@booinyoureyes But in less extreme cases don't they take the child into custody, thereby waving the duty.
The state takes custody when there is a willing parent who is unfit. It does not waive the duty of support when the child is in your care. Regardless, this is a road to nowhere; no one can take custody of a child before parturition.
The right of the mother to her bodily integrity is matters. A lot.
I agree that it matters a lot, but on the balance, when looking at competing goods, protecting innocent life is far more important.
So would you be ok with mandatory kidney donations for people who still have two of them, if there is someone out there who really needs the kidney?
No one has the right to force another to take an affirmative act to save another's life. But that is not factually analogous to abortion, which is an affirmative act to end someone's life.
But it is not an act to end someone's (by the way, I reject the notion that a three month old fetus is a something, but this does not matter here) life. What it does it sever the fetus from the connection to the potential mother. The fetus may not survive without that connection, but this is a consequence of the action not the direct result.
If you want to have a more direct but not practically likely comparison, assume the following. X has kidney failure and Y rigs up a connection between the blood stream of X and Z so that Z performs kidney function for both X and Z. Does Z have a moral duty to remain bound forever to X, because X will die otherwise? I do not think so.
@booinyoureyes The point is this duty of support is not absolute.
The duty to support exists as long as you have custody. It is physically impossible for anyone other than the pregnant woman to have custody of a child before parturition.
He did get due process. Its the same procedure any member of the FBI gets.
I honestly believe that if any other law enforcement official lied under oath (say, about the killing of an unarmed black man) every single person on this thread would call for his firing. It's odd that people are so supportive here.
Sessions quoted "lack of candor", not lying under oath. It is ultimately not possible to decide at this point whether the firing was justified or not, as the report from the IG is not publicly available (last I checked). We do not even have the full recommendations of the report.
Some other points:
There is evidence that he was targeted by Trump for personal/political reasons (see the tweet from about half a year ago, where Trump already implied that he would try to get him fired before getting his pension)
Being fired by Sessions for "lack of candor" is a joke, given that he basically committed perjury during his confirmation hearing
The president is gloating in such a way that the entire process is tainted beyond repair
Doing it two days before retirement just seems very petty
The report was rushed, according to all accounts
Those are enough reasons to be upset. There is no faith that the process was above board, nor should there be.
I'm actually a regular reader of lawfare and actually got most of my information here from the same article you shared. I agree that we don't know for sure if the firing was justified, but almost everything we know at this point certainly indicates that the firing was not wrongful.
The difference between lying under oath and lacking candor under oath is minimal. When someone asks you a question and you evade it, you may well be lying by omission.
I think the most telling part is "So while Sessions made the decision to dismiss McCabe, career officials or otherwise independent actors were involved in conducting the investigation into the deputy director and recommending his dismissal on multiple levels."
You'd expect career officials to have the back of one of their own, as you see with the "blue wall of silence" in almost every law enforcement agency. The fact that they recommended his dismissal speaks volumes.
I don't see how the president gloating makes the process tainted. Unless you can show that he had a hand in it, then there is nothing there. Sessions and Trump may well be scoundrels, but that doesn't mean McCabe has clean hands. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
It taints the process because he and Sessions have the capability to make the professional life of everyone involved very difficult, so if he indicates what he wants it is clearly troubling.
Clearly, what we disagree on is how likely it is that the process was above board. My current opinion is 1/4 that the dismissal was justified; 1/4 that it was justified to dismiss him, but not to strip him of his pension (i.e. leave him suspended with pay for two more days) and 1/2 that it was driven mainly by political pressure.
EDIT: As for lack of candor, the difference to lying is that it much more subjective. I.e. was it lack of candor that the FBI did not publicize the investigation into the attempts by Russia to infiltrate the Trump campaign before the election, or would doing so have been seen as an attempt to unduly influence the election?
The right of the mother to her bodily integrity is matters. A lot.
I agree that it matters a lot, but on the balance, when looking at competing goods, protecting innocent life is far more important.
So would you be ok with mandatory kidney donations for people who still have two of them, if there is someone out there who really needs the kidney?
No one has the right to force another to take an affirmative act to save another's life. But that is not factually analogous to abortion, which is an affirmative act to end someone's life.
But it is not an act to end someone's (by the way, I reject the notion that a three month old fetus is a something, but this does not matter here) life. What it does it sever the fetus from the connection to the potential mother. The fetus may not survive without that connection, but this is a consequence of the action not the direct result.
It is an affirmative act to end someone's life, because inaction involves the child surviving.
Keep in mind the pregnant woman is the only person who could provide sustenance for the child, and therefore the death is a guarantee. It is an affirmative act the same way it would be if you lock a baby in a fortress, refuse to feed it, and prevent any others from entering to fulfill that role.
If you want to have a more direct but not practically likely comparison, assume the following. X has kidney failure and Y rigs up a connection between the blood stream of X and Z so that Z performs kidney function for both X and Z. Does Z have a moral duty to remain bound forever to X, because X will die otherwise? I do not think so.
The right to life is the right not to be killed, not the right to extraordinary life saving measures. Again, abortion is an affirmative act killing the child. It goes to great lengths to the purpose of killing a child that would otherwise survive should nature take its course. On the other hand, should nature take its course in this contrived analogy, X would not.
The contrived analogy also has another shortcoming. Again, the key difference here is that the pregnant woman is the only person who can provide sustenance for the child for that duration. If a warden refuses to provide food for his prisoners, is he not committing murder? This is the same distinction from the classic "Violinist" abortion argument.
Finally (and this is a side-note, and certainly not ) unlike abortion, in the contrived analogy Z is bound forever. In abortion, the maximum period is 9 months and change, and then the child can be put up for adoption. Now I'm not sure how lengthy an obligation must be to outweigh the value of human life, but certainly 9 months and an eternity are not equivalents.
I think these are all fine arguments to make to a person considering abortion, but not compelling at all in order to legislate taking away the choice of the mother to decide what happens with or in her body.
I think these are all fine arguments to make to a person considering abortion, but not compelling at all in order to legislate taking away the choice of the mother to decide what happens with or in her body.
The state has an interest in protecting life, and I'm sure you'd happily acknowledge that in every other context.
I think these are all fine arguments to make to a person considering abortion, but not compelling at all in order to legislate taking away the choice of the mother to decide what happens with or in her body.
The state has an interest in protecting life, and I'm sure you'd happily acknowledge that in every other context.
While the pregnancy lasts 9 months, there is life-long physical impact, usually mild to moderate, but with an absolutely non-negligible chance of severe impact, including death. If we are specific to the US there are also very substantial costs for the delivery, much higher if more medical intervention (i.e. caesarian) are required.
Again, I disagree with it being an affirmative act to kill. The affirmative act is to remove it from residency, with death being a consequence of this. The intent is not to kill; the intent is to remove the fetus from the mother. If you disagree with this, then there are larger problems in society to solve first, i.e. getting everyone access to medical treatment and make certain that everyone has shelter from the elements.
Your prison warder analogy is at least as flawed as mine. First off, the prisoner is already a full sentient human being. Secondly, the prison warder having to provide food is not an undue burden. He is getting paid for it, and he gets to go home every day. Same with coma patients; the key difference you yourself point out is that the burden can be socialized and not put on the shoulders of one particular individual.
Expecting the prison warder to go the job is reasonable, as long as he can quit. But if you phone me and tell me that there is a prisoner 300 km away, who is not getting food and expecting me to drive there every day to bring him food, without me getting paid for my time or even the food, it is a different story. And the same is true if it is a baby and not a prisoner. Since the woman is the one who shoulders all the burden, it is up to her to accept it or not. Only once society can take over the burden of pregnancy, does it get a right to tell her what to do.
And that is also the reason why a fetus can be aborted, but a newborn can not be killed. Once it is a newborn, society can make certain it can be adopted or in the worst case, put in the care of professionals.
There are basically three ways of how you can negatively impact another with an action
1. Deliberately, where it is the primary direct purpose of the action 2. Implicitly, where it is not the primary direct purpose, but you know it will have negative consequences 3. Negligible, where it was not the primary purpose, nor foreseen. You could further differentiate by whether how easy it would have been to avoid, but this category does not matter for this discussion.
Murder is clearly in category 1. Abortion is in category 2, as is denying someone medical treatment because he can't pay or evicting someone for not being able to pay his rent. Self-defense and evicting tenants from your property are also in this category.
So is driving recklessly. Society should always prohibit category 1 actions. Category 2 should be allowed, if and only if the primary purpose is the exercise of your fundamental rights. This includes defense of life, property and bodily integrity. Note that in the US it even includes even saving a negligible amount of time/money, i.e. you do not even have to call an ambulance if you see someone dying on the street. I personally disagree with the last example.
For my first analogy, how about if you know X will get a kidney transplant in 9 months?
Finally, let me note that the entire post was written under the assumption that the fetus has comparable value to a person in the legal sense, which I do not agree with. But my point is that even when I assume it is the case, I still do not think that we have the right to tell the pregnant woman what to do.
@booinyoureyes I think the state does have an interest in protecting life - I'm not aware of any legal system which allows murder for instance. As with all things though that interest has limits to it. You can see the competing issues in lots of areas of law, not just abortion, e.g. - suicide. That's generally not a crime in Western democracies now, though in historic terms that's a fairly recent change. I think that reflects some reduction in religious influence and a general increase in the importance given to the rights of the individual to make their own choices. - assisted suicide. I would say the law in this area in many countries is currently going through the same process that applied to the law on suicide 2 or 3 generations ago. The same issues about the sanctity of life vs individual choice are being played out again, though there is the additional factor now about the need to build in appropriate protections against people being bullied into choosing an assisted suicide. - rescues. Someone referred to the fact a bit earlier that in some jurisdictions you are required to render assistance to others (though there are likely to be limits on that as well). - drug licensing. Most drugs have side effects and in some cases those can be potentially fatal. When licensing a drug authorities have to weigh up the potential risks and benefits. Protecting life is weighed heavily in this balance - so a drug that has a small chance of fatal complications, but is very effective in relieving stomach ache is unlikely to be licensed (while a dangerous drug that helped late-stage cancer sufferers probably would be).
I'll also note in relation to abortion though that by no means everyone accepts that abortion does equate to taking human life (that's the case even among religious groups, though that might not be obvious given the prominence given to certain fundamentalist views in the debate). That's effectively the basis for the law in many countries linking the stage of pregnancy to the ability to choose an abortion.
Again, I disagree with it being an affirmative act to kill. The affirmative act is to remove it from residency, with death being a consequence of this. The intent is not to kill; the intent is to remove the fetus from the mother.
It is an affirmative act to kill when death is the inevitable result of the action.
Your three ways of how you can negatively impact another with an action overvalues the moral significance of primary purpose and ignores the whether someone is cognizant of the consequences of their actions. If someone severs my head from my body, it is an inevitability that I will die, regardless of the primary reason for their action.
Also, even if I was to accept your three ways of how you can negatively impact a person you are incorrect when you say that category 2 is allowed in defense of life, property and bodily integrity.
Legally, I am not allowed to kill a pickpocket to prevent the theft of my wallet, or use lethal force to prevent someone from violating my bodily integrity by tickling my toes. The moral underpinning is proportionality. You can use lethal force in response to a threat of serious bodily harm or death.
There is no proportional response in an elective abortion situation. This is why I, like many pro lifers, believe it is necessary to distinguish elective abortion (which I see as an act of violence) from medically necessary abortion (which is justifiable under self-defense theory).
Your prison warder analogy is at least as flawed as mine. First off, the prisoner is already a full sentient human being. Secondly, the prison warder having to provide food is not an undue burden. He is getting paid for it, and he gets to go home every day. Same with coma patients; the key difference you yourself point out is that the burden can be socialized and not put on the shoulders of one particular individual.
To answer both, 1. Based on your last paragraph, I thought you were assuming arguendo that the child had moral relevance? 2. While pregnancy is certainly a burden, I don't think anyone would say that voluntary pregnancy is an undue burden. Pregnancy as a result of rape may be a different scenario, but we can discuss that as well.
If you disagree with this, then there are larger problems in society to solve first, i.e. getting everyone access to medical treatment and make certain that everyone has shelter from the elements.
That is incorrect. It would be an affirmative act to take away someone's access to medical treatment and shelter.
Hey @Ammar thank you for the thoughtful responses. Unfortunately I have to get some work done so I can't respond to your next post in a timely manner, but I will get back to it. I also owe @Grond0 a response on constitutional interpretation!
@booinyoureyes I think the state does have an interest in protecting life - I'm not aware of any legal system which allows murder for instance. As with all things though that interest has limits to it. You can see the competing issues in lots of areas of law, not just abortion, e.g. - suicide. That's generally not a crime in Western democracies now, though in historic terms that's a fairly recent change. I think that reflects some reduction in religious influence and a general increase in the importance given to the rights of the individual to make their own choices. - assisted suicide. I would say the law in this area in many countries is currently going through the same process that applied to the law on suicide 2 or 3 generations ago. The same issues about the sanctity of life vs individual choice are being played out again, though there is the additional factor now about the need to build in appropriate protections against people being bullied into choosing an assisted suicide. - rescues. Someone referred to the fact a bit earlier that in some jurisdictions you are required to render assistance to others (though there are likely to be limits on that as well). - drug licensing. Most drugs have side effects and in some cases those can be potentially fatal. When licensing a drug authorities have to weigh up the potential risks and benefits. Protecting life is weighed heavily in this balance - so a drug that has a small chance of fatal complications, but is very effective in relieving stomach ache is unlikely to be licensed (while a dangerous drug that helped late-stage cancer sufferers probably would be).
I'll also note in relation to abortion though that by no means everyone accepts that abortion does equate to taking human life (that's the case even among religious groups, though that might not be obvious given the prominence given to certain fundamentalist views in the debate). That's effectively the basis for the law in many countries linking the stage of pregnancy to the ability to choose an abortion.
Hey sorry I can't respond in full now (and I owe you a response on legal interpretation from before) since i have to go do work (boo!) but I do want to point out that I corrected myself in my next post by saying the state has an obligation to prevent violence rather than simply protect life. Even in that realm there are levels of generality, and exceptions, so your point is taken. The question is whether elective abortion is a justifiable exception to the state's duty to prevent violence, to which I would answer "no".
What is going to be the criminal punishment for women who get abortions?? How long before miscarriages get criminalized as well by overzealous religious prosecutors who don't believe it was a miscarriage or that it was self-induced?? And as far as I'm aware, the Republican Party platform is still officially NO exceptions for the life of the mother.
What is going to be the criminal punishment for women who get abortions?? How long before miscarriages get criminalized as well by overzealous religious prosecutors who don't believe it was a miscarriage or that it was self-induced?? And as far as I'm aware, the Republican Party platform is still officially NO exceptions for the life of the mother.
1. Prosecuting the doctor is the more effective (and really, the more socially acceptable) method of vanning abortion. 2. The same can be said about the investiagtion into any death 3. 3. I am not the Republican Party platform...
To answer both, 1. Based on your last paragraph, I thought you were assuming arguendo that the child had moral relevance? 2. While pregnancy is certainly a burden, I don't think anyone would say that voluntary pregnancy is an undue burden. Pregnancy as a result of rape may be a different scenario, but we can discuss that as well.
I don't think people are considering abortion if the pregnancy is voluntary. Rape is not the only scenario for involuntary pregnancy. For example, a simple case of unlucky failure of contraception.
Prenancy is a natural risk of sex. Contraceptives are not perfect. If you are willing to perform the act, you should be held acountable for the consequeces. Nobody bats an eye at people being responsible for literally anything else they may do.
Just gonna throw this out there, the argument that life begins at fertilization appears to be the more or less accepted position by embryology. I don't know of any conflicting scientific source on this.
Just gonna throw this out there, the argument that life begins at fertilization appears to be the more or less accepted position by embryology. I don't know of any conflicting scientific source on this.
Just gonna throw this out there, the argument that life begins at fertilization appears to be the more or less accepted position by embryology. I don't know of any conflicting scientific source on this.
Life definitely begins at conception. Personhood is less clearly defined, though, and we don't have a means of detecting the creation of a soul.
Fun fact: most conceptions spontaneously terminate very early on, before the woman even realizes it's happened. Most such fetuses are automatically aborted within a matter of days, simply because the body decides that the pregnancy isn't viable or cost-effective.
If you accept traditional Christian theory that babies who die before birth are delivered straight to heaven due to being innately innocent, every sexually active woman on the planet is gradually sending souls on a one-way route to heaven. That means that heaven is more populated than hell no matter how hard it is for an adult to get into the former!
@FinneousPJ: Most sects hold that original sin only applies, at earliest, after the person is born. Once you're born or reach a certain age, then you need baptism, rebirth, righteous conduct, and/or faith to be saved.
There's been another explosion at a FedEx not far from Schertz, an hour's drive from Austin and close to San Antonio. @Mathsorcerer's guess seems to be coming true; this really does look like a string of test bombings building up to a larger one.
It's disturbing. If law enforcement can't track down the bomber before it happens, the actual bombing this person is planning for is definitely going to result in fatalities.
Comments
But it is not an act to end someone's (by the way, I reject the notion that a three month old fetus is a something, but this does not matter here) life. What it does it sever the fetus from the connection to the potential mother. The fetus may not survive without that connection, but this is a consequence of the action not the direct result.
If you want to have a more direct but not practically likely comparison, assume the following. X has kidney failure and Y rigs up a connection between the blood stream of X and Z so that Z performs kidney function for both X and Z. Does Z have a moral duty to remain bound forever to X, because X will die otherwise? I do not think so.
Clearly, what we disagree on is how likely it is that the process was above board. My current opinion is 1/4 that the dismissal was justified; 1/4 that it was justified to dismiss him, but not to strip him of his pension (i.e. leave him suspended with pay for two more days) and 1/2 that it was driven mainly by political pressure.
EDIT: As for lack of candor, the difference to lying is that it much more subjective. I.e. was it lack of candor that the FBI did not publicize the investigation into the attempts by Russia to infiltrate the Trump campaign before the election, or would doing so have been seen as an attempt to unduly influence the election?
It is an affirmative act to end someone's life, because inaction involves the child surviving.
Keep in mind the pregnant woman is the only person who could provide sustenance for the child, and therefore the death is a guarantee. It is an affirmative act the same way it would be if you lock a baby in a fortress, refuse to feed it, and prevent any others from entering to fulfill that role. The right to life is the right not to be killed, not the right to extraordinary life saving measures. Again, abortion is an affirmative act killing the child. It goes to great lengths to the purpose of killing a child that would otherwise survive should nature take its course. On the other hand, should nature take its course in this contrived analogy, X would not.
The contrived analogy also has another shortcoming. Again, the key difference here is that the pregnant woman is the only person who can provide sustenance for the child for that duration. If a warden refuses to provide food for his prisoners, is he not committing murder? This is the same distinction from the classic "Violinist" abortion argument.
Finally (and this is a side-note, and certainly not ) unlike abortion, in the contrived analogy Z is bound forever. In abortion, the maximum period is 9 months and change, and then the child can be put up for adoption. Now I'm not sure how lengthy an obligation must be to outweigh the value of human life, but certainly 9 months and an eternity are not equivalents.
Again, I disagree with it being an affirmative act to kill. The affirmative act is to remove it from residency, with death being a consequence of this. The intent is not to kill; the intent is to remove the fetus from the mother. If you disagree with this, then there are larger problems in society to solve first, i.e. getting everyone access to medical treatment and make certain that everyone has shelter from the elements.
Your prison warder analogy is at least as flawed as mine. First off, the prisoner is already a full sentient human being. Secondly, the prison warder having to provide food is not an undue burden. He is getting paid for it, and he gets to go home every day. Same with coma patients; the key difference you yourself point out is that the burden can be socialized and not put on the shoulders of one particular individual.
Expecting the prison warder to go the job is reasonable, as long as he can quit. But if you phone me and tell me that there is a prisoner 300 km away, who is not getting food and expecting me to drive there every day to bring him food, without me getting paid for my time or even the food, it is a different story. And the same is true if it is a baby and not a prisoner. Since the woman is the one who shoulders all the burden, it is up to her to accept it or not. Only once society can take over the burden of pregnancy, does it get a right to tell her what to do.
And that is also the reason why a fetus can be aborted, but a newborn can not be killed. Once it is a newborn, society can make certain it can be adopted or in the worst case, put in the care of professionals.
There are basically three ways of how you can negatively impact another with an action
1. Deliberately, where it is the primary direct purpose of the action
2. Implicitly, where it is not the primary direct purpose, but you know it will have negative consequences
3. Negligible, where it was not the primary purpose, nor foreseen. You could further differentiate by whether how easy it would have been to avoid, but this category does not matter for this discussion.
Murder is clearly in category 1. Abortion is in category 2, as is denying someone medical treatment because he can't pay or evicting someone for not being able to pay his rent. Self-defense and evicting tenants from your property are also in this category.
So is driving recklessly. Society should always prohibit category 1 actions. Category 2 should be allowed, if and only if the primary purpose is the exercise of your fundamental rights. This includes defense of life, property and bodily integrity. Note that in the US it even includes even saving a negligible amount of time/money, i.e. you do not even have to call an ambulance if you see someone dying on the street. I personally disagree with the last example.
For my first analogy, how about if you know X will get a kidney transplant in 9 months?
Finally, let me note that the entire post was written under the assumption that the fetus has comparable value to a person in the legal sense, which I do not agree with. But my point is that even when I assume it is the case, I still do not think that we have the right to tell the pregnant woman what to do.
- suicide. That's generally not a crime in Western democracies now, though in historic terms that's a fairly recent change. I think that reflects some reduction in religious influence and a general increase in the importance given to the rights of the individual to make their own choices.
- assisted suicide. I would say the law in this area in many countries is currently going through the same process that applied to the law on suicide 2 or 3 generations ago. The same issues about the sanctity of life vs individual choice are being played out again, though there is the additional factor now about the need to build in appropriate protections against people being bullied into choosing an assisted suicide.
- rescues. Someone referred to the fact a bit earlier that in some jurisdictions you are required to render assistance to others (though there are likely to be limits on that as well).
- drug licensing. Most drugs have side effects and in some cases those can be potentially fatal. When licensing a drug authorities have to weigh up the potential risks and benefits. Protecting life is weighed heavily in this balance - so a drug that has a small chance of fatal complications, but is very effective in relieving stomach ache is unlikely to be licensed (while a dangerous drug that helped late-stage cancer sufferers probably would be).
I'll also note in relation to abortion though that by no means everyone accepts that abortion does equate to taking human life (that's the case even among religious groups, though that might not be obvious given the prominence given to certain fundamentalist views in the debate). That's effectively the basis for the law in many countries linking the stage of pregnancy to the ability to choose an abortion.
Your three ways of how you can negatively impact another with an action overvalues the moral significance of primary purpose and ignores the whether someone is cognizant of the consequences of their actions. If someone severs my head from my body, it is an inevitability that I will die, regardless of the primary reason for their action.
Also, even if I was to accept your three ways of how you can negatively impact a person you are incorrect when you say that category 2 is allowed in defense of life, property and bodily integrity.
Legally, I am not allowed to kill a pickpocket to prevent the theft of my wallet, or use lethal force to prevent someone from violating my bodily integrity by tickling my toes. The moral underpinning is proportionality. You can use lethal force in response to a threat of serious bodily harm or death.
There is no proportional response in an elective abortion situation. This is why I, like many pro lifers, believe it is necessary to distinguish elective abortion (which I see as an act of violence) from medically necessary abortion (which is justifiable under self-defense theory).
To answer both,
1. Based on your last paragraph, I thought you were assuming arguendo that the child had moral relevance?
2. While pregnancy is certainly a burden, I don't think anyone would say that voluntary pregnancy is an undue burden. Pregnancy as a result of rape may be a different scenario, but we can discuss that as well.
That is incorrect. It would be an affirmative act to take away someone's access to medical treatment and shelter.
Hey @Ammar thank you for the thoughtful responses. Unfortunately I have to get some work done so I can't respond to your next post in a timely manner, but I will get back to it. I also owe @Grond0 a response on constitutional interpretation!
2. The same can be said about the investiagtion into any death
3. 3. I am not the Republican Party platform...
Really do have to go noww see you guys!
@FinneousPJ "So now we're back to pregnancy being a punishment."
You're the only one saying this.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Fun fact: most conceptions spontaneously terminate very early on, before the woman even realizes it's happened. Most such fetuses are automatically aborted within a matter of days, simply because the body decides that the pregnancy isn't viable or cost-effective.
If you accept traditional Christian theory that babies who die before birth are delivered straight to heaven due to being innately innocent, every sexually active woman on the planet is gradually sending souls on a one-way route to heaven. That means that heaven is more populated than hell no matter how hard it is for an adult to get into the former!
It's disturbing. If law enforcement can't track down the bomber before it happens, the actual bombing this person is planning for is definitely going to result in fatalities.