I'm Pro-Life: Change My Mind

[weaver2]

Then you have no valid argument for which to change anybody's mind. If you can't rationalize your position than perhaps your reason for holding it isn't rational.

Nobody is interested in changing your mind. Only a cucca-sukka cleans out septic tanks and they don't really change anything they just empty the shit.

 

[Lursa]

Nobody is interested in changing your mind. Only a cucca-sukka cleans out septic tanks and they don't really change anything they just empty the shit.

He's doesnt even know the definitions of the words he's using, cuz he isnt using them properly.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nobody is interested in changing your mind. Only a cucca-sukka cleans out septic tanks and they don't really change anything they just empty the shit.

I'm not surprised you are incapable of rationalizing your position.

 

[code1211]

This is the part I disagree with. The stage of development is key in the argument. It is also why any arguments of the father having a voice fails, as well as claims that the mother has a right to terminate her offspring. The biology or science of it is what supports the legal right and separates the situation from pretty much any other situation there is.

The mother has no right to terminate the offspring. If that right existed, it would extend past birth, extend to the father as well, and be in effect, even if the offspring was in a surrogate. The termination of the offspring is a result of another right, not a right in and of itself. The surrogate example shows us how this applies, even if the offspring has no genetic material from the surrogate. Even if the ZEF was entirely the mother's DNA (theoretical cloning), she would not have a right to terminate it while it is in another's body, nor to demand that it be removed early.

The so called arbitrary development point is also why neither parent can terminate the offspring after birth. There is no violation of bodily autonomy after birth. The genetic mother, nor anyone else for that matter, can be compelled to simply provide breast milk for the offspring.

In the end, the issues of whether a ZEF is living or not, a human or not, a being or not, or possesses rights or not, are all red herrings. Just as no born being can override a person's bodily autonomy, neither can a ZEF.

You say that "no born being can override a person's bodily autonomy". That statement is replete with legalistic jargon. Scientifically, though, we are discussing HUMAN LIFE.

In any pregnancy, regardless of the circumstances under which the pregnancy was initiated or is ongoing, there are at least two bodily autonomies to consider.

Whether one is born and the other is not is a consideration of legality, not of science. The DNA brands all actors in this little play as human. They BOTH embody HUMAN LIFE.

If respecting "bodily autonomy" is intrinsically demanded for a life form and that autonomy cannot be overidden by another autonomous bodily entity, then neither the unborn or the already born can override the autonomy of the other.

The stage of the development of either of the autonomous bodies is only a technicality. The DNA present in the unborn and in the born are BOTH human. Their DNA is also unique and also constantly replicating as new cells are produced.

Scientifically, then, both the unborn and the already born are autonomous bodily entities regardless of what stage of development they have attained. That development could range from a low of two cells to way above billions.

Based only on Science, if EITHER possess a right to survive, then BOTH possess a right to survive.

Judging only by the survival of autonomous bodies in nature, though, the "right" to survive seems itself to be a societal construct. So, there's that...

In science NOTHING has the right to survive or to anything else for that matter. In science, it seems to be more a case of if-then, not why-because.

 

[weaver2]

...........Based only on Science, if EITHER possess a right to survive, then BOTH possess a right to survive.
Judging only by the survival of autonomous bodies in nature, though, the "right" to survive seems itself to be a societal construct. So, there's that...
In science NOTHING has the right to survive or to anything else for that matter. In science, it seems to be more a case of if-then, not why-because.

You are right: there are no rights in science. An apple does not have a right to fall. There are questions and there are answers that can be proven to be facts by observing or testing for the same answer over and over. It is a fact that gravity causes an apple to fall. Research, experiments and observations prove it.

But your statement : " if EITHER possess a right to survive, then BOTH possess a right to survive." is untrue. There are no rights in science and in times of high stress there is not an equal survival rate. The female survives, not the offspring or fetus. Years of research, studies and scientific observations show this to be true, a fact. In nature as in society the female preserves the species and therefore survives rather than the fetus which is spontaneously aborted or in the human species is elected to be aborted so that the female survives and is able to give birth later when the environment or resources are available to support a healthy offspring.

Humans can establish a right. They can circumvent a fact of nature and establish the rights of fetus over the mother. That does not make it a scientific fact. The actual fact is in times of stress the female of the species survives and the fetus is aborted. If it was any different the species would die out.

Science is not the friend of religion.

 

[maquiscat]

Scientifically, though, we are discussing HUMAN LIFE.

The DNA brands all actors in this little play as human. They BOTH embody HUMAN LIFE.

The DNA present in the unborn and in the born are BOTH human.

Which holds no bearing upon the rights of bodily autonomy. I do agree that we are looking at two separate things, nature/science and legality. But if the argument of nature/science are to be used to argue against the legality of abortion, then it as much fair game to use it to argue for the legality of abortion. Can't have it both ways.

But bodily autonomy goes beyond that. An individual has a right to decide to keep or have removed a non-living thing within them as well. Shrapnel for example.

If respecting "bodily autonomy" is intrinsically demanded for a life form and that autonomy cannot be overidden by another autonomous bodily entity, then neither the unborn or the already born can override the autonomy of the other.

True enough. The thing is that the ZEF, by its very present in the woman's body, is a potential override of the woman's bodily autonomy. That is because, scientifically, it is taking of her bodily resources. She is not taking of its bodily resources, so she is not overriding its bodily autonomy. That is why she has the right to remove the ZEF.

The stage of the development of either of the autonomous bodies is only a technicality.

No it's not, because the stages of development determine whether or not the offspring is taking of the woman's bodily resources or not. And that is the key determination of whether her bodily autonomy is violated or not.

Scientifically, then, both the unborn and the already born are autonomous bodily entities regardless of what stage of development they have attained. That development could range from a low of two cells to way above billions.

Yes, but only the issue of whether or not one is taking of the bodily resources of the other is the determinate of whether or not bodily autonomy is violated or not. If we could start a ZEF in a artificial womb that is not inside someone, then no bodily autonomy of the woman is violated, thus she no longer has a right of abortion because the ZEF is not inside her.

In science NOTHING has the right to survive or to anything else for that matter. In science, it seems to be more a case of if-then, not why-because.

I agree, but when the "pro-life" is using science to say that a ZEF has a right to live, then science is a valid source for either side of the argument. Either it's part of the argument or it isn't. It doesn't belong to only one side or the other.

 

[code1211]

You are right: there are no rights in science. An apple does not have a right to fall. There are questions and there are answers that can be proven to be facts by observing or testing for the same answer over and over. It is a fact that gravity causes an apple to fall. Research, experiments and observations prove it.

But your statement : " if EITHER possess a right to survive, then BOTH possess a right to survive." is untrue. There are no rights in science and in times of high stress there is not an equal survival rate. The female survives, not the offspring or fetus. Years of research, studies and scientific observations show this to be true, a fact. In nature as in society the female preserves the species and therefore survives rather than the fetus which is spontaneously aborted or in the human species is elected to be aborted so that the female survives and is able to give birth later when the environment or resources are available to support a healthy offspring.

Humans can establish a right. They can circumvent a fact of nature and establish the rights of fetus over the mother. That does not make it a scientific fact. The actual fact is in times of stress the female of the species survives and the fetus is aborted. If it was any different the species would die out.

Science is not the friend of religion.

I disagree that science is not the friend of religion, but that is a different discussion.

I was only stating that IF one recognizes a "right" for any living thing to exist based on its general species, THEN that right must logically extend to all of the members of that species.

An apple is not a human. To me, there are rights to survival legitimately withheld from apples that are recognized to be possessed by humans.

It is only when the hair splitting that rises out of society's legal rationalizations come into play that oddities regarding the number of days an entity exists dictate whether the member of the species is legitimately a member.

 

[code1211]

Which holds no bearing upon the rights of bodily autonomy. I do agree that we are looking at two separate things, nature/science and legality. But if the argument of nature/science are to be used to argue against the legality of abortion, then it as much fair game to use it to argue for the legality of abortion. Can't have it both ways.

But bodily autonomy goes beyond that. An individual has a right to decide to keep or have removed a non-living thing within them as well. Shrapnel for example.



True enough. The thing is that the ZEF, by its very present in the woman's body, is a potential override of the woman's bodily autonomy. That is because, scientifically, it is taking of her bodily resources. She is not taking of its bodily resources, so she is not overriding its bodily autonomy. That is why she has the right to remove the ZEF.



No it's not, because the stages of development determine whether or not the offspring is taking of the woman's bodily resources or not. And that is the key determination of whether her bodily autonomy is violated or not.



Yes, but only the issue of whether or not one is taking of the bodily resources of the other is the determinate of whether or not bodily autonomy is violated or not. If we could start a ZEF in a artificial womb that is not inside someone, then no bodily autonomy of the woman is violated, thus she no longer has a right of abortion because the ZEF is not inside her.



I agree, but when the "pro-life" is using science to say that a ZEF has a right to live, then science is a valid source for either side of the argument. Either it's part of the argument or it isn't. It doesn't belong to only one side or the other.

You continue to conflate legality with science. I assert that rights are not a thing of science especially in the areas of biology.

However, IF you assign to humans any "right to exist" simply based on the fact that human life is special, THEN ALL humans must logically share that assigned right.

As soon as you begin to speak of rights, though, you are also speaking of society and law and contrived estimates of value and worth.

I happen to think that humans are special among all life forms on the planet. I believe that this "specialness" justifies special considerations. We can therefore justifiably enslave beasts of burden, but not other humans.

Eating the fruit of the cultivated crops around the world is accepted. Cannibalism is condemned.

However, these areas of condemnation are no more than societal and personal preferences. More like fashion statements than universal truths.

My only point is that IF the scientific recognition of humanity in general confers specific preferences be bestowed on individuals, THEN ALL of humanity's incarnations deserve that preferential treatment.

In passing, a woman in today's America is a part of society and she is taking of our societal resources. Despite this, we restrain the damaging of her by society when that damage is not motivated BY her.

 

[prometeus]

The reason I am Pro life is because I believe that the termination of an innocent human life is of course horrible and that is a moral stance we all should have

And that is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

so the question is when does life begin?

Why? Is there some point at which it makes no difference?

if we want to determine whether abortions should be illegal or not this is the most important question.

WHy? How is a point in time relevant to this?

Me personally, I believe that life begins at conception which is why I'm pro life.

What you believe is irrelevant. Can you supply any facts that are?

 

[prometeus]

Incorrect, the baby that has not yet been born has the exact same right to life as the people who are born.

Says who and based on what? What is the right to life, who decided what it is and on what authority?

 

[prometeus]

Ok, this may be true and I can appreciate this point, but as my personal view I believe that it is a life which should be afforded that right to life which is why I hold the position I do, appreciate the feedback!

OK. Do you want to see abortion made illegal?

 

[maquiscat]

You continue to conflate legality with science. I assert that rights are not a thing of science especially in the areas of biology.

I think I see where some of the confusion between us comes from. I am not trying to claim that rights come from any basis in science in and of themselves. All rights are man made, from the right to life to the right to rule over the weak. However, science can be used in defining and remaining consistent in the use of rights. In the context of the topic, we can use science to show that the ZEF takes directly of the woman's bodily resources, and thus impinges upon her life in a way that no one already born does or can. Only in something like hooking a machine to two people, where it cycles blood between them taking the bad from one who can no longer filter it themselves, and using the other as a filter, can we come close to the same situation.

I'm going to leave it there for the moment and see if maybe we aren't actually closer than we originally thought.

 

[weaver2]

I was only stating that IF one recognizes a "right" for any living thing to exist based on its general species, THEN that right must logically extend to all of the members of that species.

You want to use science as long as it suits your purpose. As soon as science reveals that humans respond in the same way as animals to similar situations you want to exempt humans from the animal kingdom and talk about rights. There are no rights in science and human reactions are biologically the same as other mammals. It is a scientific fact that in times of high stress the female of the species is preserved not the fetus. There are no "equal rights extended to all members of that species"

 

[Lursa]

You want to use science as long as it suits your purpose. As soon as science reveals that humans respond in the same way as animals to similar situations you want to exempt humans from the animal kingdom and talk about rights. There are no rights in science and human reactions are biologically the same as other mammals. It is a scientific fact that in times of high stress the female of the species is preserved not the fetus. There are no "equal rights extended to all members of that species"

LOL And there's nothing 'logical' about his opinion. RIghts are a man-made concept and we apply them as we see fit. We have clearly set rules and laws and restrictions for the rights we've recognized. No right is unlimited and we can set criteria for applying those rights and not recognizing them. That's why in America, we have a Constitution and a Supreme Court. And when there is a conflict of rights, there is a high court principle applied called "balancing rights". OTOH, in the case of the unborn, multiple SC decisions and the Const itself all do not recognize rights for the unborn, so that principle isnt even in play.

His view has nothing to do with science and nature/biology doesnt apply every the same across everything in a species. It's stupid, not logical...example: minors do not have the full rights as adults. The adults have the right to make life or death for their children.

 

[weaver2]

LOL And there's nothing 'logical' about his opinion. RIghts are a man-made concept and we apply them as we see fit. We have clearly set rules and laws and restrictions for the rights we've recognized. No right is unlimited and we can set criteria for applying those rights and not recognizing them. That's why in America, we have a Constitution and a Supreme Court. And when there is a conflict of rights, there is a high court principle applied called "balancing rights". OTOH, in the case of the unborn, multiple SC decisions and the Const itself all do not recognize rights for the unborn, so that principle isnt even in play. His view has nothing to do with science and nature/biology doesnt apply every the same across everything in a species. It's stupid, not logical...example: minors do not have the full rights as adults. The adults have the right to make life or death for their children.

It's like arguing with a stopped up toilet. You can plunge it open, flush it out and 3 post later it's stopped up with the same old crap arguments.

 

[code1211]

I think I see where some of the confusion between us comes from. I am not trying to claim that rights come from any basis in science in and of themselves. All rights are man made, from the right to life to the right to rule over the weak. However, science can be used in defining and remaining consistent in the use of rights. In the context of the topic, we can use science to show that the ZEF takes directly of the woman's bodily resources, and thus impinges upon her life in a way that no one already born does or can. Only in something like hooking a machine to two people, where it cycles blood between them taking the bad from one who can no longer filter it themselves, and using the other as a filter, can we come close to the same situation.

I'm going to leave it there for the moment and see if maybe we aren't actually closer than we originally thought.

I still disagree that merely providing the sustenance also justifies the capricious authority to either kill it or allow it to continue to live.

New borns are helpless to care for themselves and all of their needs are provided by others. However, killing the new born, by either commission or omission is frowned upon.

I happen to support the availability of abortions, and arguing against abortion is not my intent. Development has nothing whatever to do with my opinion on this.

The contention that incomplete development of a human is justification for termination seems odd to me. A human is a human.

Very literally, though, a human's development is incomplete until the human is past age 20 or so. Past age 35, that development gets thrown in reverse and our aggregate capabilities may be demonstrated to diminish overall until death.

By the "fully developed" standard, then, we would be protected from "abortion" for only the short 10 to 20 year period during our peak years.

Being well past that peak, I'm glad that this standard is not in force. Yet...

 

[code1211]

You want to use science as long as it suits your purpose. As soon as science reveals that humans respond in the same way as animals to similar situations you want to exempt humans from the animal kingdom and talk about rights. There are no rights in science and human reactions are biologically the same as other mammals. It is a scientific fact that in times of high stress the female of the species is preserved not the fetus. There are no "equal rights extended to all members of that species"

You are taking talking point out of my post that I didn't put in.

 

[maquiscat]

I happen to support the availability of abortions, and arguing against abortion is not my intent. Development has nothing whatever to do with my opinion on this.

I understand this. It's not the first time I've run into it, but in all honesty, it is the first time it's been used on me and not just by me. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but you feel that the conclusion, even if you agree with it, is not valid if it is arrived at by a faulty premise or logic step. Is that correct? Assuming it is, allow me to applaud you. I too feel.that the reasoning must be as valid as the conclusion.

I still disagree that merely providing the sustenance also justifies the capricious authority to either kill it or allow it to continue to live.

New borns are helpless to care for themselves and all of their needs are provided by others. However, killing the new born, by either commission or omission is frowned upon.

It's not the providing of that sustenance, but the source of it. Keep this in mind, at no point do we require a woman who has given birth to provide breast milk for the infant. And for the sake of the argument let's assume she is capable. She can't be legally compelled to provide that breast milk even if failure to do so would result in the infant's death. We this principal extended into other areas as well. No one can be legally compelled to provide blood or organs, even if in that denial, another person dies. Even in the promise of an organ or blood, up until they are removed from the body, a person has the right to stop it. I could agree to provide a pint of blood, needed immediately to save a person's life. At a half pint I can have that process halted, even if it means the other person dies because they didn't get the full pint. There is no difference in this principle than a woman wanting a pregnancy to end.

The contention that incomplete development of a human is justification for termination seems odd to me. A human is a human.

But that's not the contention, at least not by me and many others, although I will acknowledge others have used that. Also keep in mind that an argument of incomplete development might not be a justification in and of itself, but only a counter argument. Such as the prolife argument of causing pain to the ZEF is countered by pointing out that for a majority of abortions, the systems for feeling such pain is not yet developed.

The contention is that the ZEF has no rights to the bodily resources of the woman, and thus she can have it removed at any time. If the process can be done without terminating the ZEF AND at no additional physical trauma to the woman, there is no principal that says she has the right to have it terminated, only removed.

 

[code1211]

I understand this. It's not the first time I've run into it, but in all honesty, it is the first time it's been used on me and not just by me. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but you feel that the conclusion, even if you agree with it, is not valid if it is arrived at by a faulty premise or logic step. Is that correct? Assuming it is, allow me to applaud you. I too feel.that the reasoning must be as valid as the conclusion.


It's not the providing of that sustenance, but the source of it. Keep this in mind, at no point do we require a woman who has given birth to provide breast milk for the infant. And for the sake of the argument let's assume she is capable. She can't be legally compelled to provide that breast milk even if failure to do so would result in the infant's death. We this principal extended into other areas as well. No one can be legally compelled to provide blood or organs, even if in that denial, another person dies. Even in the promise of an organ or blood, up until they are removed from the body, a person has the right to stop it. I could agree to provide a pint of blood, needed immediately to save a person's life. At a half pint I can have that process halted, even if it means the other person dies because they didn't get the full pint. There is no difference in this principle than a woman wanting a pregnancy to end.



But that's not the contention, at least not by me and many others, although I will acknowledge others have used that. Also keep in mind that an argument of incomplete development might not be a justification in and of itself, but only a counter argument. Such as the prolife argument of causing pain to the ZEF is countered by pointing out that for a majority of abortions, the systems for feeling such pain is not yet developed.

The contention is that the ZEF has no rights to the bodily resources of the woman, and thus she can have it removed at any time. If the process can be done without terminating the ZEF AND at no additional physical trauma to the woman, there is no principal that says she has the right to have it terminated, only removed.

A well reasoned and dispassionate statement with which I disagree.

All cases that you presented show a person dictating death for another based only on capricious and self centered whim.

If self interest is the only guiding principle, then interest beyond self is not even a consideration.

Any life outside of your own, I suppose any THING at all, would be of no value beyond how it might contribute to your perception of your own well being.

In that belief system, your point is valid.

 

[maquiscat]

A well reasoned and dispassionate statement with which I disagree.

Thank you. I also feel that we don't have to agree with a person to recognize when they present good argument.

All cases that you presented show a person dictating death for another based only on capricious and self centered whim.

If self interest is the only guiding principle, then interest beyond self is not even a consideration.

Any life outside of your own, I suppose any THING at all, would be of no value beyond how it might contribute to your perception of your own well being.

In that belief system, your point is valid.

Do you hold then that a person should be made to provide blood or organs as needed if a life is on the line, regardless of their desire to?

 

[Lursa]

All cases that you presented show a person dictating death for another based only on capricious and self centered whim.

And there it is, the common casual disrespect for women and everything in their lives. As if they know better the effects on a woman's health, and what that might have on her responsibilities to her dependents (other children, elderly, disabled) and feeding them and keep a roof over their heads in a safe neighborhood. For her ability to uphold her obigations to others, to employer, church, community, society, etc. The choice to not take govt assistance unnecessarily...how selfish!

Yeah, all that's just so much"whimsey" in a woman's life Heaven forbid she weigh her life and health and the impacts of those things on keeping up her commitments in life. How selfish to put everyone else first, before the unborn!

 

[code1211]

Thank you. I also feel that we don't have to agree with a person to recognize when they present good argument.



Do you hold then that a person should be made to provide blood or organs as needed if a life is on the line, regardless of their desire to?

I don't believe that the analogy is appropriate.

I suppose if I chose to individually inflict the condition upon a different individual in question, then my liability to correct the needs resulting from the resulting condition would exist as a your broke it you own it kind of consideration.

If I somehow destroyed the internal organ of another by choice, I suppose I could be obligated to replace it out of simple fairness. Young ladies who broke my heart in the past were not thus obligated.

So, if I was the woman who chose to engage in the steps to initiate the condition, then I would seem obligated out of fairness accept the obligations and to fulfill the obligations resulting.

So, the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of Hercules and others not in agreement with the initiating act are thus excused as the pregnancy was not an agreed upon act.

Those who created the condition may be obliged out of fairness to correct the injury if we consider the "donate the organ" analogy.

Now, "made to"? Again, we are involving some sort of societal regulating authority.

This entire consideration strays from the simple scientific recognition of "life" or "not life".

 

[soylentgreen]

A well reasoned and dispassionate statement with which I disagree.

All cases that you presented show a person dictating death for another based only on capricious and self centered whim.

If self interest is the only guiding principle, then interest beyond self is not even a consideration.

Any life outside of your own, I suppose any THING at all, would be of no value beyond how it might contribute to your perception of your own well being.

In that belief system, your point is valid.

The point you missed in all that is that your own claim of rights being equal to all is simply just a ridicvulous position to take. It may work in theory in your mind only but not in the real world.

let's try another example in which the decision is all yours so any admittance of capriciousness and self centered whims are all yours.

Try this thought experiment. You are in control of a train . The track ahead splits into two. If you go left there is a little girl on the track who does not see you and will die if you go left. If you go right there is a workman on the track who do not see you and will die if you choose right. You must choose to go left or right, no alternatives. Please make your choice.

That is what a woman faces when she must consider abortion. The choice of where is the least harm. Not as you suggest the silly notion that all are equal.

 

[maquiscat]

The point you missed in all that is that your own claim of rights being equal to all is simply just a ridicvulous position to take. It may work in theory in your mind only but not in the real world.

let's try another example in which the decision is all yours so any admittance of capriciousness and self centered whims are all yours.

Try this thought experiment. You are in control of a train . The track ahead splits into two. If you go left there is a little girl on the track who does not see you and will die if you go left. If you go right there is a workman on the track who do not see you and will die if you choose right. You must choose to go left or right, no alternatives. Please make your choice.

That is what a woman faces when she must consider abortion. The choice of where is the least harm. Not as you suggest the silly notion that all are equal.

And that will be a subjective value.

Ironically enough, there is a game that has you making this kind of a choice. Trail by Trolley from the makers of Joking Hazard, both featuring the artist of Cyanide and Happiness.

 

[maquiscat]

I suppose if I chose to individually inflict the condition upon a different individual in question, then my liability to correct the needs resulting from the resulting condition would exist as a your broke it you own it kind of consideration.

That assumes a choice. In much of what we do, we take precautions against harm, but in choosing to do an activity, there is still a chance of harm to either self or others. Is it your assertion then, under the above, that a condition that you attempt to avoid is still chosen to be inflicted upon another if such unintended events occur?

If I somehow destroyed the internal organ of another by choice, I suppose I could be obligated to replace it out of simple fairness.

Are you obligated to replace it if doing so would cause your death, or the potential of making the replacement has a possibility of your death? In addition to this question, while some may feel it is a moral obligation, do you feel it needs to be a legal obligation?

So, if I was the woman who chose to engage in the steps to initiate the condition, then I would seem obligated out of fairness accept the obligations and to fulfill the obligations resulting.

If you chose to engage in the steps to initiate the condition of a broken leg, are you under the obligation to maintain it broken until it resolves itself?

So, the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of Hercules and others not in agreement with the initiating act are thus excused as the pregnancy was not an agreed upon act.

Use of a method of birth control also mean that the pregnancy is not an agreed upon act.

Those who created the condition may be obliged out of fairness to correct the injury if we consider the "donate the organ" analogy.

Even at risk to their own health or life?

Now, "made to"? Again, we are involving some sort of societal regulating authority.

In the end that is what is at stake, what if any regulating is needed for such an issue.

This entire consideration strays from the simple scientific recognition of "life" or "not life".

Of course it does. As noted, the simple designation of life will never be enough. It has to be demonstrated why the one life has priority over the other life, in all it's aspects.[/QUOTE]