How do we respond to the argument that abortion is OK when it saves the Mother's life

[razredge]

**De facto, in declaring the Immaculate Conception of May, the mother of Jesus, as a fully incorporated human soul from the very instant of her conception, there can be no doubt or argument as to Church Teaching regarsding conception as the moment of ensoulment.

**

I have already responded to this on an other thread, perhaps we should argue either in here or over there rather than both threads.

The key word in your post is ‘De facto’ wheras my statement is an official statement by the Church on the matter of ensoulment and it teaches that the point of ensoulment is not yet known.

 

[catharina]

I have already responded to this on an other thread, perhaps we should argue either in here or over there rather than both threads.

The key word in your post is ‘De facto’ wheras my statement is an official statement by the Church on the matter of ensoulment and it teaches that the point of ensoulment is not yet known.

I am NOT arguing with you.
I’m presenting a valid teaching of of the Church.

You neglected to mention (and emphasize) that the Church
has chosen and will always choose truth and morality as in:

"our moral affirmation of LIFE remains independent of scientific and philosophical pursuits."

The Church does not support any other view!
I leave you noiw to your unusual musings.

 

[razredge]

I am NOT arguing with you.
I’m presenting a valid teaching of of the Church.

You neglected to mention (and emphasize) that the Church
has chosen and will always choose truth and morality as in:

"our moral affirmation of LIFE remains independent of scientific and philosophical pursuits."

The Church does not support any other view!
I leave you noiw to your unusual musings.

Sigh, Now you’re completely misrepresenting my position - I agree that human life starts at conception, I do not agree that the soul exists at conception.

And as I have shown, the Church has not definitively said at what point ensoulment occurs and has left the question open.

 

[catharina]

Sigh, Now you’re completely misrepresenting my position - I agree that human life starts at conception, I do not agree that the soul exists at conception.

And as I have shown, the Church has not definitively said at what point ensoulment occurs and has left the question open.

You have shown your own opinion.

The Church states this:

1. The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development. Opposing the morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church of the first centuries insisted on the difference that exists on this point between those morals and Christian morals. In the Didache it is clearly said: “You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born.”[6] Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion; he condemns the killers of children, including those still living in their mother’s womb, “where they are already the object of the care of divine Providence.” Tertullian did not always perhaps use the same language; he nevertheless clearly affirms the essential principle: “To prevent birth is anticipated murder; **it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one.”**8]

and this:

1. To this perpetual evidence - perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation[19] - modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time- a rather lengthy time- to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. **From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. “The one who will be a man is already one.”**20]

Both from document on Vatican site
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

and this Stated Twice:

"The one who will be a man already is one."

Our belief, defined by the Church is that each man posses an immortal soul.
The soul defines the life, defines the man.

Good bye to you now.

 

[razredge]

Yes, I agree that life begins at conception and should be protected from conception- but what does this have to do with the point of ensoulment? Which as I have clearly shown, the Church has not pronounced on.

Or do you disagree with the Vatican statement I quoted from?

 

[catharina]

Yes, I agree that life begins at conception and should be protected from conception- but what does this have to do with the point of ensoulment? Which as I have clearly shown, the Church has not pronounced on.

Or do you disagree with the Vatican statement I quoted from?

I disagree with you.

The Vatican declaration makes it clear that the Church approves the morality of
knowing that life, a human being begins at conception. The soul is present and
undeniable. The Church affirmed this in declaring the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception of Mary. Mary herself, body and soul was conceived without sin. You
can play any number of games in disagreement but you will still be in error.

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

 

[razredge]

I disagree with you.

The Vatican declaration makes it clear that the Church approves the morality of
knowing that life, a human being begins at conception. The soul is present and
undeniable. The Church affirmed this in declaring the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception of Mary. Mary herself, body and soul was conceived without sin. You
can play any number of games in disagreement but you will still be in error.

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

Excuse me, you are being quite disingenuous - the Vatican declaration makes it **clear **in no uncertain terms that

This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.

You simply cannot get around this by quoting from other documents or declarations which are tangentially related to the topic and do not directly make a statement on the matter as this statement does

 

[Suudy]

razredge, what is your goal in arguing about the timing of ensoulment? You apparently believe that it occurs sometime after conception (but presumably sometime before birth), based upon the quote below:

Embryo’s do not have souls anyway (except in late term) so are not yet persons.

Yet nowhere in the entire chain since that quote have you demonstrated the truth of your statement above. Indeed, it appears to be the case that we don’t know when ensoulment occurs, though it is clear that living children outside of the womb do have souls.

I’m curious about your goal in arguing this point.

 

[catharina]

razredge, what is your goal in arguing about the timing of ensoulment? You apparently believe that it occurs sometime after conception (but presumably sometime before birth), based upon the quote below:

Yet nowhere in the entire chain since that quote have you demonstrated the truth of your statement above. Indeed, it appears to be the case that we don’t know when ensoulment occurs, though it is clear that living children outside of the womb do have souls.

I’m curious about your goal in arguing this point.

I see your point but I am no longer curious at all about razredge or
any of his points. Still I’d like to know what he imagines the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception means, if not the very obvious fact
that Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, was conceived as herself alone
without the stain of original sin. Can anyone imagine that a lump of
tissue (minus a soul) was so conceived? A lump of tissue would not be Mary.

The doctrine is an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church
and one can not argue or game-play his way around that doctrine.

 

[razredge]

Indeed, it appears to be the case that we don’t know when ensoulment occurs, though it is clear that living children outside of the womb do have souls.

That was the whole point of my argument with Catherina and others, glad you agree

razredge, what is your goal in arguing about the timing of ensoulment?

.

I have no goal, I just wanted to clarify that ensoulment occuring at conception is not Church doctrine.

You apparently believe that it occurs sometime after conception (but presumably sometime before birth), based upon the quote below:

Yes that’s correct

Yet nowhere in the entire chain since that quote have you demonstrated the truth of your statement above. Indeed, it appears to be the case that we don’t know when ensoulment occurs, though it is clear that living children outside of the womb do have souls.

I mentioned it in another similar thread recently, I believe the soul is linked to consciousness as it seems to be the only consistent criteria available for what has a sould and what doesn’t.

 

[Suudy]

I have no goal, I just wanted to clarify that ensoulment occuring at conception is not Church doctrine.

It seemed to me that you were trying to justify your quote:

I think if the mother & embryo are both going to die anyway unless the embryo is aborted.
Then it is the more ethical thing to abort the embryo and save the mother.

Yet you admit that you don’t know the point of ensoulment:

Indeed, it appears to be the case that we don’t know when ensoulment occurs, though it is clear that living children outside of the womb do have souls.
razredge;8339735:

That was the whole point of my argument with Catherina and others, glad you agree

This skepticism should be a strong argument against abortion. Peter Kreeft gives a wonderful talk about the philosophy of abortion. From that talk (here):… When does a person begin? That’s the crucial question.
Well, there’s two possibilities: a.) maybe you know that and b.) maybe you don’t.
And then there’s two possibilities. a.) You are right or b.) you are wrong.

1. • So, number one: the fetus is a person, and you know it. You’re right.
   • Number two: the fetus is not a person and you know that. You’re right.
   • Number three: the fetus is a person and you don’t know that. You think it’s not. You’re wrong.
   • Number four: the fetus is not a person and you think it is. You don’t know the truth. You’re wrong. (Like a Pascal’s wager, two chances of being right, two chances of being wrong.)
   What is abortion in each of these cases? The only four possible cases, logically.
   • Murder. Case number one: The fetus is a human person, and you know that it is a human person, and nevertheless you kill it. That’s murder. That’s the legal definition of murder. Knowingly and deliberately imposing violent death upon an innocent human person that you know to be an innocent human person.
   • Manslaughter. The second possibility. The fetus is, in fact, a person, and you don’t know that. You think it’s not a person. You sincerely believe that, “Well, maybe it’s not a person, I don’t know it. I don’t know whether it is or not,” and you kill it. What’s that? Legally, that is manslaughter. Not deliberate murder. It’s like running over an overcoat on a dark night in the middle of a highway, that has the shape of a human being, and it might be an old drunk who’s just lying there, stoned in the road. And it might just be an overcoat. And you don’t swerve, you deliberately run over it. Or, it’s like shooting a movement in the bush that might be a deer, and it might be your fellow hunter. Or, it’s like fumigating a dormitory without being sure that all the students are out, and the fumigation kills them. You might be lucky. You might find that there is no man under the coat, and there is no hunter behind the bush, and there is no student in the dormitory, but you didn’t know that and nevertheless you shot, you fumigated.
   • Criminal Negligence. That’s criminal negligence if there’s nobody there, it’s manslaughter if there is somebody there. All three cases—murder, criminal negligence, and manslaughter—are bad.
   • So only the fourth case justifies abortion, and it does.
   So, if you can give me some argument that the fourth case is true—not just that a fetus is not a human person, but also you know that it is not a human person, then fine. You’re right. But if you don’t know, if you’re a skeptic, if you say “These pro-lifers are dogmatists, they claim the fetus is a person. Who knows?” Well, that’s all the more reason for not shooting. Exactly because you don’t know.
   Since we don’t know when ensoulment occurs, we don’t know when a fetus becomes a person (I presume you think that humans with souls are persons). And since we don’t know, it is at best negligence.
   

   I mentioned it in another similar thread recently, I believe the soul is linked to consciousness as it seems to be the only consistent criteria available for what has a sould and what doesn’t.

   Consciousness can’t be the standard. When we go to sleep at night, does our soul go away? Would it be murder to kill a person in their sleep? If the soul is linked to consciousness, then it would seem that sleeping people don’t have souls.
   
   But let’s say once a soul enters the body it is permanently there. But are you reasonably certain of this? Enough that you aren’t worried about any accidental deaths? Also, how can you measure consciousness? After all, animals are conscious, but are they self-aware? We don’t consider killing animals murder, so consciousness can’t be the standard. Is consciousness sufficient, or should there be self-awareness? Does ensoulment occur when a human-being becomes self-aware?
   
   And even if we knew when ensoulment occurs, can we accurately (indeed, flawlessly) measure that point? Can we be reasonably certain that a fetus does not have a soul, and thus an abortion would be acceptable?
   
   The point is that we don’t know when ensoulment occurs. And since we don’t know, we must presume it occurs at conception in order to prevent accidental deaths of innocent persons.

 

[razredge]

It seemed to me that you were trying to justify your quote:

Yes, I was - it seems reasonable to me that in a situation where two deaths are going to occur it makes sense to save one by sacrificing the other.

Yet you admit that you don’t know the point of ensoulment:

Of course, no one does

This skepticism should be a strong argument against abortion. Peter Kreeft gives a wonderful talk about the philosophy of abortion. From that talk

I am a pro-lifer, though not absurdly so, eg I think in such a case where two deaths are going to occur it is more ethical to abort the baby.

In response to Kreeft’s argument in such a situation you have someone who is going to die who is definitely a person (the person) and someone else who’s going to die who is possibly a person (the embryo/fetus). So in that case it seems more ethical to abort the fetus than let both die.

Consciousness can’t be the standard. When we go to sleep at night, does our soul go away? Would it be murder to kill a person in their sleep? If the soul is linked to consciousness, then it would seem that sleeping people don’t have souls.

This quite a silly objection, as long as the person will be conscious and has the capacity to be conscious they have souls.

After all, animals are conscious, but are they self-aware? We don’t consider killing animals murder, so consciousness can’t be the standard. Is consciousness sufficient, or should there be self-awareness? Does ensoulment occur when a human-being becomes self-aware?

Human consciousness so yes, self-awareness

Do you have better criteria of what has a soul and what doesn’t?

And even if we knew when ensoulment occurs, can we accurately (indeed, flawlessly) measure that point? Can we be reasonably certain that a fetus does not have a soul, and thus an abortion would be acceptable?

No, Carl Sagan talks about this in his essay on the ethics of abortion - the rudimentary brain activity emerges at the start of the third trimester, so that would be a safe point to draw the line of personhood.

In any case regardless of whether an embryo has a soul or not it should not just be wantonly destroyed since it is a potential person, so the reasons for abortion must be very serious (eg. mother’s life is threatened). This is similar to the views of pro-life atheists who do not believe in the soul.

 

[Suudy]

Yes, I was - it seems reasonable to me that in a situation where two deaths are going to occur it makes sense to save one by sacrificing the other.

Nobody here has suggested that we allow both to die. The only objection has been direct abortion. That is, abortion with the intended end is the death of the unborn child. To intentionally kill an innocent human person is always a grave evil, even in the attempt to save another’s life. The doctrine of double effect is important here. The first criteria for DDE is (from here):

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   
   Direct abortion violates the first criteria, since intentionally putting to death an innocent person is neither morally good or indifferent.
   
   Now, I understand that the issue hinges on whether a fetus is a person or not. But in the absence of evidence either way, we must err on the side of caution, and assume they are.
   

   I am a pro-lifer, though not absurdly so, eg I think in such a case where two deaths are going to occur it is more ethical to abort the baby.

   What do you mean by “abort”? This was my point from earlier in the thread. If you mean a D&C, then no, it isn’t. It fails the tests for double effect. If you mean “perform some action that may unintentionally lead to the death of the fetus”, then you would find no disagreement here.
   

   In response to Kreeft’s argument in such a situation you have someone who is going to die who is definitely a person (the person) and someone else who’s going to die who is possibly a person (the embryo/fetus). So in that case it seems more ethical to abort the fetus than let both die.

   Being “possibly a person” doesn’t change anything. For example, if you were to fire your rifle into moving bushes, it might “possibly be a person” and it might be something else. Your lack of knowledge does not make the action ethical. Indeed, that lack of knowledge makes the act reckless.
   

   This quite a silly objection, as long as the person will be conscious and has the capacity to be conscious they have souls.

   You said consciousness alone, not qualified as “the capacity to be conscious”. I drew the absurd conclusion from relying upon consciousness alone.
   

   Human consciousness so yes, self-awareness

   So, by this standard newborns do not have souls. They are not self-aware. Indeed, some would argue that infants up to a certain stage of development are hardly even aware of their environment, much less themselves. If self-awareness is the standard, then there should be no objection to any abortion, or even infanticide.
   

   Do you have better criteria of what has a soul and what doesn’t?

   Yes. Animation. Indeed, the root of the word animation comes from the Latin animus, which not surprisingly, is another word for soul. I’ve heard talks on this from Catholic theologians. The only thing I can find online that references it is here. From that paper:What does it mean that the soul is the “substantial form” of the body? It means that the soul gives to a living being its * substantial* being, it makes a thing be an entity. The soul does not merely give a living being certain accidental qualities, such as brown skin or blue eyes. Rather, it makes the being an existing, living being or a certain type or species. It marks out a being for what it is. Here we see the foundational aspect of soul. It is called by Aristotle the first act of the living organic body. Upon this “first act” all secondary acts of the living being depend (e.g., respiration, hydration, cardiac activity, local motion, and sense perception). The secondary acts of a living being cannot exist, unless they are grounded in the soul as the first vivifying act of the organic body. The soul is the internal source and wellspring of life. It is the soul which enables a living being to move and act on its own, unlike nonliving things which must be moved by another. That living things are self-moved is one of the characteristics which distinguish living from nonliving things.
   A heartbeat is sufficient to establish ensoulment. The heartbeat is dependent upon the soul for its activity.
   

   No, Carl Sagan talks about this in his essay on the ethics of abortion - the rudimentary brain activity emerges at the start of the third trimester, so that would be a safe point to draw the line of personhood.

   Why is it “safe”? Perhaps you mean “reasonable”? But even if you mean “reasonable”, what degree of certainty do you have that would justify the potential death of innocent persons?
   
   I think brain activity is far too late. See above.
   

   In any case regardless of whether an embryo has a soul or not it should not just be wantonly destroyed since it is a potential person, so the reasons for abortion must be very serious (eg. mother’s life is threatened).

   Why limit it only to serious conditions? If it isn’t a person prior to ensoulment, and that can be determined by measurable brain activity, there is nothing wrong with abortion prior to that point. Why not allow it for any reason up until that point?

 

[razredge]

Nobody here has suggested that we allow both to die. The only objection has been direct abortion. That is, abortion with the intended end is the death of the unborn child. To intentionally kill an innocent human person is always a grave evil, even in the attempt to save another’s life. The doctrine of double effect is important here. The first criteria for DDE is (from here):

The DDE is problematic and not without its critics.

Direct abortion violates the first criteria, since intentionally putting to death an innocent person is neither morally good or indifferent.

So does the allowed cases, since you’re still aborting the fetus (indirectly) to save the mother. It is mere sophistry.

Being “possibly a person” doesn’t change anything. For example, if you were to fire your rifle into moving bushes, it might “possibly be a person” and it might be something else. Your lack of knowledge does not make the action ethical. Indeed, that lack of knowledge makes the act reckless.

It depends on your knowledge of the situation, firing a rifle into moving bushes in Central Park may be unethical but doing the same in a remote tropical jungle might not be.

You said consciousness alone, not qualified as “the capacity to be conscious”. I drew the absurd conclusion from relying upon consciousness alone.

Let’s say consciousness and the continued ability to be conscious.

So, by this standard newborns do not have souls. They are not self-aware. Indeed, some would argue that infants up to a certain stage of development are hardly even aware of their environment, much less themselves. If self-awareness is the standard, then there should be no objection to any abortion, or even infanticide.

Ah, but they have consciousness and they will be self-aware at a later point.

Yes. Animation. Indeed, the root of the word animation comes from the Latin animus, which not surprisingly, is another word for soul. I’ve heard talks on this from Catholic theologians. The only thing I can find online that references it is

That is based on outdated Aristotelian ideas and is ignorant of modern science.
But anyway do all animated things have souls? Robots, ants, bacteria etc?

What’s your criteria for what gets a human soul?

Why limit it only to serious conditions? If it isn’t a person prior to ensoulment, and that can be determined by measurable brain activity, there is nothing wrong with abortion prior to that point. Why not allow it for any reason up until that point?

As I have said before potential persons are also intrinscially valuable, though perhaps not quite as much as actual persons - this is the same reason why atheist pro-lifers believe abortion to be wrong.

 

[Suudy]

The DDE is problematic and not without its critics.

Only by modern philosophers. Indeed, the critics are steeped in materialist, subjectivist, and (frequently) consequentialist ideas, completely contrary to the philosophical underpinnings that the Church relies upon.

So does the allowed cases, since you’re still aborting the fetus (indirectly) to save the mother. It is mere sophistry.

Yes, yes, I’ve seen your posts on this point. However, we are discussing on a Catholic forum the Catholic point of view. And DDE is a considered more than just “mere sophistry” by Catholic philosophers and theologians.

It depends on your knowledge of the situation, firing a rifle into moving bushes in Central Park may be unethical but doing the same in a remote tropical jungle might not be.

Nonsense! What if there was a person there? Say a tracker or a native shadowing your movements? It seems to me your arguments are consequentialism.

Ah, but they have consciousness and they will be self-aware at a later point.

Ah, but newly conceived children will also “be self-aware at a later point.” Your qualification isn’t unique to newborns.

That is based on outdated Aristotelian ideas and is ignorant of modern science.

Outdated? Says whom? I didn’t know that Thomism was dead…

And “ignorant of modern science”? Science can neither prove nor disprove any animating principle. This is an area of philosophy, not (natural) science.

But anyway do all animated things have souls? Robots, ants, bacteria etc?

Yes. Ants, bacteria, plants, and animals have souls. They do not have human souls, but they do have souls. Read some Aquinas, notably question 75.

As for robots, I hadn’t thought of that example. I’m inclined to say yes, but certainly not human souls. But this point with regard to robots is interesting, and something I’m going to have to read more on.

What’s your criteria for what gets a human soul?

Human beings.

As I have said before potential persons are also intrinscially valuable, though perhaps not quite as much as actual persons - this is the same reason why atheist pro-lifers believe abortion to be wrong.

I argue there is no such things as a “potential person”. The “outdated” Thomist notion of the “first principle of life” is real and accepted by the Church.

 

[catharina]

The DDE is problematic and not without its critics.

So does the allowed cases, since you’re still aborting the fetus (indirectly) to save the mother. It is mere sophistry.

It depends on your knowledge of the situation, firing a rifle into moving bushes in Central Park may be unethical but doing the same in a remote tropical jungle might not be.

Let’s say consciousness and the continued ability to be conscious.

Ah, but they have consciousness and they will be self-aware at a later point.

That is based on outdated Aristotelian ideas and is ignorant of modern science.
But anyway do all animated things have souls? Robots, ants, bacteria etc?

What’s your criteria for what gets a human soul?

As I have said before potential persons are also intrinscially valuable, though perhaps not quite as much as actual persons - this is the same reason why atheist pro-lifers believe abortion to be wrong.

It is perfectly lovely - and attributable to grace -
that the majority of Catholics are willing to follow the
teachings of the Church, while dismissing your meanderings as sophistry.

 

[razredge]

It is perfectly lovely - and attributable to grace -
that the majority of Catholics are willing to follow the
teachings of the Church, while dismissing your meanderings as sophistry.

Please catharina, you’ve already lost one argument to me (that the Church defines ensoulment as occuring at conception) and you didn’t even have the grace to admit you were wrong.

 

[ryecroft]

I’ve been in this situation - and I will grant you there are not a ton of situations where this happens. I did have a Priest to help me and who let me know that I didn’t have to give up my own life - there was no chance the fetus would live and I was coming closer and closer to death and would have died as well had I continued the pregnancy. I actually went as long as I could - pressing past what the doctors said was safe for me, but in no way could I see the benefit of me loosing my life as well. Since then, when I have mentioned it on here, I have been condemmed and called all number of names, even though I spoke to a Priest regarding this when we realized I wasn’t doing well and I was told to “end the pregnancy” by the doctors - as I mentioned, I pushed as long as I could to the point of having multiple transfusions but the fetus couldn’t survive outside of me and I couldn’t survive with it in me. (it is very easy for other’s to say ‘you should have waited for a miracle’ or ‘I would never have done what you did…’ but until you are in this situation - and generally those that are in this situation are so ‘out of it’ from either blood loss or meds, etc., that it’s something that comes down to a decision of do you want to die or not? or in other situations does your husband want you to die or not for a reason that doesn’t benefit anyone)
I will never be “happy” about what occured (we had been using NFP to the letter to prevent pregnancy until our doctors gave me the o.k. that my body could handle a pregnancy- we were told that “God must have wanted you to be pregnant…” after going over our charts with two NFP instructing couples) - but I will never be unhappy that I was able to live and have the chance to have other children. Don’t condemn people who are put in this situation - but pray that they’ll be healthy enough to have other children.
God Bless
Rye

 

[catharina]

Please catharina, you’ve already lost one argument to me (that the Church defines ensoulment as occuring at conception) and you didn’t even have the grace to admit you were wrong.

Quite peculiar statement of yours …
I can’t recall arguing with you about anything.

(I recognize though, that you are open to arguments.)

 

[razredge]

Quite peculiar statement of yours …
I can’t recall arguing with you about anything.

(I recognize though, that you are open to arguments.)

Wait a minute… you spent most of this thread and the other abortion one arguing with me that the Catholic church teaches ensoulment occurs at conception, which it does not.