It's worse than you thought

[woodchip]

So all the talk we had about Planned Parents only selling amorphous masses of baby cells now seems to be be put to the lie:

"Dyer is seen laughing about how StemExpress purchases fully intact aborted babies from Planned Parenthood. As she paid the check, Dyer appears to be laughing about how lab recipients of the aborted babies go into shock when they open a box to find an "intact case" (whole body):"

So you still think PP is a wonderful institution? You approve of them selling of baby corpses for profit? If so what manner of ghoul are you?

[callmeslick]

[callmeslick]

1. no selliing for profit, and no evidence of anyone profitting.
2. abortion services make up 2% of everything PP does
3. yes, I'm fine with them. Just cut them a check for $5000, my dad for lots more than that. I am proud of my selection of charities.

[woodchip]

No beating a dead horse as this is new information...you know from the tapes pp did not desperately want you to know. Nice to see slick, you fall in the ghoul col.

[callmeslick]

cherry picked, out of context quotes are all you have. Sorry, you've beaten this to death, and the public opinion polls are rather clear: over 60% of the public thinks PP does good work for good people. And, that 'massive' nationwide protest yesterday turned out the same few thousand loudmouthed characters it always does. Defunding government monies from PP won't affect abortion services at all, because those are paid for by private contributors, with federal law forbidding spending for abortion. All defunding will do is hurt poor women in their efforts to get cancer screenings and contraceptive services along with general reproductive health exams. Why do you hate women so much?

[Ferno]

[woodchip]

Slick, you are sounding an awful lot like the NRA extolling the virtues of the 2nd amendment.

[callmeslick]

and you are sounding like a 5 year old who repeats the same stuff over and over again. It's tiresome.

[Ferno]

And the logical fallicies are off and running!

[Tunnelcat]

The fetus pictured in the most recent video from these "activists" is not from an abortion, nor was it taken at a PP clinic either. It was some poor woman's stillborn fetus, and how they got it isn't explained. The women who gave birth to it didn't give permission for it to be shown either, which is an illegal act. Too bad she's decided not to sue the Center for Medical Progress for their unethical behavior in releasing the images of her stillborn child, which is a very private and sad occurrence for any mother. I would certainly sue if I were in her shoes.

https://www.yahoo.com/health/undercover ... 29487.html

[Ferno]

TC: Related

[Lothar]

abortion services make up 2% of everything PP does

If someone goes in and gets an aspirin and an abortion, that gets counted as two services. But those are hardly on the same scale of procedure. Even Slate calls it the "most meaningless abortion statistic ever". The numbers at the end of the article are more telling -- in 2011, PP performed over ten times more abortions than the number of women they provided with prenatal care, and over one hundred times as many abortions as adoption referrals. Abortion absolutely is at the core of what PP provides, and trying to downplay it as a tiny percentage comes off as dishonest.

More meaningful: there are a lot of places that provide services to women with 0% abortions (infographic via google). All of those "essential" services that women wouldn't get without PP? They already get them in considerably higher numbers at places that don't provide abortions. If you want your $5000 to go farther toward providing prenatal care, mammograms, etc. you'd do a lot better donating to a crisis pregnancy center. Which is what I'd like to see the government do -- take the funding away from a "women's health" provider that provides abortions for ten times the number of women it provides prenatal care to, and put that funding toward places that actually focus on prenatal care.

[Ferno]

Related info

[callmeslick]

Lothar, out this way, PP is the ONLY low cost provider of those services, so eliminating PP eliminates those services for all practical purposes for poor women.

[Lothar]

Lothar, out this way, PP is the ONLY low cost provider of those services

Have you checked carefully? There aren't any crisis pregnancy centers?

Personally, I'd be OK with not "eliminating" PP. If they'd stop performing abortions I'd be a big supporter. Even if killing human beings is only 2% of what they do (which it's not; that's a clever misdirection) it's 2% too much.

[Ferno]

Here's another one for the cause.

I want to understand something here, Lothar. Are you telling us you're willing to disregard everything* PP does if they continue abortions?

*note, this does not imply elimination. just non-support from you.

[Lothar]

Are you telling us you're willing to disregard everything* PP does if they continue abortions?

Imagine for a moment that "only 2%" of Catholic priests were child molesters, and the organization thought that was actually a good thing -- they proudly molested 334,000 kids per year. Would you support that organization? Would it matter if the other 98% were doing great things for the world? Or would the organization's explicit support of something you viewed as pure evil mean you couldn't support that organization?

I can't overlook 334,000 abortions per year. And I think it's nonsensical to act as though the only way to provide those other services to women is through an organization that performs abortion services. If those services are so important, and furthermore, the money going to those services never touches the abortion side of the company, then why not split? Why not have an organization that only does not-abortion, and split that "2%" off into a separate private company? (The answer is simple -- abortion isn't a tangential side thing for PP, but rather, one of their core services. Despite attempts to downplay the importance of abortion to their organization, it's the main thing that sets PP apart from thousands of crisis pregnancy centers and similar around the country.)

-----

[Admin note: vision, if you troll this thread again, I will ban you. This is your only warning. Don't be a dick.]

[Ferno]

As an aside, the number is actually 42,000.

I can't abide by your argument lothar, because it's an appeal to emotion. specifically anger. By trying to compare abortions (which we all see that you're a staunch opponent of) to child molestations, which involve children who are sentient, but naiive, it's giving a rather shaky platform. And it's comparing a belief to an actual crime. So no, I can't "imagine for a moment".

[Lothar]

As an aside, the number is actually 42,000

Abortions per year? 334,000 in 2011. 327,000 in 2014.

it's an appeal to emotion

It's an argument by analogy -- to something you find similarly evil, in order to demonstrate why your question about "ignoring all the other stuff the organization does" is unconvincing. It's an organization with a core purpose to do something I find abhorrent, which means I can't simply be like "well, they do a lot of good too". That's not an argument you would accept in a case where you viewed the behavior as evil, so why do you expect me to accept it when I view the behavior as evil?

If PP split into two organizations, one of which performed abortions and the other of which did all of the non-abortion stuff, I would be completely supportive of the latter while abhoring the former. Put them together, and I can't support the non-abortion side because of its association with the abortion side. But there are crisis pregnancy centers and similar organizations throughout the country that do all of the good stuff PP also does, without the bad stuff, so they're the ones who get my support, and they're the ones I want to get my tax dollars.

[woodchip]

As an aside, the number is actually 42,000.

I can't abide by your argument lothar, because it's an appeal to emotion. specifically anger. By trying to compare abortions (which we all see that you're a staunch opponent of) to child molestations, which involve children who are sentient, but naiive, it's giving a rather shaky platform. And it's comparing a belief to an actual crime. So no, I can't "imagine for a moment".

Would you feel better if we compared the number of illegal immigrants who enter the US and commit crimes? Something like 37% of the prison population is made up of illegals. Like abortions, there are people who still think we should have open borders and that illegals are really wonderful people. Some donate money to their cause and municipalities make laws to protect them. In both cases (abortions and illegal immigration) the more you promote and protect them, the more incidents of abuse to the system occurs.

If you want to promote such abuses then by all means continue to support both causes. In the larger context you are in reality contributing to a slow slide of morality and clothing it with phrases like "they do more good than bad". In PP's case we are now at the state where fully formed infant corpses are treated like vegetable gardens, ripe for the harvest.

[woodchip]

The more folks exaggerate(300k abortions total is not PP, that group only performs about 40-50,000 annually),

Tell me slick, why do you continually think we are stupid? You have no clue as to what you are posting about yet you slap a figure out her that has no basis in reality. From PP's 2013/2014 annual report they list 327,653 abortions.

http://issuu.com/alidesigner786/docs/20 ... inal_web_v

So which is it slick? Are you a pathological liar that you continue to make such wrong statements or are you just a ignoramus that blindly parrots what he reads on some left wing talking point site?

[callmeslick]

correction: my 50,000 number was from a REGIONAL report I received as a supporting donor, so I'll accept the figures of 300K nationwide, at least as of 2013, which seems to be the last year publicly released. That still begs a few questions: 1) given the clear demand for services by poor women, what alternative do you anti-PP folks propose be offered? The mere fact that you don't agree, ethically, with abortion gives you NO RIGHT to demand that others not have that ethical choice for themselves, given accepted law. 2) History indicates that those 300,000 fetuses will likely be aborted SOMEHOW. Why would you have me and others not fund the providing of safe alternatives(many of us have pressured PP to upgrade some substandard facilities in their network, here in the Northeast)? 3) given that no Federal money goes to PP for abortion services(hence, the need for fundraising, and having costs of tissue collection for legitimate research facilities underwritten by the research community), what is served by attacking Federal or State funding?

[Lothar]

[the stuff about vision/me has been split and moved to Feedback]

given the clear demand for services by poor women, what alternative do you anti-PP folks propose be offered

no Federal money goes to PP for abortion services ... what is served by attacking Federal or State funding?

The thing about money is, it's fungible. My tax dollars are currently going to an organization that performs over 300,000 abortions per year; they don't put it on the side of their accounting sheet that deals with abortions, but their bottom line would be the same if they moved the money into a different column on the spreadsheet.

I propose moving the funding from PP to other organizations that focus on actual medical services in which nobody is killed. Crisis pregnancy centers and the like. Potentially even a split-off Planned Parenthood organization that actually focuses on sex education, birth control, prenatal care, etc. and performs zero abortions -- in other words, focus on those safe alternatives you mentioned. You know that "wall of separation between church and state" people like to talk about, where they don't like tax dollars going to religious organizations even if those organizations' charitable work is supposedly separate from their religious work, as long as the organizations continue to do both types of work? I'd like a "wall of separation between my tax dollars and dead babies" (I'm pretty sure others have made this argument about the military / drone strikes on this board.)

The mere fact that you don't agree, ethically, with abortion gives you NO RIGHT to demand that others not have that ethical choice for themselves, given accepted law

There are a lot of things that, ethically, people haven't agreed with throughout the centuries even though they've been legal. Rosa Parks didn't agree, ethically, with making negroes sit at the back of the bus even though the bus company had that choice for themselves as a matter of accepted law. Elizabeth Cady Stanton didn't agree, ethically, with men subjugating women even though men had that choice for themselves as a matter of accepted law. I'm pretty sure you don't agree, ethically, with a bakery refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, even though up until a few years ago they had that choice as a matter of accepted law.

We look at the people who advocated for changing unjust laws as heroes. It's foolish to argue that we have no right to try to change the law, and no right to try to change the way our tax dollars are used. You obviously don't agree with our goals, but you have no grounds on which to claim that we have "no right" to pursue those goals.

[Ferno]

As an aside, the number is actually 42,000

Abortions per year? 334,000 in 2011. 327,000 in 2014.

Ah yes, looks like their end-of-year report mirrors that.

it's an appeal to emotion

It's an argument by analogy -- to something you find similarly evil, in order to demonstrate why your question about "ignoring all the other stuff the organization does" is unconvincing. It's an organization with a core purpose to do something I find abhorrent, which means I can't simply be like "well, they do a lot of good too". That's not an argument you would accept in a case where you viewed the behavior as evil, so why do you expect me to accept it when I view the behavior as evil?

If PP split into two organizations, one of which performed abortions and the other of which did all of the non-abortion stuff, I would be completely supportive of the latter while abhoring the former. Put them together, and I can't support the non-abortion side because of its association with the abortion side. But there are crisis pregnancy centers and similar organizations throughout the country that do all of the good stuff PP also does, without the bad stuff, so they're the ones who get my support, and they're the ones I want to get my tax dollars.

I understand what an analogy is, but as an analogy; it's not very good. The two objects (for lack of a better word) is comparable to you in the sense that you find both to be repulsive. Here's where it falls apart. One is a moral stance, and the other is a verifiable crime. One has to do with something that does not have self-determination, sentience, will or even consciousness. The other has all that, but is almost always naive.

What it DOES do is elicit an emotional response, which makes it an appeal to anger.

We look at the people who advocated for changing unjust laws as heroes.

We look at those people who advocated changing those unjust laws because the effect has benefited society as a whole. Changing the law to make abortion illegal only benefits a select few, and essentially tells a woman "No, you have to have the nine months of pregnancy, you have to give birth". This puts the cause and religious morality above an actual human being -- and that is dehumanizing. Do you really want to force a woman to go through labor because you found the alternative "immoral"?

[Lothar]

Here's where it falls apart. One is a moral stance, and the other is a verifiable crime

I would say "verifiable crime" is the less relevant of those distinctions. Both are moral stances -- I don't want children to be molested, nor do I want much smaller children to be killed.

I think you're trying too hard to deny the analogy. The point isn't to convince you to change your mind. It's to clarify for you why "it's only 2% of what they do" is such a tone-deaf argument. You wouldn't accept "only 2%" for something you viewed as seriously harmful, so why do you expect me to? Because YOU don't view the same thing as harmful?

We look at the people who advocated for changing unjust laws as heroes.

We look at those people who advocated changing those unjust laws because the effect has benefited society as a whole. Changing the law to make abortion illegal only benefits a select few

It would benefit around 1 million every year (PP is not the only abortion provider in the US.) That's not a "select few". If we did actually outlaw abortion (even allowing for fairly broad exceptions), and changed our focus to improving the lives of children instead of ending their lives, that would be a HUGE change to society which would have both drawbacks (kids are expensive) and benefits, particularly long term (as those kids become productive, not-dead adults.)

[Ferno]

I think the biggest void that we both see is "what classifies as a child"? To you it's what you think it is. I can't say because I can't read your mind. To me, it's when the child is able to provide their own support. As in: when the cord is cut.

[Top Gun]

But the interesting there is that a baby isn't any more able to provide its own support after the cord is cut than immediately before...without a caretaker, it would swiftly die. It takes a good five or six years at the very least until a child is capable of fulfilling its most basic needs on their own, and obviously several more until it can be considered "independent" in any practical sense. Whether there's a direct physical connection with another organism anymore or not, the needs remain the same, and in that regard the child isn't all that different two or three months before birth than two or three months after.

[Lothar]

But the interesting there is that a baby isn't any more able to provide its own support after the cord is cut than immediately before...without a caretaker, it would swiftly die. It takes a good five or six years at the very least until a child is capable of fulfilling its most basic needs on their own, and obviously several more until it can be considered "independent" in any practical sense. Whether there's a direct physical connection with another organism anymore or not, the needs remain the same, and in that regard the child isn't all that different two or three months before birth than two or three months after.

Right -- it's a developmental process. My five year old can't open his own fruit snacks yet. Toilets are difficult. He can tell you 201 digits of pi and sing the Animaniacs' Nations of the World, but he's VERY limited in terms of what he can do for himself. He was a lot more limited when he was born a month premature (induced labor due to mom's health -- otherwise he would've gladly stayed in there for another month.) So if our distinguishing factor is "independence", the cord is hardly the only or best choice of distinctions (why treat my son differently because he was born a month early, when his friend with the same name was born right on time a month later? Both were equally developed and equally capable at ~35 weeks, the only difference was that doctors delivered one of them early.)

Speaking of viability: medical technology is good enough that there have been some survivors at around 20 weeks, a 50% survival rate at 24 weeks, 90% at 27 weeks, and... that still leaves 13 weeks before most babies are born. My other little friend Caleb was born at 26-27 weeks and doctors went to great lengths to take care of him (and he's a totally awesome 6-year-old now), yet a baby 13 weeks more developed than he was who still happens to reside internally is, according to you, "not a child" only because of its medical circumstances? Since when do we determine whether or not someone is human based on where they live?

[Ferno]

I did some thinking of this topic earlier today and I was trying to figure out what the closest thing to fetus was, and honestly, I didn't get any further than a day ago.

I first thought a fetus was like... a parasite, in the sense that it extracts nutrients from the host. But I realized that can't be, because parasites come in from the outside, whereas a fetus grows from a singe cell. So with that out, I tried to see if it was like a plant, in the sense that it grows from a single cell, a seed. But that wasn't right either because the plant has its own food, whereas the fetus accepts nutrients from the outside. I got closer when I started to compare a human fetus to an animal fetus. All conditions apply here: nutrients are delivered from the outside, it grows from a single cell, it only begins growth when outside information is given to it.

Then I ran into another problem. We don't view ourselves (and fetuses, zygotes, etc) as animals. We might have a philosophical roadblock.

But the interesting there is that a baby isn't any more able to provide its own support after the cord is cut than immediately before...without a caretaker, it would swiftly die. It takes a good five or six years at the very least until a child is capable of fulfilling its most basic needs on their own, and obviously several more until it can be considered "independent" in any practical sense. Whether there's a direct physical connection with another organism anymore or not, the needs remain the same, and in that regard the child isn't all that different two or three months before birth than two or three months after.

I'm talking about the ability to breathe on its own and being able to intake (liquid) food via mouth.

[woodchip]

Let me once again remind you all, if you kill a pregnant woman you will be charged with 2 murders.

[callmeslick]

Let me once again remind you all, if you kill a pregnant woman you will be charged with 2 murders.

let me remind you: only in a certain number of states. In many states, not true. Delaware, for instance.

[Lothar]

But the interesting there is that a baby isn't any more able to provide its own support after the cord is cut than immediately before...without a caretaker, it would swiftly die. It takes a good five or six years at the very least until a child is capable of fulfilling its most basic needs on their own, and obviously several more until it can be considered "independent" in any practical sense. Whether there's a direct physical connection with another organism anymore or not, the needs remain the same, and in that regard the child isn't all that different two or three months before birth than two or three months after.

I'm talking about the ability to breathe on its own and being able to intake (liquid) food via mouth.

The ability to breathe is actually one of the big barriers for viability -- why survival is so low at 20 weeks and ramps up significantly for each subsequent week. The lungs go through a major developmental transition around 22-24 weeks. The ability to ingest via mouth is mostly formed much sooner than that, though many premies up to 35 weeks struggle with putting all of the individual motions (sucking and swallowing) together.

So if you're asserting that the fetus becomes an "independent child" when it becomes capable of breathing and eating separately from its mother, that's ~22 weeks -- and might become earlier based on technological development. If you're asserting that it becomes "independent" only when it actually begins those processes, then you're saying that its physical location determines its humanity -- that Caleb magically transformed into a human being at 27 weeks on account of being delivered very early via c-section, but Michael didn't magically transform into a human being until 35 weeks on account of being induced moderately early, and The Other Michael was still just a blob of tissue for an additional 5 weeks until natural birth. Which, to me, is a very strange thing to say.

[callmeslick]

Lecithin and Sphingomyelin, the major lung surfactants, don't even show up in signnificant amounts in amniotic fluid testing until well after 24 weeks. Without those,in a certain ration(L/S over 2.0) the fetus will not be able to breathe unassisted. Not putting this out as any sort of up/down determinant, just fleshing out the info above.

[Lothar]

Lecithin and Sphingomyelin, the major lung surfactants, don't even show up in signnificant amounts in amniotic fluid testing until well after 24 weeks. Without those,in a certain ration(L/S over 2.0) the fetus will not be able to breathe unassisted. Not putting this out as any sort of up/down determinant, just fleshing out the info above.

That does point us back to the "independent" comments of Top Gun earlier -- my five year old can't open his fruit snacks. My sister is over 30 and lives in my basement. My dad is in his 60s and can't walk more than a few yards, but he has an electric wheelchair. Most of us don't really know how to grow our own food without the help of modern society. So when we're talking about independent/unassisted survival, I think there's always the implication of technology and society, and I don't think we should ignore it when it comes to breathing or eating when we're talking about preemies.

Lung development in the ~22-24 week range is really two major things: the surfactants, and the expansion of the airways. Right now that's the major determining factor in survival -- can we get the right amount of oxygen being absorbed by the lungs (without oversaturating, which can also cause death)? It's difficult, but on occasion a kid like James Elgin Gill (21 weeks, 5 days) pulls through. As medical technology gets better, could we start to see 18-week preemies survive and grow up to live ordinary lives? Could we potentially even develop an artificial womb, and be able to save both mother and child in those cases where the mother's life is threatened? Would that change anyone's opinion on abortion, particularly late-term abortion?

[callmeslick]

yes, Lothan we might, and likely WILL get to the point where we can just artificially manipulate the entire developmental process, biochemically and physically. Still it is an irrelevant point in this discussion. What may be more pertinent to consider is how we plan to address a massive overpopulation of the planet, while still putting up roadblocks to effective contraception(it's out there, just too expensive for many), even resistance to condom use which is cheap and somewhat effective. The bottom line of this never-ending debate, as I see it is this: for the past 40 years, the overall public opinion on abortion has stayed pretty much the same. Folks who believe abortion should be illegal are in a distinct, and little changed minority. Thus, since society doesn't place abortion in the same moral class as murder(or even view it as wrong as rape, incest, robbery or other crimes), the rights of those who choose to abort unwanted fetuses must be maintained, if we are to remain true to our principles in the US. A minority should never be able to write some of the laws that have been proposed and even enacted forcing women to abandon that choice, or to face physical insult(transvaginal ultrasounds, etc) in order to have a legal medical procedure performed. Note, that every single vote to create 'personhood' for fetuses in the US has failed, and badly so,even in relatively anti-abortion regions of the nation. Case closed, or it ought to be. No manner of bogus videos, lies about 'selling parts' or other nonsense should enter into the discussion. It's a matter of civil rights, rule of common law and little else.

[woodchip]

for the past 40 years, the overall public opinion on abortion has stayed pretty much the same. Folks who believe abortion should be illegal are in a distinct, and little changed minority.

First I suggest you peruse this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

2nd panel from top clear shows at times the people for abortion were in the minority. Once again I suggest you look a little before making protective comments

No manner of bogus videos, lies about 'selling parts' or other nonsense should enter into the discussion. It's a matter of civil rights, rule of common law and little else.

So civil rights and common law supersede morality? And there was nothing bogus about what was said by PP higher ups nor the fact they sold parts. You have yet to show any proof of your assertions.

[Lothar]

What may be more pertinent to consider is how we plan to address a massive overpopulation of the planet

Jonathan Swift solved that problem a long time ago

roadblocks to effective contraception... even resistance to condom use

Maybe we should stop putting up those roadblocks? But speaking of irrelevant points, both of these were.

for the past 40 years, the overall public opinion on abortion has stayed pretty much the same

We could have made the same argument about slavery in the first half of the 1800s. Society didn't place it on the same moral class as murder, or even robbery -- at least not all of society. There was always a vocal minority who recognized it for what it was -- a major human rights violation. But others insisted on talking about it in terms that ignored its victims. It was about "property rights" and "rule of law" and its victims were referred to in sub-human terms. So you'll excuse me if I think arguments about "majority opinion" and "rule of law" and "case closed" are weak.

The relevant question is, should we protect unborn human beings? Everything else is a distraction. Talk of majority opinion is a distraction. Talk of common law is a distraction. Talk of edited videos is a distraction. Talk of whether Planned Parenthood provides other forms of health care is a distraction (though an easy distraction to settle: split the company and we do away with the whole question of federal funding, and if the abortion side of the company really doesn't need that money, they can operate without access to it.)

If human beings who are still in the womb deserve to be protected (possibly only after some particular developmental stage) then we should outlaw abortion (at that developmental stage, with potential exceptions wherein it's actually a life-saving procedure) and keeping it legal is a massive violation of human rights. If human beings who are still in the womb don't deserve to be protected, then telling women what to do with their bodies is a massive violation of human rights. "That choice should be left up to individuals" is a worthless response, because it assumes people should ignore what they view as human rights violations -- in essence, assuming that they're not real human rights violations. (I don't see you agreeing to ignore human rights violations when a business refuses service to a same-sex couple, even though majority opinion and even rule of law was on that side for a long time. Why do you expect anyone to accept that argument here?)

[callmeslick]

So civil rights and common law supersede morality?

common law presupposes morality, and civil rights dictate protection of rights from those who would take them away. Keep beating the dead horse on the PP nonsense.

[Ferno]

So if you're asserting that the fetus becomes an "independent child" when it becomes capable of breathing and eating separately from its mother, that's ~22 weeks -- and might become earlier based on technological development. If you're asserting that it becomes "independent" only when it actually begins those processes, then you're saying that its physical location determines its humanity -- that Caleb magically transformed into a human being at 27 weeks on account of being delivered very early via c-section, but Michael didn't magically transform into a human being until 35 weeks on account of being induced moderately early, and The Other Michael was still just a blob of tissue for an additional 5 weeks until natural birth. Which, to me, is a very strange thing to say.

And this (among other points along the line) is why it's a very hard thing to nail down, and agree upon. We really don't have a set point to where we all can say 'yup, that's a human now'.

[callmeslick]

and to follow up Ferno's point, this is why we cannot agree on a common ethical/moral certainty, and thus cannot treat abortion, legally, as murder(or any other commonly agreed upon crime). That is what I meant, above, by saying common law presupposes morality, and in the absence of an agreed-upon morality, the rights of all to their own ethics should be the rule of law.