Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, Chum said:

I have to admit, luring citizens to turn against each other with promises of profit - this is one of the most patently evil things I've ever seen.

You think that’s evil, you should see an abortion at 26 weeks…

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Does anyone here believe that abortion should be criminalized completely for any reason whatsoever? 

Does anyone here believe that abortion should be decriminalized completely for any reason at any time during pregnancy?

Please speak up if you fit into one of the above categories - I just want to find out what kind of group we are dealing with here.  Does anyone here fit into one of these extreme positions?   It can become very easy to paint other people in extreme positions in this topic when it is more likely we are all middle-grounders to some degree or another.  It happens when we only speak of women's rights and never address the unborn baby's life at any point.  It also happens when we only talk about the unborn baby and never address mother's rights/health.  

If you are a middle grounder, what are the principles that guide your opinion in where to draw the line? 

Middle grounder here, most every time with most things I'm a middle wayer.

I align a lot with the church's teachings on abortion. 

 

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, provoman said:

The difficulty with abortion issues, for me, is people trying to legislate their religious beliefs

A 2021 PEW study found 59% says abortion should be legal, 39% illegal in all or most cases. The 39% was broken down by religious affiliation.

So for in a society where we should not legislate religious beliefs, abortion should be legal. Such a society can establish the social construct for term at which an abortion may not be permitted

In a society where people seek to legislate their religious beliefs, they better pony-up quick to perform the religious duties for all the unwanted, destitute, etc.

What if my understanding of fetal development and my conscience causes me lean towards the argument for life, and also happens to align with my religious affiliation?  Should I go against my conscience because my conscience aligns with my religion?  That doesn't seem right to me.  

In regard to the bold - yeah, good luck constructing such a united social construct that we all can agree upon!  Again, where does conscience come into play in establishing a social construct?  

The fact that you seem to think that it is a given that there is a point in pregnancy where abortion should be illegal, probably because you view it as immoral - what is that based on?  What non-religious principle? 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by pogi

[Durangout]

…and just like that, the 2022 midterms are no longer about inflation, Afganistán, supply chain, immigration crisis, Pres/vp incompetence, mandates…. Well, that was easy and cost hardly anything.

[Durangout]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

My sister would probably be dead if abortion had been illegal when she had a tubal pregnancy. 

It it weren’t for abortion law limits, my daughter would be dead and never having had a chance at this life.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Durangout

[Chum]

13 minutes ago, SteveO said:

You think that’s evil, you should see an abortion at 26 weeks…

By tying these two together, you seem to say you support Texas's new system of animosity driven revenge. Was there a different point you wanted to make?

[SteveO]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

By tying these two together, you seem to say you support Texas's new system of animosity driven revenge. Was there a different point you wanted to make?

I do support it if it discourages abortions at 26 weeks.  
 

…wait, are you fine with those then?

Edited May 3, 2022 by SteveO

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Thanks for proving my point. 

Nah, the problem is that there are extremes demanded in the prolife camp which, if made into law, would inevitably lead to death from ectopic pregnancy.

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

What if my understanding of fetal development and my conscience causes me lean towards the argument for life, and also happens to align with my religious affiliation?  Should I go against my conscience because my conscience aligns with my religion?  That doesn't seem right to me.  

In regard to the bold - yeah, good luck constructing such a united social construct that we all can agree upon!  Again, where does conscience come into play in establishing a social construct?

The fact that you seem to think that it is a given that there is a point in pregnancy where abortion should be illegal, probably because you view it as immoral - what is that based on?  What non-religious principle? 

 

I would say, if you have secular reasons to support something, and those secular reason align with religious belief, then promote those secular reasons.

A social construct is essentially what people agree on, so a secular society can democratically vote on laws that govern behavior.

As for when a secular society deems when an abortion cannot happen that is for them to decide….but some degree of viability seems a reasonable basis to restrict abortion, non-religious people support limitations on abortion - I am not sure of the reason(s) but I accept there are non-religious reason a person might support limitations; possibly a form of “your fist, my nose” rationale.

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I do support it if it discourages abortions at 26 weeks. 

As would preemptive executions or forced sterilizations or piles of other means to that end.

 

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

…wait, are you fine with those then?

No. Not fine with abortion laws either. I was for over a generation but the motivations behind these laws now are primarily about hurting people that those in power don't like.  Once we became okay with that, we had fully lost our way.

 

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Nah, the problem is that there are extremes demanded in the prolife camp which, if made into law, would inevitably lead to death from ectopic pregnancy.

Just for information for those that are interested: removing the Fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy is morally justified in Catholicism. The action is good because it results in saving the mother's life. Aborting the fetus is not the intention of the action -- removing the tube that is about to erupt is. The death of the fetus is the second effect of the action (the first effect is saving the mother's life). It is also assumed that a Catholic undergoing this procedure is not wishing for the death of the fetus and would save the child if possible. Finally, the good achieved from the action (life of the mother) is equal to the bad (life of the fetus).

[LoudmouthMormon]

38 minutes ago, Chum said:

Texas figured out how to craft civil penalties to bring new harm to unliked people.

Whereas Maryland and Cali are busy crafting bills to remove any sort of penalties for bringing harm to a different class of unliked people. 

Honestly, is this the tone this thread is going to take now?  Nothing has changed since the mid 1980's.  I'm evil for hating women, and you're evil for hating unborn humans.  Not really anything else to say, right?  Just fight and be divided...

[smac97]

On 5/3/2022 at 11:45 AM, jkwilliams said:

I’m not trying to start an argument, but if there is inherent “personhood” in a fetus, then all abortions would be considered killing a person.

I think reasonable principles can be utilized in this context.  A few that come to mind:

Principle 1: A fetus is, during much of its development, an inchoate person, but a person nonetheless.  The value of this person matters.  A lot.  A lot.  It is a central consideration.  Many of the justifications used for elective abortions (matters of convenience, expense, preference, etc.) are abhorrent, even evil, and ought not be tolerated where the life of the child - who has personhood - is at stake.  If a young mother is having difficulties with her newborn, do we as a society take a 100% "hands off" approach and let her do whatever she wants?  Drug the baby so that he sleeps at night?  Strike the baby when he's crying?  Kill the baby if he's inconvenient?  No, no and no.  Why?  Because the child's personhood is acknowledged, and the government has a role in protecting the child.  The humanity, the personhood of the child is a central consideration here.

Principle 2: There can be circumstances in which the pregnancy is not fairly attributed to the mother (rape, incest), such that she cannot be said to have consented to the conduct which precipitated the pregnancy.  In other words, free will has been materially undermined.  This may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

Principle 3: There can also be circumstances in which there is a genuine moral dilemma, such as the life of the mother is materially at risk and/or where the child will not survive birth.  Society must therefore tolerate one terrible choice (death of the child) or another (death of the mother).  Again, this may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

Principle 4: Absent force, coercion or deceit, pregnancy is an utterly foreseeable - though plainly not inevitable - consequence of sexual activity.  It is therefore an avoidable consequence.  Once the consequence has materialized, another's personhood is at stake.

Principle 5: "Safe haven" laws allowing abandonment of the newborn child, no questions asked, weaken the public policy argument pertaining to women being obligated to spend 18 years raising and paying for the child.  Also, those who truly find elective abortion to be abhorrent should prepare themselves and stand ready to adopt unwanted children abandoned by their birth mothers under such laws.

Principle 6: The structure of the Constitution is better supported by leaving this issue to the states rather than to the Nine Enrobed Ones.

Principle 7: This is not the first time we as as a society have struggled to address the legal ramifications of granting personhood to parties previously denied it.  The stain of slavery is still on us, though it was abolished long ago.  Our country, our system of laws, treated black men, women and children as chattel, and refused them personhood and the legal rights associated therewith.  It took, and still takes, much effort to undo this terrible wrong.  It is now time to start undoing the terrible wrong of dehumanizing unborn children by denying them personhood and characterizing them as parasites, blobs of cells, and so on.

Principle 8: We as a society ought to hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  Abortion is distinguishable from other manifestations of bodily autonomy because it involves the life of a baby.  The personhood of the child matters.

Principle 9: We should continue to seek to use persuasion and education to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and also inculcate society with the notion that human life, including the lives of the unborn, has incalculable worth.  We ought to work to overcome the misanthropy that has seeped into our society.

On 5/3/2022 at 11:45 AM, jkwilliams said:

But the church has consistently made exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life. That suggests to me that, insofar as the church is concerned, a fetus is not necessarily a person.

The "rare exceptions on this issue" are addressed in sec. 38.6.1 of the Handbook:

Quote

The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:

• Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.

• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.

• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.

Abortion is not defined as "murder" for the purpose of membership in the Church.  See sec. 38.2.3.13 of the Handbook.

I think the Church recognizes that there are very limited and unique circumstances in which abortion may be appropriate.  However, I do not think the Church's policies are based on a denial of the personhood of the child. 

The Church is also opposed to euthanasia.  Not because the Church believes the individual "is not necessarily a person," quite the opposite in fact.  See section 38.7.4 of the Handbook:

Quote

38.7.4

Euthanasia

Mortal life is a precious gift from God. Euthanasia is deliberately ending the life of a person who is suffering from an incurable disease or other condition. A person who participates in euthanasia, including assisting someone to die by suicide, violates the commandments of God and may violate local laws.

Discontinuing or forgoing extreme life support measures for a person at the end of life is not considered euthanasia (see 38.7.11).

There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases."  This maxim is so well-known there is even a Wikipedia article about it:

Quote

The phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. In other words, a general law is better drafted for the average circumstance as this will be more common.

The very rare exceptions noted above are "hard cases." 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 10, 2022 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ok, thank you for clarifying, I think I understand.

I'm still wondering what you think should be done about it. 

Ideally a national policy that would have a basic/reasonable cut off for elective abortions (most put it somewhere around 12-15 weeks), supports clinics for access, and allows for limited abortion access after cut off gestational period. Because that's not likely to happen I'd rather had roe in place than the patch work approach to medical practices accross the nation that will drastically effect women and family health. I'd rather had leaders lead effectively and practice compromise than be puppets to populist demands on either extreme end. 

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I mean, it's that way right now, isn't it?  I know endless women who are against more restrictions on abortion, based on their cultural knowledge/beliefs.  They believe abortion should be free and safe, whenever the mother wants one.  And this belief will probably have little effect on them, but will have larger consequences on others - namely the women who get abortions and then suffer later impacts like depression/remorse/guilt, or negative medical impacts from the procedure.  

No, not exactly. Again, this is based on an assumption, not exactly reality. Just about every stat I've seen points to abortion regret being uncommon. Not that it never happens, it's just not likely. It's still a pragmatic weighing of the other options and potential costs from lack of abortion access. For example, adoption stats usually find that birth mom's will still experience prolonged experiences of grief and satisfaction with the decision is by no means universal/likely larger than with abortion. Physical complications from pregnancy and birth are also far far far higher than from abortion. And if a mother keeps the child there are increased risks to both mother and child well post birth usually tied to poverty risks. 

But still, I'm not saying every pro-choice advocate is spouting perfectly accurate stats on the risks and benefit of increased abortion access.  Nor that policy should be based on meme-able slogans. Similar to calm, i would hope for a system that at least gave people accurate information to decide on policies and balancing competing moral assumptions.

 

With luv,

BD 

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think reasonable principles can be utilized in this context.  A few that come to mind:

Principle 1: A fetus is, during much of its development, an inchoate person, but a person nonetheless.  The value of this person matters.  A lot.  A lot.  It is a central consideration.  Many of the justifications used for elective abortions (matters of convenience, expense, preference, etc.) are abhorrent, even evil, and ought not be tolerated where the life of the child - who has personhood - is at stake.  If a young mother is having difficulties with her newborn, do we as a society take a 100% "hands off" approach and let her do whatever she wants?  Drug the baby so that he sleeps at night?  Strike the baby when he's crying?  Kill the baby if he's inconvenient?  No, no and no.  Why?  Because the child's personhood is acknowledged, and the government has a role in protecting the child.  The humanity, the personhood of the child is a central consideration here.

Principle 2: There can be circumstances in which the pregnancy is not fairly attributed to the mother (rape, incest), such that she cannot be said to have consented to the conduct which precipitated the pregnancy.  In other words, free will has been materially undermined.  This may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

Principle 3: There can also be circumstances in which there is a genuine moral dilemma, such as the life of the mother is materially at risk and/or where the child will not survive birth.  Society must therefore tolerate one terrible choice (death of the child) or another (death of the mother).  Again, this may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

Principle 4: Absent force, coercion or deceit, pregnancy is an utterly foreseeable - though plainly not inevitable - consequence of sexual activity.  It is therefore an avoidable consequence.  Once the consequence has materialized, another's personhood is at stake.

Principle 5: "Safe haven" laws allowing abandonment of the newborn child, no questions asked, weakens the public policy argument pertaining to women being obligated to spent 18 years raising and paying for the child.  Also, those who truly find elective abortion to be abhorrent should prepare themselves and stand ready to adopt unwanted children abandoned by their birth mothers under such laws.

Principle 6: The structure of the Constitution is better supported by leaving this issue to the states rather than to the Nine Enrobed Ones.

Principle 7: This is not the first time we as as a society have struggled to address the legal ramifications of granting personhood to parties previously denied it.  The stain of slavery is still on us, though it was abolished long ago.  Our country, our system of laws, treated black men, women and children as chattel, and refused them personhood and the legal rights associated therewith.  It took, and still takes, much effort to undo this terrible wrong.  It is now time to start undoing the terrible wrong of dehumanizing unborn children by denying them personhood and characterizing them as parasites, blobs of cells, and so on.

Principle 8: We as a society ought to hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  Abortion is distinguishable from other manifestations of bodily autonomy because it involves the life of a baby.  The personhood of the child matters.

Principle 9: We should continue to seek to use persuasion and education to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and also inculcate society with the notion that human life, including the lives of the unborn, has incalculable worth.  We ought to work to overcome the misanthropy that has seeped into our society.

The "rare exceptions on this issue" are addressed in sec. 38.6.1 of the Handbook:

Abortion is not defined as "murder" for the purpose of membership in the Church.  See sec. 38.2.3.13 of the Handbook.

I think the Church recognizes that there are very limited and unique circumstances in which abortion may be appropriate.  However, I do not think the Church's policies are based on a denial of the personhood of the child. 

The Church is also opposed to euthanasia.  Not because the Church believes the individual "is not necessarily a person," quite the opposite in fact.  See section 38.7.4 of the Handbook:

There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases."  This maxim is so well-known there is even a Wikipedia article about it:

The very rare exceptions noted above are "hard cases." 

Thanks,

-Smac

You didn’t answer my question. Does a frozen embryo have personhood? Is not using a frozen embryo tantamount to abortion and thus killing a person?

A close family member of mine has more than one frozen embryo that she and her husband will never have transferred to her uterus. Not long ago, an Evangelical acquaintance railed on her as some kind of murderer because she harvested more eggs than she will use, even though she didn’t know 3 of the first 4 transfers would be successful. 

To me, these are complex questions, and “personhood” laws don’t seem to be able to handle anything complex. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by jkwilliams

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I think prevention of un-wanted pregnancies is where all the material resources and social energies from the abortion debate should go.   It is the only common ground we can find, and by far the best solution to the problem.  

Fun fact: This ruling could be used as one example of a precedent for overruling Griswold v. Connecticut and allow states to criminalize contraception.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Durangout said:

…and just like that, the 2022 midterms are no longer about inflation, Afganistán, supply chain, immigration crisis, Pres/vp incompetence, mandates…. Well, that was easy and cost hardly anything.

Very convenient wasn't it?

Maybe a bit early to pull the trigger though.  The news cycle is very short.  Should have saved it for August.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You didn’t answer my question.

I kinda did:

Quote

There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases." 

I'm not sure how state legislatures will treat frozen embryos. 

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Does a frozen embryo have personhood? Is not using a frozen embryo tantamount to abortion and thus killing a person?

A frozen, unimplanted embryo?  I'm not sure.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Why are frozen embryos and developing embryos within existing pregnancies treated differently under the law? How do the rights of men and women differ regarding parenthood in these two circumstances? In a new paper, published in the Indiana Law Journal, a Penn State professor explores these inconsistencies and recommends policy changes that may help courts settle disputes related to these topics.  

And here:

Quote

The 21st century biotechnologies of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) use, therapeutic cloning (TC), and preimplantation biopsy (PB), give fresh urgency to defining personhood. Is it morally acceptable to destroy 5-day-old human blastocysts to cure disease, repair injured tissue, or prevent birth defects? In his I486 essay “On the Dignity of Man, “ Pico della Mirandola expressed a view of human nature that can help us in our deliberations about personhood. Pico maintained that the capacity for moral choice-making is what distinguishes humans from other creatures. This view suggests that our use of biotechnology ought to respect and protect humankind's choice-making capacity. Examination of a set of attributes necessary for choice-making shows that it emerges gradually between 5 weeks after fertilization and 10 years after birth. By this analysis, blastocysts cannot be persons, and hESC use, TC, and PB do not violate personhood. Possible criticisms of this analysis are acknowledged.

And here: Is Personhood the Answer t ersonhood the Answer to Resolv o Resolve Frozen Pre-Embryo Disputes?

And here: An Illinois Judge Declares that Frozen Embryos Are People: What Difference Does It Make?

And here:

Quote

Last March, 4,000 frozen eggs and embryos were lost at University Hospitals Fertility Center in Cleveland when the temperature in cryogenic tanks spiked due to human error. Officials at University Hospitals have apologized repeatedly to the affected patients, and say that they are working to provide refunds, free services, and “emotional support.” A similar incident also occurred last March at Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco when a storage freezer malfunctioned. These incidents have resulted in dozens of lawsuits. The most controversial seek to have embryos classified as “persons” in order to sue the clinics for wrongful deaths.

Unfortunately, courts almost always refuse recovery in cases of reproductive negligence. The problem is that our legal system does not accommodate remedies for the actual harm in such cases: the deprivation of the chance for wanted pregnancy or parenthood .  Deeming embryos to be persons is not necessary to address that harm, and could have devastating consequences for fertility patients.

And here:

Quote

After six years, Sofia Vergara has been granted a permanent injunction preventing her ex-partner, Nick Loeb, from using the frozen embryos they created together without her explicit written permission.[1]  This decision is just one step in a long court battle between the two which dates back to 2014, when Loeb filed suit in Santa Monica, California, “to protect the frozen embryos” he created with Vergara.[2]  In April 2015, Loeb wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that claimed that, in his opinion, Vergara’s desire to keep their two embryos frozen indefinitely was tantamount to killing them.[3]  The judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that Loeb breached a contract signed by both himself and Vergara by setting up a trust for the embryos and suing for custody on behalf of the embryos in Louisiana.[4]  As for Loeb’s Louisiana suit, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods stated that it is clear that Loeb was engaging in forum shopping, and that he and his counsel engaged in behavior which “makes a mockery of the Louisiana legal system and the bar and is abhorrent.”[5]  While at first blush this seems to be simply a private dispute between previous partners, this case and the rhetoric surrounding it touch on important questions regarding personhood, when life begins, and the importance of consent in matters regarding bodily autonomy.

It looks like embryos are typically treated as property, not as persons.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

A close family member of mine has more than one frozen embryo that she and her husband will never have transferred to her uterus. Not long ago, an Evangelical acquaintance railed on her as some kind of murderer because she harvested more eggs than she will use, even though she didn’t know 3 of the first 4 transfers would be successful. 

To me, these are complex questions, and “personhood” laws don’t seem to be able to handle anything complex. 

You will note that I said that personhood is a "central consideration," not the sole consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Very convenient wasn't it?

Maybe a bit early to pull the trigger though.  The news cycle is very short.  Should have saved it for August.

All cases have to be final by late June early July when court ends it’s session for the year. 

[provoman]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Fun fact: This ruling could be used as one example of a precedent for overruling Griswold v. Connecticut and allow states to criminalize contraception.

Despite the “dicta”, it seems the ruling could be used to over turn lots of things, must hold pure and true to Words, tradition, and “ordered liberty”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

To me, these are complex questions, and “personhood” laws don’t seem to be able to handle anything complex. 

Not to mention the times when a single embryo splits into multiples. Each of those embryos could have been 2 or even three people. 

[mtomm]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Principle 2: There can be circumstances in which the pregnancy is not fairly attributed to the mother (rape, incest), such that she cannot be said to have consented to the conduct which precipitated the pregnancy.  In other words, free will has been materially undermined.  This may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

How does this work in practice? How in real life do we make these exceptions in a timely manner?  I don't see how this works at all. It just seems a nice thing to say but it's not something that can actually be accomplished in most cases. I guess you can force the women/girls in front of a judge and hoping, if he believes them, they can be deemed worthy of an abortion before it becomes a late term abortion or too late at all. 
Am I just missing something with this principle? (Honest question.)

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Durangout said:

It it weren’t for abortion law limits, my daughter would be dead and never having had a chance at this life.

How's that?

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

...and unborn babies.  Oh crap, back to square one. 

Not really. That implies an equivalence between the woman and the unborn inside her. But the circumstances for each of these persons is not equivalent. 

And your remark also imo implies an equivalence between the woman's stewardship over her body and the states stewardship over her body, and those are again not the same.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I think prevention of un-wanted pregnancies is where all the material resources and social energies from the abortion debate should go.   It is the only common ground we can find, and by far the best solution to the problem.  

Not just that, though. Support for women in crisis, support for mother, better prenatal care, maternity leave, etc... There's a multiplicity of ways the public can help relieve the pressures on women  that are multiplied by pregnancy. Many women find themselves with pressures which are impossible to reconcile.