Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

Riskymove

captbarnacles wrote: »

This is my view. I believe in full body autonomy for everybody so that takes precedence over any other factor.

tbh I think this angle is down to the push to view abortion simply as an equality issue. I think that will be a major obstacle to it ever becoming legal here.

the problem is that it is not about the woman's body but the body of the foetus

at some point the foetus is another life and not part of the woman's body so to speak.

there are all sorts of contradictions around this view - for example (a trite one perhaps) I know someone who supports abortion but goes nuts over the idea of a woman smoking or drinking while pregnant.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Of course not. However no Irish citizen or resident should be forced to go abroad for a medical service on the 'wink and a nod' basis that currently exists.

So should we extend euthanasia law to children, just because Belgium does it?

Should we allow numbered bank accounts, just because Switzerland allows them?

Should we allow paid-surrogacy arrangements, just because some states in the USA do?

I understand the well-meaning of this argument on abortion, but it's deeply flawed.

We extend abortion to women because it is right to give women that freedom over their own lives. It would be right if nobody else did it. The fact that anybody else is doing it, or not, or even that people travel for accessing abortion, is irrelevant.

Muahahaha

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You are ignoring the reason that people don't believe in it. Most people do not support abortion because they value the life of the unborn child as much as the life of the mother.

As I said if people dont believe in abortion then thats fair enough- they shouldn't have one and no-one will force them to. But for women who find themselves raped and pregnant or with a baby inside them that will die within minutes of birth then surely those women deserve to have a choice over what happens to their body? Or do we just keep sending them over to the UK and continue to pretend a problem doesn't exist?

suicide_circus

I would take the Christopher Hitchens approach to abortion - to suggest that an unborn foetus is not an unborn human being is manifestly nonsense.

seamus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can you have elective amputations if you're a man?

Well, yes .
I can amputate my own arm and I won't be charged with any crime. Though I might be carted off to the madhouse.

While you're right in that it is not possible to actually get an elective amputation in Ireland and therefore it's practically not available, the act of amputation is not in itself illegal and you have the legal ability choose to remove your own arm.

The difference here is that the act of abortion is, in itself, illegal. That's regardless of whether it's done by a competent professional or a dangerous DIY procedure.

Which means that women are in fact legally denied the ability to choose.

Little CuChulainn

Muahahaha wrote: »

As I said if people dont believe in abortion then thats fair enough- they shouldn't have one and no-one will force them to. But for women who find themselves raped and pregnant or with a baby inside them that will die within minutes of birth then surely those women deserve to have a choice over what happens to their body? Or do we just keep sending them over to the UK and continue to pretend a problem doesn't exist?

Sending them? Nobody is being sent to my knowledge. They just aren't being prevented. You're asking if they should have a choice over what happens to their body. But that isn't the question. The question is whether they should have a choice over the body of another, and not just nay choice, the choice to extinguish it.

Riskymove

seamus wrote: »

The difference here is that the act of abortion is, in itself, illegal. That's regardless of whether it's done by a competent professional or a dangerous DIY procedure.

in fairness there is a significant difference between a limb and a foetus

Muahahaha

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Sending them? Nobody is being sent to my knowledge. They just aren't being prevented. You're asking if they should have a choice over what happens to their body. But that isn't the question. The question is whether they should have a choice over the body of another, and not just nay choice, the choice to extinguish it.

In the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormalities I'd have no problems with that. Its the woman herself who knows what is best for her at the end of the day. IMO having a public health policy where the State says that a woman should carry an essentially dead baby inside her body for 9 months is nothing short of barbaric. Telling a raped woman who finds herself pregnant that she is now expected to have that baby is pretty barbaric too and its no wonder some women turn suicidal over the issue, they want to get away from the rape and move on but the State doesn't agree and expects them to go through even further trauma than they already have.

Anyway at the end of the day if our abortion policy are designed to stop abortions happening well then it hasn't worked- Irish women travel to the UK every day of the week for an abortion. So instead of sweeping our public health problems under the British carpet why don't we just stand up and address the problem from the perspective of 'how it is' rather than the current perspective of 'how we'd like it to be'. The abortion issue just wont go away and will get bigger and bigger as more and more Irish women who have had them feel disenfranchised by our public health system.

The Corinthian

efb wrote: »

the unborn could also be a cow or does the term unborn only apply to humans???

Ah, but what I was pointing out was that you specifically described one as human and the other not. And unless we're discussing veterinary science, they're both human. Had you not specified human for either or had for both then fine, but doing so for only one was suspect to say the least.

The second mistake you made was suggesting that it is a zygote - it's not one for long, so unless you are suggesting that it's ok to abort only while it is in the zygote stage, then you really have to correct your language.

As for the 'same rights' line, that was just too funny.

The Corinthian

seamus wrote: »

The difference here is that the act of abortion is, in itself, illegal. That's regardless of whether it's done by a competent professional or a dangerous DIY procedure.

Well argued!

Little CuChulainn

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The question is whether they should have a choice over the body of another, and not just nay choice, the choice to extinguish it.

Yes, they should.

If you have a rare (almost unique) blood type, should the police be allowed to bundle you in the back of a van, and compel you to donate a spare kidney to a stranger? Of course not.

That's effectively what the pro-life lot demand of pregnant rape victims.

She's been stolen away and raped, and now they're forcing her to use her body to give life to another human as part of that transaction.

NachoBusiness

seamus wrote: »

Which means that women are in fact legally denied the ability to choose.

If Thomas Beatie was pregnant and living in Ireland today, could he have an abortion?

K-9

So what is our ban actually achieving?

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

So what is our ban actually achieving?

Given the state of the Irish medical establishment, probably safer abortions abroad.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

So what is our ban actually achieving?

Sweeping it underneath somebody else's carpet.

captbarnacles

Riskymove wrote: »

tbh I think this angle is down to the push to view abortion simply as an equality issue. I think that will be a major obstacle to it ever becoming legal here.

the problem is that it is not about the woman's body but the body of the foetus

at some point the foetus is another life and not part of the woman's body so to speak.

there are all sorts of contradictions around this view - for example (a trite one perhaps) I know someone who supports abortion but goes nuts over the idea of a woman smoking or drinking while pregnant.

I disagree. It is completely about the woman's body and she can freely choose what to do with it.

Riskymove

captbarnacles wrote: »

I disagree. It is completely about the woman's body and she can freely choose what to do with it.

well you are entitled to your view of course

Malari

I for one think it's absolutely appalling in this day and age in a civilised society, that there are people who don't know the abortion and miniature flag reference.

:pac:

seamus

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If Thomas Beatie was pregnant and living in Ireland today, could he have an abortion?

Do we have to preface every use of the word "woman" with "biological", or for the sake of this discussion can we just assume it's implicit and not start splitting hairs here?

Brancott

K-9 wrote: »

So what is our ban actually achieving?

(1) Raising the coffers of the NHS by 3,700 x €500

(2) Keeping that nasty sin out of Ireland so we'll all go to heaven, wheay

(3) Giving fringe politicians an easy soapbox

Little CuChulainn

Muahahaha wrote: »

In the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormalities I'd have no problems with that. Its the woman herself who knows what is best for her at the end of the day. IMO having a public health policy where the State says that a woman should carry an essentially dead baby inside her body for 9 months is nothing short of barbaric. Telling a raped woman who finds herself pregnant that she is now expected to have that baby is pretty barbaric too and its no wonder some women turn suicidal over the issue, they want to get away from the rape and move on but the State doesn't agree and expects them to go through even further trauma than they already have.

I've never seen any research to suggest that abortions aid in the recovery of rape trauma but I'm willing to look at what you got. In any case, while it is tragic, it is irrelevant to someone who believes in the fetus being a life as it is effectively putting the blame on that life for something they had no part in. You might as well be suggesting a woman with post-natal depression should be able to get rid of her baby because it triggers her manic depression. You still are not addressing the core belief.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Anyway at the end of the day if our abortion policy are designed to stop abortions happening well then it hasn't worked- Irish women travel to the UK every day of the week for an abortion. So instead of sweeping our public health problems under the British carpet why don't we just stand up and address the problem from the perspective of 'how it is' rather than the current perspective of 'how we'd like it to be'. The abortion issue just wont go away and will get bigger and bigger as more and more Irish women who have had them feel disenfranchised by our public health system.

That's not a reason to legalise it. It may be an interesting insight but it isn't a very convincing argument.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yes, they should.

If you have a rare (almost unique) blood type, should the police be allowed to bundle you in the back of a van, and compel you to donate a spare kidney to a stranger? Of course not.

That's effectively what the pro-life lot demand of pregnant rape victims.

She's been stolen away and raped, and now they're forcing her to use her body to give life to another human as part of that transaction.

Are you being serious here? I honestly can't tell. You analogies are ridiculous.

The Corinthian

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Are you being serious here? I honestly can't tell. You analogies are ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?

orubiru

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The question is whether they should have a choice over the body of another, and not just nay choice, the choice to extinguish it.

When we ask this question though we have to consider that the "body of another" is 100% dependent on the body of the host for survival.

Can we say that the host has no choice but to sit and wait until the body of the other has fully developed and no longer needs the host body for survival?

Why can't that be a decision for the host body to make?

Why don't we have system of mandatory blood donation and organ donation? After all, other people do need our blood and spare organs to survive.

If people are given the choice to deny blood to the body of another then why shouldn't they be given the choice to deny access to their womb to the body of another?

So you go to the doctor feeling a bit weird and the Doc says "well, you've actually got another person growing inside you. You're gonna gain a load of weight and be sick and it's gonna affect your mobility and your mental state but it'll only last 9 months". You don't want this. You never intended for this to happen. Would your response be "sure that it's fair enough"? Or would you say "OK doc, what are my options"?

Brancott

Brancott wrote: »

(1) Raising the coffers of the NHS by 3,700 x €500

(2) Keeping that nasty sin out of Ireland so we'll all go to heaven, wheay

(3) Giving fringe politicians an easy soapbox

That's a bit disingenuous tbf.

The majority are opposed to abortion for ethical reasons. Their ethics are slightly haywire imo, but I believe the current regime is generally upholding a democratic choice, even if there is support for tweaking its edges.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Are you being serious here? I honestly can't tell. You analogies are ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous.

Start with the principle that the state should not be allowed to use your body, against your will, to preserve the life of another.

In fact, most ordinary people consider rape a more serious crime than kidnapping. Kidnapping a unique blood or organ donor isn't so different to refusing an abortion to a pregnant rape victim.

_Whimsical_

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I've never seen any research to suggest that abortions aid in the recovery of rape trauma but I'm willing to look at what you got. In any case, while it is tragic, it is irrelevant to someone who believes in the fetus being a life as it is effectively putting the blame on that life for something they had no part in. You might as well be suggesting a woman with post-natal depression should be able to get rid of her baby because it triggers her manic depression. You still are not addressing the core belief.

I have not seen any research to suggest that either. During the debate on the life of the mother amendment wasn't the evidence given by consultant psychiatrists that abortion was not shown in peer reviewed evidence to help or cure suicidal ideation?
I remember the cornerstone of the argument against it's inclusion as basis for legal late term abortion was that it was not best medical practice as it was contrary to the evidence based model of medicine that's considered the gold standard.

volchitsa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I've never seen any research to suggest that abortions aid in the recovery of rape trauma but I'm willing to look at what you got. In any case, while it is tragic, it is irrelevant to someone who believes in the fetus being a life as it is effectively putting the blame on that life for something they had no part in. You might as well be suggesting a woman with post-natal depression should be able to get rid of her baby because it triggers her manic depression.
...
Are you being serious here? I honestly can't tell. You analogies are ridiculous.

So your analogy with post natal depression is fine, but that of a woman treated as life support isn't? Despite the the fact that we saw at Christmas that this is not just an analogy but an actual result of the current legal situation?

You still are not addressing the core belief.

Which core belief is that in the case of a woman pregnant through rape, and how should it be addressed?

MrMorooka

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

If women want to go to a country where abortion is legal you can't forcibly stop them from leaving the airport.

Er, mate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

The case involved a fourteen-year-old girl (named only as "X" ... as abortion was illegal in Ireland ... the family traveled to Britain for an abortion ...

Hearing that X planned to have an abortion, the Attorney General, Harry Whelehan, sought an injunction under Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland (which outlaws abortion) preventing her from having the procedure carried out. The injunction was granted by Mr Justice Declan Costello in the High Court.

volchitsa

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I have not seen any research to suggest that either. During the debate on the life of the mother amendment wasn't the evidence given by consultant psychiatrists that abortion was not shown in peer reviewed evidence to help or cure suicidal ideation?
I remember the cornerstone of the argument against it's inclusion as basis for legal late term abortion was that it was not best medical practice as it was contrary to the evidence based model of medicine that's considered the gold standard.

Is there any research on women forced to continue a pregnancy to term as opposed to those who finally chose to do so?

It's my understanding that that research is entirely based on women's choices. So not relevant to the debate in Ireland, which is about forcing women to remain pregnant.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

NachoBusiness

seamus wrote: »

Do we have to preface every use of the word "woman" with "biological", or for the sake of this discussion can we just assume it's implicit and not start splitting hairs here?

So that's a no then isn't it. Thomas could not get an abortion in Ireland even though legally he would be seen as a man. You see, the point which you are trying to avoid having to deal with (and I don't blame you) is that even if a man could, through the wonders of modern science, suddenly get pregnant in Ireland tomorrow, he would not legally be able to have an abortion. So you can stick to the tired old mantra of saying women don't have body anatomy in Ireland, implying opression, as much as you like but the facts are that in that in this context, neither do / would men.

K-9

NachoBusiness wrote: »

So that's a no then isn't it. Thomas could not get an abortion in Ireland even though legally he would be seen as a man. You see, the point which you are trying to avoid having to deal with (and I don't blame you) is that even if a man could, through the wonders of modern science, suddenly get pregnant in Ireland tomorrow, he would not legally be able to have an abortion. So you can stick to the tired old mantra of saying women don't have body anatomy in Ireland, implying opression, as much as you like but the facts are that in that in this context, neither do / would men.

That's an original one, I'll give you that.

Little CuChulainn

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous?

Which one? The life support or the kidnapping and forced donation? Which one do you think is analogous to pregnancy?

orubiru wrote: »

When we ask this question though we have to consider that the "body of another" is 100% dependent on the body of the host for survival.

Can we say that the host has no choice but to sit and wait until the body of the other has fully developed and no longer needs the host body for survival?

Why can't that be a decision for the host body to make?

Why don't we have system of mandatory blood donation and organ donation? After all, other people do need our blood and spare organs to survive.

If people are given the choice to deny blood to the body of another then why shouldn't they be given the choice to deny access to their womb to the body of another?

So you go to the doctor feeling a bit weird and the Doc says "well, you've actually got another person growing inside you. You're gonna gain a load of weight and be sick and it's gonna affect your mobility and your mental state but it'll only last 9 months". You don't want this. You never intended for this to happen. Would your response be "sure that it's fair enough"? Or would you say "OK doc, what are my options"?

I'd be wondering how I apparently knew so little about the human reproductive cycle.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's not ridiculous.

Start with the principle that the state should not be allowed to use your body, against your will, to preserve the life of another.

In fact, most ordinary people consider rape a more serious crime than kidnapping. Kidnapping a unique blood or organ donor isn't so different to refusing an abortion to a pregnant rape victim.

Yes it is.

volchitsa wrote: »

So your analogy with post natal depression is fine, but that of a woman treated as life support isn't? Despite the the fact that we saw at Christmas that this is not just an analogy but an actual result of the current legal situation?

Which core belief is that in the case of a woman pregnant through rape, and how should it be addressed?

The core belief that the fetus is a separate life with full rights. The fact that it got there through rape is not its fault and should not be held against it as a reason to terminate its life. It hink you should look up that case at Christmas. You seem to be confused as to the result of it.

Little CuChulainn

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yes it is.

Typically stunning pro-life argument.

orubiru

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'd be wondering how I apparently knew so little about the human reproductive cycle.

Ah, the typical tactics of avoidance and deflection. Nice one.

Why not just answer the questions asked? Why not just address the points made?

Little CuChulainn

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Typically stunning pro-life argument.

I find it interesting that you use the term pro-life as an insult

_Whimsical_

volchitsa wrote: »

Is there any research on women forced to continue a pregnancy to term as opposed to those who finally chose to do so?

It's my understanding that that research is entirely based on women's choices. So not relevant to the debate in Ireland, which is about forcing women to remain pregnant.

I wouldn't imagine that's necessarily true. Late term abortion is not provided upon demand in a lot of countries nor is it provided for on the basis of suicidal ideation. I assume some of the research must include the experience of suicidal women who discovered they were pregnant beyond the threshold date for abortion in their country or who may through a change in circumstance(eg. suffered a dramatic loss or occurrence of severe mental illhealth) have changed their mind about a pregnancy when it's too late.

Little CuChulainn

orubiru wrote: »

Ah, the typical tactics of avoidance and deflection. Nice one.

Why not just answer the questions asked? Why not just address the points made?

Because they ignore the fact that pregnancy is a natural part of the human life cycle and forced blood and organ donation isn't. They also imply some sort of helplessness on the part of the pregnant person. As if it was some kind of unknown consequence to their activities. And while you may have an arguable point in regards to rape, it doesn't stand up anywhere else.

volchitsa

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I wouldn't imagine that's necessarily true. Late term abortion is not provided upon demand in a lot of countries nor is it provided for on the basis of suicidal ideation. I assume some of the research must include the experience of suicidal women who discovered they were pregnant beyond the threshold date for abortion in their country or who may through a change in circumstance(eg. suffered a dramatic loss or occurrence of severe mental illhealth) have changed their mind about a pregnancy when it's too late.

Then I suggest you provide some evidence on that point. So far you haven't even given a link so we can see where your general assertions come from.

Meanwhile, as you say, that's just what you imagine and assume - and as such can be safely ignored.

Lagraso

Ultimately there is nor objective right or wrong to abortion, it's subjective to the axiomatic morals which you choose to believe in. Though you can be shown to have inconsistent logic based on your chosen axiomatic morals.

Little CuChulainn

volchitsa wrote: »

Then I suggest you provide some evidence on that point. So far you haven't even given a link so we can see where your general assertions come from.

Meanwhile, as you say, that's just what you imagine and assume - and as such can be safely ignored.

But he didn't make the original claim. The original claim was

Telling a raped woman who finds herself pregnant that she is now expected to have that baby is pretty barbaric too and its no wonder some women turn suicidal over the issue, they want to get away from the rape and move on but the State doesn't agree and expects them to go through even further trauma than they already have.

So surely it should be incumbent on that poster to prove his claims first, specifically that continuing a pregnancy is more traumatic than aborting one.

_Whimsical_

volchitsa wrote: »

Then I suggest you provide some evidence on that point. So far you haven't even given a link so we can see where your general assertions come from.

Meanwhile, as you say, that's just what you imagine and assume - and as such can be safely ignored.

You expected peer reviewed research to counter your unqualified "understanding"?☺
My opinion is every bit as valid as yours as it stands.

volchitsa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But he didn't make the original claim. The original claim was

So surely it should be incumbent on that poster to prove his claims first, specifically that continuing a pregnancy is more traumatic than aborting one.

Sure. But the onus of proof is on the person refusing the abortion, not on the person requesting it. We know that, for example, Miss Y was certified to be suicidal due to her pregnancy, so if* your reason for refusing to let her terminate that pregnancy is that you think that she will feel just as bad after an abortion, and she thinks she will feel better, then you are the one who needs to prove that she can't possibly feel better after it.

Not the other way around.

* (If your real reason for refusing to let her terminate it is something else, then that may be different, but that isn't the question here, is it?)

volchitsa

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

You expected peer reviewed research to counter your unqualified "understanding"?☺
My opinion is every bit as valid as yours as it stands.

You've missed the point, see my previous post for an explanation.

Little CuChulainn

volchitsa wrote: »

Sure. But the onus of proof is on the person refusing the abortion, not on the person requesting it. We know that, for example, Miss Y was certified to be suicidal due to her pregnancy, so if* your reason for refusing to let her terminate that pregnancy is that you think that she will feel just as bad after an abortion, and she thinks she will feel better, then you are the one who needs to prove that she can't possibly feel better after it.

Not the other way around.

* (If your real reason for refusing to let her terminate it is something else, then that may be different, but that isn't the question here, is it?)

Alternatively, the reason for refusing one is that there is no evidence to suggest it would improve anything so you have to prove she will feel better. We can play this back and fourth all day.

RobertKK

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. There are children born with no brains now leading successful lives and contributing to society.

Did I say there were?

I am talking about my nephew, my sister went to have her scan and she went for one of the more high tech scans. She was told there was something wrong, and she would have to go upto the Rotunda for another scan.
She went and got another scan, was told her unborn would not live beyond 40 hours, due to the heart not being right.
It was hinted to her that she had 'options' like going abroad. She came back home, and had to visit her doctor every week who would do a check up, and she gave her great support like telling, while there is a heart beat there is hope. There was no talk about other options due to a fatal fetal abnormality having been diagnosed.
So upto Dublin and the baby was delivered by a doctor who does be in the media when it comes to child birth.
The baby was born via appointment, rushed to Crumlin and given treatment.
That was years ago, the child is doing fine now and in primary school. He also saved the life of his brother who had an undiagnosed heart condition, and the doctors in Crumlin said he would have died as he would simply have collapsed and died, as you see happen with some young people.
It is not black and white, my nephew was not suppose to be alive past 40 hours due to a severe and very rare heart condition.
They still have to visit Crumlin every year, but it was hinted to my sister she should consider an abortion because the baby would not live.
This is why I say it is not black and white and those who make it out to be are talking out of ignorance.

inocybe

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Because they ignore the fact that pregnancy is a natural part of the human life cycle and forced blood and organ donation isn't. They also imply some sort of helplessness on the part of the pregnant person. As if it was some kind of unknown consequence to their activities. And while you may have an arguable point in regards to rape, it doesn't stand up anywhere else.

Losing pregnancies is also a natural part of the human life cycle. Dying of cancer is natural, should we with-hold health care?

Little CuChulainn

inocybe wrote: »

Losing pregnancies is also a natural part of the human life cycle. Dying of cancer is natural, should we with-hold health care?

No

Lagraso

volchitsa wrote: »

Sure. But the onus of proof is on the person refusing the abortion, not on the person requesting it. We know that, for example, Miss Y was certified to be suicidal due to her pregnancy, so if* your reason for refusing to let her terminate that pregnancy is that you think that she will feel just as bad after an abortion, and she thinks she will feel better, then you are the one who needs to prove that she can't possibly feel better after it.

Not the other way around.

* (If your real reason for refusing to let her terminate it is something else, then that may be different, but that isn't the question here, is it?)

You seem to be overlooking the welfare of the unborn child.

volchitsa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Alternatively, the reason for refusing one is that there is no evidence to suggest it would improve anything so you have to prove she will feel better. We can play this back and fourth all day.

You could, but you would still be making an eejit or a liar of yourself.

You have no proof that she won't feel better because the evidence is only related to cases where the woman considered an abortion and decided against it. So all you can truthfully say is that for women who chose to remain pregnant, the outcomes were similar to those who chose to abort. What you cannot truthfully say is what would have happened to those individual women who chose to abort, had they instead been forced to remain pregnant.

Little CuChulainn

volchitsa wrote: »

You could, but you would still be making an eejit or a liar of yourself.

You have no proof that she won't feel better because the evidence is only related to cases where the woman considered an abortion and decided against it. So all you can truthfully say is that for women who chose to remain pregnant, the outcomes were similar to those who chose to abort. What you cannot truthfully say is what would have happened to those individual women who chose to abort, had they instead been forced to remain pregnant.

What evidence are you referring to?