in my opinion. Some people are strong enough to go through that, sure, but not all of them are, and that's just cruel to do that to anyone who isn't.

That's all I have to say on this topic. I've debated this enough in my life to know that my position won't change without significant new evidence nor will I or anyone change the minds of most people who are for or against it.

 

[Feral Youth]

My mother had an abortion before I was born. If she didn't perhaps I wouldn't exist now.

Have to say I'm Pro-choice.

 

[Grug]

IMO, on a simple sliding scale of morality, the rights of the mother exceed the rights of a foetus.

Pro-choice.

I don't know enough medically to weigh into the trimester debate. Third trimester disturbs me. The mother needs to have made up their mind before that point.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Arguing over a bunch of cells in this day and age is retarded.

There is a definitely an argument for when the cut-off time should be, when the baby becomes what we'd consider a sentient being, then the argument changes. But until that point you aren't arguing over a life or a person in antyhing more than a vague religious sense.

Human beings make mistakes, unwanted pregnancies being quite a common one. Being able to correct mistakes, is something that makes human beings different. And the consequences of such a mistake on everyone involved, including possibly a completely shit life for the kid if the pregnancy went ahead, means sometimes the unpleasant choice is the correct one for all concerned.

To take away that choice is naive to say the least, and does more harm than good.

 

[Kipz]

Er...what? Drug laws and prostitution laws are enforced.

That was kind of my point. Look at how effective those have been. Yeah no drugs or prostitutes anywhere...
Edit: I guess the point I was trying to make is you can't control what a person does with their own body. If a woman wants to have an abortion instead of a safe setting they may take it into their own hands which has happened thousands of times in history and it's almost always dangerous to the mother.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Life ends when brain activity cease's.

Life begins when brain activity begins which is around the second trimester.

/end

Uninformed?

Are bacteria dead then? Or plants? Or are you talking about awareness and conciousness? Having brain activity is not a prerequisite for life.

 

[JayDubya]

Yay, responses. Sorry, fell asleep putting daughter to bed. Happens a lot.

Anyway... for all the fancy words JD uses... his sticking point is that;

it doesn't matter if blastose does not have sentience currently, it only matters that it can be achieved.

My point is that you're dealing with a living human being proceeding with normal physiological development.

Since you're dealing with a human being, and since a newborn is not keenly aware of its surroundings or capable of making any decisions, yet it is afforded with rights, the significant difference between the fetus and the newborn seems to be one of geography, such that the birth canal is a magical cave that bestows personhood as a reward for passage.

Someone that is "brain dead" has had an actively working brain and now it's gone kaputsky. It can't be repaired. GG NO RE.

What? And you mean let GOD judge people as opposed to "Judge, lest not ye be judged?" Too many people aren't above breaking that rule.

You're right. Let's not arrest anyone for anything. It's all in God's hands. Man, and people call me an anarchist.

Haven't you people learned ANYTHING!?

Topics like abortion and gay marriage are non issues that the politicians use to distract voters while we get FUTA with evil economic policy that only benefit the people who sponsored the election. The fucking economy is failing hard and you're still talking about this stupid bullshit. Fuck off.

Way to bring something to the discussion.

I imagine gay marriage is important to gays who want to be married.

I imagine abortion is important to fathers who had their kids killed by a hit man without their consent.

I imagine others can be sympathetic to these plights.

So right backatcha, chief.

 

[TheHeretic]

My point is that you're dealing with a living human being proceeding with normal physiological development.

Since you're dealing with a human being, and since a newborn is not keenly aware of its surroundings or capable of making any decisions, yet it is afforded with rights, the significant difference between the fetus and the newborn seems to be one of geography, such that the birth canal is a magical cave that bestows personhood as a reward for passage.

Someone that is "brain dead" has had an actively working brain and now it's gone kaputsky. It can't be repaired. GG NO RE.

Before a child is born it is incapable of sustaining itself, and hence cannot be considered separate from the mother.

 

[JayDubya]

Really? People here actually think they can enforce what women do with their own bodies? They're the ones who have to go through the pain of child birth and the costs and life-changing effects of raising a child. I don't give a flying fuck if a couple of cells could one day acheive sentience, it's like trying to enforce drug laws, prostitution laws you CAN NOT control what people do with their bodies.

Again, what people do with their own bodies is not the concern. Saying it is at this point is a straw man.

The issue the abolitionist camp holds dear is the aggressive and violent destruction of a body not your own.

...
I'm about to go aggressive homicide on your ass.

If this is all you've got to offer, kindly GTFO.

It's obvious from your confrontational nature down to the semantics of terms like "murder" means this thread is nothing more than a battlefront for you to confront non-believers, and not a discussion.

I believe I shut down the use of the term "murder," actually.

Yes, it's obvious we can have a polite discussion. You've provided quite a bit of evidence right there.

If it's such a slippery slope and it's already happened where are the repercussions? Really, I'd like to know, because we've had abortion for hundreds of years.

The logic of Freakonomics is a slippery slope.

What else is subject to "slippery slope" logic? Things like Women's rights, I would guess, and the control they have over their own body.

See above.

There's not any "THIS MEANS IT'S LIFE", or this argument wouldn't exist to start with. It's a developing life form, but it is not a full life form at fertilization. We could make the argument that it is merely an incomplete life form in an unfertilized state, and that a woman allowing herself to have her period and the expulsion of ovum is wreckless abandonment and unintentional homicide.

You know what else's a life form in constant development and flux? Everything from zygote to doddering old man. What's a "full" life form and why does "fullness" mean this gets rights and that can be thrown out in the garbage.

Abortion is going to happen regardless at the end of the day. Why make it dangerous for women who see it as a neccesity (because abortion is not a light decision)? The legal system isn't exactly in shape to start cracking down on "crimes" like this.

Because it's aggressive homicide. It's unjust. Taking innocent human lives is an action that warrants punishment. Killers should be locked up so they cannot do it again, for the safety of others.

Also, as I said above, there is a black market for child porn. I do not support the legality of child porn by virtue of the fact that there is a black market. Since that is the case, why do you feel this virtually-the-same-argument is compelling under these circumstances but not those.

This leads to a situation where abortion is available only to the upper classes of society, and poor people are unable to get abortions. Are you really comfortable with that?

Not sure how you figure that, but hopefully it means that those of you who want to consider some living human beings to be subhuman property to kindly leave my state. I can be angry about what they do in Mexico, but I don't legally get to have a say in it. With a true federalist system, like we're supposed to have, it should be like that with say, Louisiana.

 

[jakershaker]

The only good thing about discussing this is the reminder that pro-life people will never win. Abortion has always been an option and it always will be regardless of what some vocal misinformed wackos think. And science is never kind to those basing their decisions on faith instead of knowledge.

But in the end the decision is made by the woman. Not by anyone else.

The rest of the discussion is only about rationalizing someones opinion about this individual act, an opinion that ultimately is ignored by the one making the decision. When someone has decided to get an abortion they don't give a shit about people discussing when life begins, they've already made up their mind on a more sane basis.

 

[JayDubya]

Yeah, I'm pro-death too. Pro death-penalty (with sufficient safeguards), pro-choice, pro-doctor assisted suicide, let the families pull the plug on vegetables, etc.

Anti death penalty. Anti abortion. Anti PAS. (A physicians job is not to kill! It violates all the classical oaths of the profession!)

Nothing wrong with removing life support from the brain dead (removing a positive != adding a negative).

The population is growing too much as is . . . no need to slow down those that wish to move along.

A malthusian, pro-death penalty libertarian. Huh.

I don't think a woman who is raped or whose life is threatened by the pregnancy should have to carry it to term just because some people see this as a easy way out of being promiscuous.

That's not the rationale, though. The rationale is that while rape is a vile crime, justice is not served by killing an innocent, tangential third party that is incapable of aggression.

Anyone who would mandate that a woman potentially live in hell for the rest of her life because every single day after she was raped she is reminded of that experience by the changes pregnancy had on her body or by the emotional and physcial toil of being responsible for a living being forced upon her that was created out of that experience is the greater evil than anyone who advocates for abortion any time for any reason in my opinion. Some people are strong enough to go through that, sure, but not all of them are, and that's just cruel to do that to anyone who isn't.

While we're stating opinions, you simply compound the evil of the rape by bringing execution for the sins of the father into it.

 

[TheHeretic]

That's not the rationale, though. The rationale is that while rape is a vile crime, justice is not served by killing an innocent, tangential third party that is incapable of aggression.

Science doesn't support your claim that a fetus is a third party in the least.

 

[JayDubya]

Abortion has always been an option and it always will be regardless of what some vocal misinformed wackos think.

Uhhh. Pre-Roe, it wasn't a legal option here. So it hasn't always / always will be.

When someone has decided to get an abortion they don't give a shit about people discussing when life begins, they've already made up their mind on a more sane basis.

Sane? I can understand the rationality of promoting one's own self-interest, but when doing so in a manner that is aggressive, selfish, and destructive, violating the rights of others, sane might be one word for it, but that sanity should only pertain to a later trial.

 

[JayDubya]

Science doesn't support your claim that a fetus is a third party in the least.

"Science" - as some apparent monolithic entity - is agnostic to law and politics. The presence or absence of a third party in legal terms is not something "science" can determine, even if you ask it, because that "variable" is "user-defined."

Knowledge of science should inform such things, however. At present, it does not. As I have already pointed out, my argument is informed by my knowledge of biology, not made in spite of it, or made because of any belief in deities or souls.

Textbook biological / embryological science has an answer for what is alive and what is not. We can know what is biologically human and what is not. We know the difference between an entire organism and a part of an organism (some tissue, a single organ, whatever).

The abortion debate is about what's "really" alive, which "Science" doesn't have an answer for, because the question doesn't even rationally compute within the realm of scientific fact.

 

[TheHeretic]

"Science" is agnostic to law and politics. The presence or absence of a third party in legal terms is not something the monolithic entity known as "science" can determine, even if you ask it, because that "variable" is "user-defined."

Knowledge of science should inform such things, however. At present, it does not. As I have already pointed out, my argument is informed by my knowledge of biology, not made in spite of it, or made because of any belief in deities or souls.

Textbook biological science has an answer for what is alive and what is not.

The abortion debate is about what's "really" alive, which "Science" doesn't have an answer for, because the question doesn't even rationally compute.

The abortion debate is not about whether or not a fetus is alive because thats a stupid question.

You continually refer to the fetus as a third party, this isn't true. You can also stop appealing to authority, it makes you look like an idiot.

 

[JayDubya]

The abortion debate is not about whether or not a fetus is alive because thats a stupid question.

You continually refer to the fetus as a third party, this isn't true. You can also stop appealing to authority, it makes you look like an idiot.

"Appealing to authority" would be to state that Person X / Group Y says so, and because X / Y is virtuous in some way, we can leave it at that.

So I'm not even sure what your criticism is.

Generally, I've seen appeals to authority enter into such discussions before, but they usually take one of two types.

The less-than-rational pro-life person: God / The Bible says so!
The less-than-rational pro-choice person: The Supreme Court / Justice Blackmun says so!

In the former case, despite agreeing with you, I don't believe in the divinity of your book, so pick a better basis for your rhetoric.

In the latter case, politicians / political appointees are often wrong, and simply by virtue of holding office, that does not make them right / smarter / better, it just means that they - fortunately or unfortunately - get to wield their opinions. See Bush, G.W.

 

[Zoe]

Not sure how you figure that, but hopefully it means that those of you who want to consider some living human beings to be subhuman property to kindly leave my state.

You don't see how the upper class is more capable of choosing where they live?

 

[mandiller]

Abortion should be legal.

If you don't support abortion then don't get an abortion; if you do support abortion then get an abortion if you so choose.

Don't bother anyone else about it.

Smartest thing here.

 

[TheHeretic]

"Appealing to authority" would be to state that x says so, and because x is virtuous in some way, we can leave it at that.

So I'm not even sure what your criticism is.

My criticism is stop telling me about how great your biology knowledge is when you can't even identify the difference between an independent being and a parasite living in a commensal relationship.

 

[Count Dookkake]

All this bickering...

Just cut it out.

 

[JayDubya]

My criticism is stop telling me about how great your biology knowledge is when you can't even identify the difference between an independent being and a parasite living in a commensal relationship.

May I just take a moment to note how absurdly fucking warped it is to call a human child a parasite? I guess I just did anyway.

Incidentally, not to keep citing biological knowledge or anything, but if you think you're scoring points with this sort of thing, try again: a parasite is a member of one species that preys upon members of another species.

 

[TheHeretic]

May I just take a moment to note how absurdly fucking warped it is to call a human child a parasite?

Done.

Incidentally, not to keep citing biological knowledge or anything, but if you think you're scoring points with this sort of thing, try again: a parasite is a member of one species that preys upon members of another species.

A parasite doesn't have to prey on its host, and I did use the word commensal for a reason. Whilst it varies from definition to definition its an appropriate term to describe the utter dependency a fetus has on its mother.

I didn't call a human child a parasite, because a fetus isn't a human child.

 

[numble]

Incidentally, not to keep citing biological knowledge or anything, but if you think you're scoring points with this sort of thing, try again: a parasite is a member of one species that preys upon members of another species.

Intra-species parasitism does occur.

Please see: Hughes, J.M. 1996. Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus) In The Birds of North America, No. 244. (A. Pool and F. Gill. eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

 

[JayDubya]

Intra-species parasitism does occur.

Please see: Hughes, J.M. 1996. Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus) In The Birds of North America, No. 244. (A. Pool and F. Gill. eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Since it's doubtful I have any access to a database that includes The Birds of North America, if it's a PDF, highlight and copy the relevant text.

From what I've seen when that term is used, it's referring to competition for resources, and there's a word for that that isn't parasitism.

Wiki seems to refer to the relevant behavior I'm talking about as "kleptoparasitism," and I'm sure everyone here can guess :lol what that entails.

 

[TheHeretic]

Since it's doubtful I have any access to a database that includes The Birds of North America, if it's a PDF, highlight and copy the relevant text.

From what I've seen when that term is used, it's referring to competition for resources, and there's a word for that that isn't parasitism.

Instead of arguing semantics why don't you actually try debating whats important, the point. How is pointing out theres another word of any relevance to this discussion. I already admitted the use of the word parasite can change depending on the definition.

 

[JayDubya]

Instead of arguing semantics why don't you actually try debating whats important, the point. How is pointing out theres another word of any relevance to this discussion. I already admitted the use of the word parasite can change depending on the definition.

Since your point in that post seemed to lie with attempting to disparage me as any kind of authority on science (and I don't believe I've appealed to my own authority or stated I'm an "expert" by any means, I've simply cited my own logic and appealed to the musty old textbooks at my side as needed) by your use of the term "parasite," as if me trying to protect some parasite makes me stupid because it's a parasite, debating your point is unfortunately all wrapped up in debating your wording.

Of course, that level of semantics can be tiresome even to me, so if you wish to restate or make a different point, or simply wait for someone else to do the same, I wouldn't blame you, and would probably thank you. :lol

 

[numble]

Since it's doubtful I have any access to a database that includes The Birds of North America, if it's a PDF, highlight and copy the relevant text.

From what I've seen when that term is used, it's referring to competition for resources, and there's a word for that that isn't parasitism.

It's a book, and I'm not gonna go borrowing it and scanning the relevant sections for you.

It refers to members of the same species laying eggs in another individual's clutch, forcing that individual to care for the egg and raise the hatchling.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm not reading this whole thread, but if you an anti-choice male, you're a douche.


Why don't you all go hold hands outside the cemetary?

 

[TheHeretic]

Since your point in that post seemed to lie with attempting to disparage me as any kind of authority on science (and I don't believe I've appealed to my own authority or stated I'm an "expert" by any means, I've simply cited my own logic and appealed to the musty old textbooks at my side as needed) by your use of the term "parasite," as if me trying to protect some parasite makes me stupid because it's a parasite, debating your point is unfortunately all wrapped up in debating your wording.

My point was a fetus is not a third party because of its dependency on its host (i've said this, and you've ignored this and decided to argue with everything else, multiple times). I don't need to remove you as an authority on science because what you are claiming is blatantly wrong, whether you are a professor of physics or if you sell cars for a living.

The negative connotation of the word parasite is also yours and yours alone. A parasite by my definition simply survives by taking resources from its host. You are the one trying to bring some moral high ground into the treatment of an entity that cannot survive on its own. Because it cannot survive on its own, it is the mothers. The mother decide whether she wants to keep it.

And whatever you decide to believe in on the issue is completely irrelevant. Women will keep on having abortions and the majority of people in my country believe they should have the right to do so. The zeitgeist has moved in the last century and its now pro abortion.

Having a child is a big decision that should be made by consenting adults, not imposed on them by some babbling "expert" who talks as if he has discovered all the answers to all the great social questions throughout history, and is obliged to shed that wisdom upon us.

 

[Grug]

If conservatives/fundys etc are so pro-life, why don't they decrease the number of abortions taking place by putting ALL their efforts into offering real alternatives and support networks.

I guess its easier to just tell the poor, confused woman that they will burn in hell.

 

[JayDubya]

I'm not reading this whole thread, but if you an anti-choice male, you're a douche.

Why don't you all go hold hands outside the cemetary?

(neutral) DevelopmentArrested
Banned
(Yesterday, 09:05 PM)
Reply | Quote

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13184111&postcount=124

 

[Grug]

Why don't you all go hold hands outside the cemetary?

Make sure you credit Bill Hicks for that one. :lol

 

[JayDubya]

My point was a fetus is not a third party because of its dependency on its host.

In that case, the parasite statement is a non issue, and you're simply wrong because dependency does not preclude a human being from being a third party.

It makes them a minor.

 

[TheHeretic]

In that case, the parasite statement is a non issue, and you're simply wrong because dependency does not preclude someone from being a third party.

It makes them a minor.

A minor is not biologically dependent on its mother. A fetus is.

Your vast, vast knowledge on the issue and your pile of textbooks once again pays off.

 

[Vennt]

You two need to realise that you are at an inevitable impasse. Neither will change the opinion of the other, neither is right or wrong, just different and equally valid points of view. Banging on the same thing is just going to cause you to get heated, and we know where that ends.

 

[Grug]

In that case, the parasite statement is a non issue, and you're simply wrong because dependency does not preclude someone from being a third party.

It makes them a minor.

Its sad that such a shade of grey issue such as abortion is put down to semantics like this. People are wasting their time trying to pin down some ideological imperative or universal value that leads to some overall definitive and unchallengable conclusion.

It detracts from the real important factors in the debate, such as the ridiculous notion that government/legislators are best equipped to deal with such a highly personal and subjective issue.

 

[TheHeretic]

You two need to realise that you are at an inevitable impasse. Neither will change the opinion of the other, neither is right or wrong, just different and equally valid points of view. Banging on the same thing is just going to cause you to get heated, and we know where that ends.

No, because the outcomes of our perspectives are completely different. Pro abortionists aren't forcing people to have abortions. Anti abortionists are taking away a womans right to have an abortion.

He is imposing his personal perspective on others, i'm not. If you concede I have a valid viewpoint then you concede the only right path is giving people the option to have an abortion.

 

[JayDubya]

No, because the outcomes of our perspectives are completely different. Pro abortionists aren't forcing people to have abortions. Anti abortionists are taking away a womans right to have an abortion.

Then why was everyone so up in arms before the Civil War?

Slave owners and people that supported the owning of slaves as a way of life weren't forcing others to buy slaves. Abolitionists tried to take away the property rights of plantation owners.

How dare they impose their personal morality on others?

 

[timmy]

If you don't believe in abortions don't have one, its simple.

Don't force your morality on other people.

I'm pro-choice and always have been, but I find this logic to be counter-productive at best. Most people who are pro-life hold those beliefs because they see abortion as a fundamentally moral issue. To them, your statement is no different than saying "If you don't believe in murder, don't kill anyone."

 

[TheHeretic]

Then why was everyone so up in arms before the Civil War?

Slave owners and people that supported the owning of slaves as a way of life weren't forcing others to buy slaves. Abolitionists tried to take away the property rights of plantation owners.

How dare they impose their personal morality on others?

One is a morally ambiguous issue, the other isn't. And you actually accuse others of using a strawman?

 

[Jaffaboy]

If conservatives/fundys etc are so pro-life, why don't they decrease the number of abortions taking place by putting ALL their efforts into offering real alternatives and support networks.

I guess its easier to just tell the poor, confused woman that they will burn in hell.

This.

 

[timmy]

Nothing wrong with removing life support from the brain dead (removing a positive != adding a negative).

It's interesting to me to hear you say this. I personally don't believe that all killings can be so neatly separated into these two categories.

 

[JayDubya]

One is a morally ambiguous issue, the other isn't. And you actually accuse others of using a strawman?

What straw man? Both situations are human rights abuses. Both situations are fundamentally similar.

If whether or not something is right or wrong is simply a matter of whether the majority of people in a geographic region consider it to be "morally ambiguous," slavery was not considered morally ambiguous at all, but very clear cut, and quite appropriate. Slaves weren't people, afterall, so why not use a valuable natural resource?

 

[TheHeretic]

What straw man? Both situations are human rights abuses. Both situations are fundamentally similar.

No, they aren't. And they aren't by definition because there is no clear answer as to when a fetus becomes a person protected by law.

If whether or not something is right or wrong is simply a matter of whether the majority of people in a geographic region consider it to be "morally ambiguous," slavery was not considered morally ambiguous at all, but very clear cut, and quite appropriate. Slaves weren't people, afterall, so why not use a valuable natural resource?

Thats exactly what every law is. There is no absolute right and wrong, simply what we perceive. The rights of ethnic groups and women have increased dramatically over the last hundred years, and yet abortions (supposedly murder) have also become more acceptable. I wonder why that is?