Child sacrifice in America dealt with by heaven

[SPF]

I'm starting to think you don't know what the phrase "of course" means. Because every time you use it, we find that it's really "of course not".
The link clearly explains the progress of the formation of the human brain and its capabilities from conception to birth, and points out that at the stage where almost all abortions occur, the brain is not capable of thought. And that's really all we need to know.

You’re still missing the point and failing to acknowledge where you’re clearly wrong. I’ll try again.

You said: "without a brain, we aren't persons; therefore, personhood resides in the brain. Fetuses don't have one, therefore they're not persons"

Question: do you believe that a 30 week old fetus does not have a brain? How about a 40 week old fetus? Here’s a hint - a 30 week old healthy fetus DOES have a brain.

I don’t think you’ll find a single doctor that would say there is not a functioning brain in a 35 week old healthy fetus.

Therefore, if we accept your personal subjective and arbitrarily determined line of made up personhood, then it seems that you’re acknowledging that fetuses do indeed transition into personhood at some point before birth.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You’re still missing the point and failing to acknowledge where you’re clearly wrong. I’ll try again.

You said: "without a brain, we aren't persons; therefore, personhood resides in the brain. Fetuses don't have one, therefore they're not persons"

Question: do you believe that a 30 week old fetus does not have a brain? How about a 40 week old fetus? Here’s a hint - a 30 week old healthy fetus DOES have a brain.

I don’t think you’ll find a single doctor that would say there is not a functioning brain in a 35 week old healthy fetus.

Therefore, if we accept your personal subjective and arbitrarily determined line of made up personhood, then it seems that you’re acknowledging that fetuses do indeed transition into personhood at some point before birth.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood my argument. I have a feeling you need to read it more closely. Of course I accept that a 30-week-old fetus is a person.
Here's an article. It sets out the case clearly, and is the argument I use:
On the Morality of: Abortion
Especially, see:
"As Sagan points out, six months is actually a conservative boundary, since regular brain waves are often absent in fetuses. Also, it’s conceivable that a fetus could possess them and still lack the ability for conscious thought. Nevertheless, it’s still a good standard and not one we should seek to push. When we know, based on our physiological understanding of how the brain functions, that consciousness cannot exist, then no person is present and we are under no corresponding ethical obligation. However, if there’s a rational possibility that consciousness may exist, then we should err on the side of caution and defend that life, just as it would be immoral to shoot into a closed box without knowing if there’s a person inside."

The point being that almost all abortions take place long before thirty weeks, and the ones which regrettably take place after it do so or pressing medical reasons, as we've seen already in this thread.

 

[SPF]

You said: "without a brain, we aren't persons; therefore, personhood resides in the brain. Fetuses don't have one, therefore they're not persons"

Of course I accept that a 30-week-old fetus is a person

I’m glad that you’re admitting what you previously said was inaccurate. You’ve said it a number of times so it was worth correcting.

Also, I’m not trying to convince you, clearly you’re not interested in learning as you’ve been educated in numerous topics from correct Biblical interpretation, to helping you recognize the fallacies you’ve been employing, to no avail, you’re just a condescending broken record. My posts were for the benefit of those following.

So for the followers, I would summarize by saying that there is no actual meaningful distinction between a human being and a human person. We are all simply human beings that begin a 25 year developmental period at fertilization.

At no point during our development are we not human beings possessing inherent moral worth and value. Our moral worth and value is not dependent upon the level of development of our brain. If we were to say it was, it would open the door to discrimination of all kinds against people with lesser developed brains.

People who argue that there is a distinction between human beings and human persons argue from an entirely subjective and arbitrarily made up line. Some say heartbeat, some say neural activity, some say viability, etc... The important thing to note is that whatever the line is, the primary reason is so that some action can be performed against the non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

And as we’ve specifically seen the subjective and arbitrary line of brain activity argued here it is worth mentioning that it employs fallacious reasoning in the form of a categorical mistake in attempting to claim that the growing and developing human is analogous to an already developed and essentially dead human being.

The bottom line is that the morality of abortion rests in our understanding of the nature of the human being inside the womb. I would suggest that human beings all possess an equal level of intrinsic moral worth at all times during their 25 year developmental period as well as after.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The interesting thing is, not only are you wrong in your arguments and in your attempts to refute mine, you actually get my arguments wrong, and have done several times in this thread. It could be because you haven't read them properly, or it could be because you didn't understand them. Either way, it leaves you fighting strawmen, knocking down arguments you yourself set up.

I shall now go through each of your points and explain why they are wrong - not for the first time, as you've made each one several times, and been corrected each time.

I’m glad that you’re admitting what you previously said was inaccurate. You’ve said it a number of times so it was worth correcting.

You clearly haven't been reading what I said. I have said, both in my own posts and in the links I've posted, that personhood is based on the development of the brain, which is sufficiently completed (a) well before birth and (b) well after abortions take place.

Also, I’m not trying to convince you, clearly you’re not interested in learning as you’ve been educated in numerous topics from correct Biblical interpretation, to helping you recognize the fallacies you’ve been employing, to no avail, you’re just a condescending broken record. My posts were for the benefit of those following.

Right back at you, with the addition that you have already admitted that your views rest on nothing more than your own religious beliefs, rather than any scientific or logical proofs.

So for the followers, I would summarize by saying that there is no actual meaningful distinction between a human being and a human person. We are all simply human beings that begin a 25 year developmental period at fertilization.

Except that (a) claiming something doesn't make it true, and (b) you have completely ignored all of the arguments made against this position, presumably because you are unable to answer them.

At no point during our development are we not human beings possessing inherent moral worth and value. Our moral worth and value is not dependent upon the level of development of our brain. If we were to say it was, it would open the door to discrimination of all kinds against people with lesser developed brains.

False, and already countered and explained. There may be differences in the level of mental development between different people, but personhood itself is dependent upon actually being able to think, no matter how well. I've explained why, numerous times, and you have shown yourself incapable of arguing against it. Which hasn't stopped you from saying that that is exactly what you did.

People who argue that there is a distinction between human beings and human persons argue from an entirely subjective and arbitrarily made up line. Some say heartbeat, some say neural activity, some say viability, etc... The important thing to note is that whatever the line is, the primary reason is so that some action can be performed against the non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

Clearly you didn't read my responses to your saying this the last time. If I were to meet someone who believed this, then I would make my case to them as I would to you. So far, you have been unable to show any holes in the logic.

And as we’ve specifically seen the subjective and arbitrary line of brain activity argued here it is worth mentioning that it employs fallacious reasoning in the form of a categorical mistake in attempting to claim that the growing and developing human is analogous to an already developed and essentially dead human being.

It's not subjective or arbitrary, but rather a logical and sensible conclusion, which you have failed to disprove.

The bottom line is that the morality of abortion rests in our understanding of the nature of the human being inside the womb. I would suggest that human beings all possess an equal level of intrinsic moral worth at all times during their 25 year developmental period as well as after.

You've already shown your true colours by admitting that this is merely your own personal religious beliefs; and, as such, of no interest to anybody else.

All you have is the repetition of "human = person". But that's obviously not true. Imagine a human being with no brain. Of course, you've several times said that this doesn't count because it's impossible, but that doesn't stop you from imagining it, does it? A human body, breathing, heart beating - but with no brain. Would you consider that to be a person?
By your logic, you have to. But of course the answer is no, it is not a person.

I've made this and similar arguments several times, and you have ignored them. I understand why; because if you did address them, they would show that you are wrong. This is, of course, because your anti-abortion stance is based on a religious belief. And that's all there is to it.

 

[SkyWriting]

The bottom line is that the morality of abortion rests in our understanding of the nature of the human being inside the womb. I would suggest that human beings all possess an equal level of intrinsic moral worth at all times during their 25 year developmental period as well as after.

But none of that correlates to "Life" since over half of all Zygotes fail to reach birth.
So "life" is not an inherent trait of a fertalized egg. Death is the most likely end result. Perhaps in the future we can save every fertalized egg, raising it in an incubator, and then we can criminalize all natural procreation as cruel and unusual.


But if your going to "treat others as you would wish to be treated by them" then you don't want to restrict the choices of others, unless you wish for them to restrict your family choices.

So to remain pro-life, means allowing others to not be "pro-life" lest they choose by government vote, to eliminate your option to keep your baby.

Treat others the same respect you wish for you, from them.

 

[SPF]

The interesting thing is, not only are you wrong in your arguments and in your attempts to refute mine, you actually get my arguments wrong, and have done several times in this thread. It could be because you haven't read them properly, or it could be because you didn't understand them. Either way, it leaves you fighting strawmen, knocking down arguments you yourself set up.

Neat, that’s exactly what I would say you’ve done.

You clearly haven't been reading what I said. I have said, both in my own posts and in the links I've posted, that personhood is based on the development of the brain, which is sufficiently completed (a) well before birth and (b) well after abortions take place.

Your words: "without a brain, we aren't persons; therefore, personhood resides in the brain. Fetuses don't have one, therefore they're not persons"

I’m glad that you don’t think that fetuses aren’t persons like you clearly said. We all misspeak at times.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Neat, that’s exactly what I would say you’ve done.

Your words: "without a brain, we aren't persons; therefore, personhood resides in the brain. Fetuses don't have one, therefore they're not persons"

I’m glad that you don’t think that fetuses aren’t persons like you clearly said. We all misspeak at times.

Fetuses without higher brain functions aren’t persons. This opinion isn’t random, it’s made with reason steming from other well established ideas. Your opinion leads to instances that seem nonsensical.

 

[SPF]

Fetuses without higher brain functions aren’t persons. This opinion isn’t random, it’s made with reason steming from other well established ideas. Your opinion leads to instances that seem nonsensical.

You’re doing it too. You’re creating an arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person. There is no distinction. You’re either a human being that is morally valuable, or you’re not.

Attempting to separate a human being from a human person and asserting that only human persons are morally valuable is based upon entirely subjective and arbitrary opinions.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And yet if I ever suffered some tragedy in which my brain functions ceased, but my body was kept alive, I would be quite alright with my body being disconnected from life support. We all would, because the thing which is us, our personality, our personhood, has vanished. Now you may say that this is because the person is dead, and you're right. The person has vanished with the brain. And that's the point.
In the case of a zygote, embryo or fetus, it's agreed - despite your many claims that we disagree with this - that it is alive. Well, my appendix is living material too. But it has no brain, and so is not a person. Yes, the fetus-or-pre is an organism, and yes, it will one day have a brain. But until it does, it's not a person, and for that reason your slippery-slope arguments about mentally retarded people fail.

so yes, Todd is 'doing it too'. Most people are, because even if they do not follow a formal chain of logic they see what is plainly apparent to us all: brainless organisms aren't people. If they were, you would be able to disprove the argument - and, frankly, you haven't even attempted to yet.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Your words: "without a brain, we aren't persons; therefore, personhood resides in the brain. Fetuses don't have one, therefore they're not persons"

I’m glad that you don’t think that fetuses aren’t persons like you clearly said. We all misspeak at times.

I'm amazed that after all our pages of discussion you still haven't grasped this point. When I say "without brains" it's shorthand for "without a working brain capable of conscious thought". As I've explained many times.
Yes, the brain does begin to develop after a number of weeks; yes; fetuses who get aborted do have a brain of sorts, but not yet an active one capable of thought.

If you didn't read this the first few times I posted it, do so now.
https://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2012/12/04/what-can-science-add-to-the-abortion-debate/

 

[SPF]

A human being is a human being no matter what their age is. We don’t (or shouldn’t) discriminate against a human being based upon their age, level of development, or location.

A brain-dead human being is a dead human being. It is a categorical mistake to suggest they are analogous to a living, growing, developing human being.

Either a living human being possesses moral worth and value or not. The entire idea of creating a distinction between a human being and human person is again, necessarily subjective.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

A human being is a human being no matter what their age is. We don’t (or shouldn’t) discriminate against a human being based upon their age, level of development, or location.

Perhaps you should give your definition of “human being”. I found two definitions online and neither one would, in my opinion, include fetuses.

A brain-dead human being is a dead human being. It is a categorical mistake to suggest they are analogous to a living, growing, developing human being.

If you’re equating a lack of higher brain functions and death, then you’re shooting your argument in the foot. Keeping a body alive with any other part damaged doesn’t equate to being dead. It shows that what makes us “us” is our higher brain functions.

Either a living human being possesses moral worth and value or not. The entire idea of creating a distinction between a human being and human person is again, necessarily subjective.

People have worth. Just asserting that human tissue has worth is diluting the idea of what makes us special.

 

[SPF]

Perhaps you should give your definition of “human being”. I found two definitions online and neither one would, in my opinion, include fetuses.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of
Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of
conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from
conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the
discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He said:

“after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He
stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School:

“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School:

“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to thepro-life cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally,

“The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of
Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of
conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from
conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the
discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He said:

“after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He
stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School:

“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School:

“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to thepro-life cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally,

“The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.

Well, that’s pretty scattershot...

Unless you’re equating “human life”, “life” and “human being” (thus muddying the waters even further), we can eliminate much of what you posted. And what’s left is other people’s opinions. None of which I agree with.

And I notice you didn’t respond to the rest of my post.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thank you, Todd. You're doing a fine job pointing out SPF's errors!

If you’re equating a lack of higher brain functions and death, then you’re shooting your argument in the foot. Keeping a body alive with any other part damaged doesn’t equate to being dead. It shows that what makes us “us” is our higher brain functions.

Quite right! I think it was SPF who said earlier that a brain-dead body considered to be dead by doctors and scientists. The reason, of course, that a brain-dead body is pronounced dead is because the functions of thought have ceased to be. The body itself, however, is still alive, and may be maintained in that state for some considerable time.
SPF is correct in pointing out that a fetus is not the same thing as a brain-dead body. Of course it's not! No one thing is the same as any other thing. But the differences (one is growing, the other is not, one is brain-dead, the other is brain-non-existent, etc.) are beside the point. The point being, SPF, that absent the ability to think, a body is just a lump of flesh.

I notice that SPF has refused to address some points from earlier, probably because they expose the flaw in his logic. Let's try again. SPF, see if you can answer these questions. I know you said you prefer to "stay in reality", but these points are logical problems; if you can answer them, you will prove your point.

• Imagine a thought experiment. Imagine if we were able to take your brain out and move it to Australia, leaving your body in the USA. Further imagine that both your body and your brain could be kept alive, and successfully reunited later. Before that happened, where would you be? In Australia, or in the USA, or in both, or in neither?
  
• Imagine a second thought experiment: if we could take two people - person A and person B - and swap their brains, what would happen? If it were medically possible to do this, what would be the result? Would they be half of themselves? Would they be completely new people? Or would they be the same personalities, inside different bodies?
  
• Imagine a third thought experiment. Supposing we could create an artificial intelligence. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that this would be a genuinely self-conscious creature, self-aware and deserving of all the rights of personhood - and, let us further suppose, deactivating it would then be equivalent to murder. However, what if someone came along before the artificial intelligence were activated, and disassembled it? Would they then be guilty of murder?

 

[SPF]

Unless you’re equating “human life”, “life” and “human being” (thus muddying the waters even further), we can eliminate much of what you posted. And what’s left is other people’s opinions. None of which I agree with.

A new and unique individual comes into existence at fertilization, this has been settled science for a long time.


“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life:

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.” Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

 

[SPF]

SPF is correct in pointing out that a fetus is not the same thing as a brain-dead body. Of course it's not! No one thing is the same as any other thing. But the differences (one is growing, the other is not, one is brain-dead, the other is brain-non-existent, etc.) are beside the point.

Wrong, that is the point, and that is why you are making a categorical mistake when you equate a growing living human being and a dead human being.

If you leave a developed brain dead person alone do you know what happens? Nothing. They’re dead. If you leave a living, growing, developing embryo alone in a healthy environment do you know what happens? It continues to live and grow and develop.

As for your thought experiments:

1: your brain would be in Australia and your body would be in the USA.

2. Sounds like a full body transplant, like a heart transplant just on a larger scale.

3. Artificial intelligence wouldn’t possess inherent moral worth and value like humans. If culture wants to assign rights to it then that’s fine.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Wrong, that is the point, and that is why you are making a categorical mistake when you equate a growing living human being and a dead human being.

Wrong, that is not the point. The point is that without a working brain a person does not exist.

If you leave a living, growing, developing embryo alone in a healthy environment do you know what happens? It continues to live and grow and develop.

Yes - into a person.
by the way, you haven't yet answered: if anti-abortionists think that personhood begins with conception, why do they not demand that people react to miscarriages the same way we all react towards child cancer, and other causes of infant mortality?
(The real answer is that they know the embryos, etc., lost in miscarriages aren't really people, since the pro-life movement is a political stunt dating from the 1970s, as shown by the fact that most evangelicals at that time were.pro-choice). But if you really do believe that we lose.millions of children each year to miscarriages, why are pro-life not demanding that miscarriages be treated as a health crisis?
I look forward to your dodging or ignoring the question...

As for your thought experiments:

Well done! You've made a start.

1: your brain would be in Australia and your body would be in the USA.

And where would you, the person be? In Australia? In the USA? In both of those places? In neither of them?

2. Sounds like a full body transplant, like a heart transplant just on a larger scale.

Yes; and now, what does that mean?
To make it simpler - if the body of Person A (with Person B's brain inside) is now moved to Australia, and the body of Person B (with Person A's brain inside) is now moved to the USA, where is Person A? If you were to ask him, what would he say?

3. Artificial intelligence wouldn’t possess inherent moral worth and value like humans. If culture wants to assign rights to it then that’s fine.

For the moment, let's keep it hypothetical. Let's say it would possess inherent worth. Would it be a crime to dismantle it before activating it?

 

[SPF]

Wrong, that is not the point. The point is that without a working brain a person does not exist

Wrong, it is precisely the point. A living human being exists at the moment of fertilization, the fact that it does not yet have a functioning brain does not mean that it is not a living human being. See the plethora of references I provided earlier for support.

This would be in contrast to a developed human being that is dead. You’re going to need to stop continuing your categorical mistake.

Yes - into a person.
If anti-abortionists think that.

You’re begging the question by assuming there is a real distinction between a human being and a human person. There is not.

For the moment, let's keep it hypothetical. Let's say it would possess inherent worth. Would it be a crime to dismantle it before activating it?

It’s not even hypothetical, it’s flatly not possible. Only human beings possess inherent moral worth and value.[/QUOTE]

 

[ToddNotTodd]

A new and unique individual comes into existence at fertilization, this has been settled science for a long time.

So it’s “individual” now? It seems as though your terms are so slippery as to be unusable. Which isn’t surprising, since the anti abortion side relies on an emotional appeal.

And since you still didn’t respond to the other parts of my post, I’ll assume you don’t have an answer. Again, not surprising. I’ve argued this position for years and it always ends this way.