If I dont go visit my frozen embryo..

[Jamiet99uk]

Sorry, don't let my comments about the Catholic Church send this discussion off down a weird tangent. My main point was I don't regard that institution as the source of moral righteousness that Brian was attempting to rely on it as.

(Also its bizzare that he was suggesting the rules of just war should apply to an individual decision to sentence a particular person to death, but never mind).

(Also its bizzare that he was suggesting the rules of just war should apply to an individual decision to sentence a particular person to death, but never mind).

Sorry you missed the point I was making. I’ll elaborate.

A just war involves killing humans. The death penalty involves killing humans, so the two are closely related.

Look at the 4 points I listed. These are the conditions necessary to justify taking a human life in a just war.
• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The second one - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective – supports the Catholic Church’s position against the death penalty. Even purely evil men like Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahlmer can be kept in solitary confinement.

And it also follows that there is no justification whatsoever for killing humans in Abortion, or disposing of fertilized human eggs in IVF procedures.

In the case of abortion points 1 and 3 certainly apply.

Points 2 and 4 depend on the circumstances and your view of the morality of the decisions involved, which is what we have been debating in the latter part of this thread. In some circumstances it can be argued (and Esquire B *has* argued) that condition 4 is met.

[Johnny Big Horse]

Will they take it away and hand it over to child protective services?

Excellent start to a thread! You have a fantastic sense of humor.

[CaptainFritz28]

Sorry, don't let my comments about the Catholic Church send this discussion off down a weird tangent. My main point was I don't regard that institution as the source of moral righteousness that Brian was attempting to rely on it as.

(Also its bizzare that he was suggesting the rules of just war should apply to an individual decision to sentence a particular person to death, but never mind).

(Also its bizzare that he was suggesting the rules of just war should apply to an individual decision to sentence a particular person to death, but never mind).

Sorry you missed the point I was making. I’ll elaborate.

A just war involves killing humans. The death penalty involves killing humans, so the two are closely related.

Look at the 4 points I listed. These are the conditions necessary to justify taking a human life in a just war.
• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The second one - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective – supports the Catholic Church’s position against the death penalty. Even purely evil men like Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahlmer can be kept in solitary confinement.

And it also follows that there is no justification whatsoever for killing humans in Abortion, or disposing of fertilized human eggs in IVF procedures.

In the case of abortion points 1 and 3 certainly apply.

Just to be clear, are you asserting that a baby in the womb, who did not choose to be there, nor has any concept of ill intent, is an aggressor, likened to Russia in Ukraine?

Also, your idea of success here is the killing of the life in the womb, correct?

Points 2 and 4 depend on the circumstances and your view of the morality of the decisions involved, which is what we have been debating in the latter part of this thread. In some circumstances it can be argued (and Esquire B *has* argued) that condition 4 is met.

Point two requires that there be no other practical or effective solution. Now, perhaps none of us have lived through it, but there are a few millennia of history before abortion was widespread, and birth control was not a major issue in a majority of cases. This means that there were other practical and effective solutions that did not involve the murder of millions of babies. So to support abortion based on point two would assert that there has never been a solution to the current issue other than abortion.

Point four requires that the evils committed by the solution not be worse than the problem itself. If our problem is the dramatic decrease in quality of life for the mother, and our solution is the killing of the child (which we have already determined is scientifically a separate life), this would assert that the quality of life of the mother is more important than the life of her child.

Are these all assertions that you wish to make?
1) That a baby in the womb is an aggressor, in the leagues of the likes of Putin.
2) That there is no other solution, throughout the whole of human history, that can address the issue.
3) That the quality of life of a mother is worth taking the life of her child.

[CaptainFritz28]

You said life was an unalienable right. An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away in any circumstances.

Now you are saying that it is ok to kill some people.

You forget that some people use their unalienable rights to harm the unalienable rights of others. What do we do then? If my liberty conflicts with someone else's, what do we do?

It all comes down to justice. When one kills others, and abuses their right to life and liberty to destroy other's rights to life, they have forfeited their rights. If it is necessary to ensure that they do not further abuse those rights, their rights should be taken from them.

That means it isn't unalienable. You think it's fine to kill people in some circumstances (in your example, if they are found guilty of murder). So you accept that life is not an unalienable right.

By your framing of things, there is no such thing as an unalienable right.

The idea of life being an unalienable right is that it shall not be taken from you, unless that is what is necessary to ensure that you don't take the right to life of others.

Because we value people's right to life, when others take away that right, we do what is necessary to ensure that that does not happen again.

Thus, the death penalty should only be used when it is necessary to ensure that more lives will not be taken.

[CaptainFritz28]

As a communist I must respond to this particular point.

First of all I'm not sure where you're getting the 200 million figure from but I expect it is an exaggeration.

Second of all, capitalists value money over life. Capitalism commoditises human life. The 20th century saw over 100 million killed by capitalism.

We're getting back into the debate of two extremes. Extreme communism leads to the end that the leaders value power over life. Extreme capitalism leads to the end that the leaders value money over life. Both of these are wrong, duh.

I am glad that you also disagree with BrianBaru.

I disagree with the 200 million figure, but other than that I agree with him. Communists, namely those in Russia and China, have proven that pure Communism leads to the value of power over life, and at least 100 million deaths. I suspect that you are not advocating for pure Communism, for that very reason.

I don't know where you get your 100 million deaths from Capitalism from, I would be curious to what specific events you are referencing.

[CaptainFritz28]

You did the same thing when you said that it was ok for Alabama to kill people if they were criminals. You openly admitted that you think a murderer's life is of less value than the life of an unborn foetus.

I am not, for the purposes of this post, agreeing or disagreeing with your value judgement. What I am doing is pointing out that you made a judgement which holds that not all human life has the same value, when you endorsed Alabama's death penalty.

There are times when the life of one person comes into conflict with the lives of others. In these cases, the aggressor should be stripped of their rights, even, if necessary to save the lives of others, their right to life.

If you don't believe that that is true, then you should not support Ukraine's defense of their people, as they are taking the lives of Russian troops. But it is just and moral for them to do so, because if they did not, other lives would be taken.

It is only ever just to take a life when the taking of that life ensures that other lives are saved, and when that life is an aggressive threat to the lives of others.

In the case of abortion, the baby is neither an aggressor, nor an endangerment to anyone's life. In the miniscule amount of cases in which they are an endangerment to someone, namely the mother, then a judgement must be made as to who will live and who will die. Since there is no aggressor, the choice really doesn't matter, as it will be an equally tragic death either way. However, in the vast majority of cases, the life of the mother is not at stake, and thus there is no justification for the taking of the life of the child. The baby is innocent, and does not deserve death. It is not an aggressor, it is not endangering life, and thus it deserves its unalienable right to life.

[Jamiet99uk]

(Also its bizzare that he was suggesting the rules of just war should apply to an individual decision to sentence a particular person to death, but never mind).

Sorry you missed the point I was making. I’ll elaborate.

A just war involves killing humans. The death penalty involves killing humans, so the two are closely related.

Look at the 4 points I listed. These are the conditions necessary to justify taking a human life in a just war.
• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The second one - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective – supports the Catholic Church’s position against the death penalty. Even purely evil men like Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahlmer can be kept in solitary confinement.

And it also follows that there is no justification whatsoever for killing humans in Abortion, or disposing of fertilized human eggs in IVF procedures.

In the case of abortion points 1 and 3 certainly apply.

Just to be clear, are you asserting that a baby in the womb, who did not choose to be there, nor has any concept of ill intent, is an aggressor, likened to Russia in Ukraine?

Also, your idea of success here is the killing of the life in the womb, correct?

Points 2 and 4 depend on the circumstances and your view of the morality of the decisions involved, which is what we have been debating in the latter part of this thread. In some circumstances it can be argued (and Esquire B *has* argued) that condition 4 is met.

Point two requires that there be no other practical or effective solution. Now, perhaps none of us have lived through it, but there are a few millennia of history before abortion was widespread, and birth control was not a major issue in a majority of cases. This means that there were other practical and effective solutions that did not involve the murder of millions of babies. So to support abortion based on point two would assert that there has never been a solution to the current issue other than abortion.

Point four requires that the evils committed by the solution not be worse than the problem itself. If our problem is the dramatic decrease in quality of life for the mother, and our solution is the killing of the child (which we have already determined is scientifically a separate life), this would assert that the quality of life of the mother is more important than the life of her child.

Are these all assertions that you wish to make?
1) That a baby in the womb is an aggressor, in the leagues of the likes of Putin.
2) That there is no other solution, throughout the whole of human history, that can address the issue.
3) That the quality of life of a mother is worth taking the life of her child.

I was responding to the weird "just war" wording that BrianBaru chose to use.

Do not blame me for that wording.

No I am not calling an embryo /foetus an "aggressor" - don't be stupid. Ask Brian why he chose those words.

[Jamiet99uk]

You said life was an unalienable right. An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away in any circumstances.

Now you are saying that it is ok to kill some people.

You forget that some people use their unalienable rights to harm the unalienable rights of others. What do we do then? If my liberty conflicts with someone else's, what do we do?

It all comes down to justice. When one kills others, and abuses their right to life and liberty to destroy other's rights to life, they have forfeited their rights. If it is necessary to ensure that they do not further abuse those rights, their rights should be taken from them.

That means it isn't unalienable. You think it's fine to kill people in some circumstances (in your example, if they are found guilty of murder). So you accept that life is not an unalienable right.

By your framing of things, there is no such thing as an unalienable right.

The idea of life being an unalienable right is that it shall not be taken from you, unless that is what is necessary to ensure that you don't take the right to life of others.

Because we value people's right to life, when others take away that right, we do what is necessary to ensure that that does not happen again.

Thus, the death penalty should only be used when it is necessary to ensure that more lives will not be taken.

That is not how the death penalty is being used in practice in states like Alabama.

The people being put to death have, generally, been in high security jail for several years by the time of their execution. Their ability to commit any additional murder has been nullified by imprisoning them. They are killed as an act of retribution by the state.

[Jamiet99uk]

You did the same thing when you said that it was ok for Alabama to kill people if they were criminals. You openly admitted that you think a murderer's life is of less value than the life of an unborn foetus.

I am not, for the purposes of this post, agreeing or disagreeing with your value judgement. What I am doing is pointing out that you made a judgement which holds that not all human life has the same value, when you endorsed Alabama's death penalty.

There are times when the life of one person comes into conflict with the lives of others. In these cases, the aggressor should be stripped of their rights, even, if necessary to save the lives of others, their right to life.

If you don't believe that that is true, then you should not support Ukraine's defense of their people, as they are taking the lives of Russian troops. But it is just and moral for them to do so, because if they did not, other lives would be taken.

It is only ever just to take a life when the taking of that life ensures that other lives are saved, and when that life is an aggressive threat to the lives of others.

In the case of abortion, the baby is neither an aggressor, nor an endangerment to anyone's life. In the miniscule amount of cases in which they are an endangerment to someone, namely the mother, then a judgement must be made as to who will live and who will die. Since there is no aggressor, the choice really doesn't matter, as it will be an equally tragic death either way. However, in the vast majority of cases, the life of the mother is not at stake, and thus there is no justification for the taking of the life of the child. The baby is innocent, and does not deserve death. It is not an aggressor, it is not endangering life, and thus it deserves its unalienable right to life.

The point is that you made a value judgement that sometimes one life can be more valuable than another. You had previously argued that it was wrong to value one life as more valuable than another. You have changed your position.

[Jamiet99uk]

(Also and not to derail the thread but are babies innocent? I've previously been told by Christians that babies are born guilty because of original sin.)

[CaptainFritz28]

In the case of abortion points 1 and 3 certainly apply.

Just to be clear, are you asserting that a baby in the womb, who did not choose to be there, nor has any concept of ill intent, is an aggressor, likened to Russia in Ukraine?

Also, your idea of success here is the killing of the life in the womb, correct?

Points 2 and 4 depend on the circumstances and your view of the morality of the decisions involved, which is what we have been debating in the latter part of this thread. In some circumstances it can be argued (and Esquire B *has* argued) that condition 4 is met.

Point two requires that there be no other practical or effective solution. Now, perhaps none of us have lived through it, but there are a few millennia of history before abortion was widespread, and birth control was not a major issue in a majority of cases. This means that there were other practical and effective solutions that did not involve the murder of millions of babies. So to support abortion based on point two would assert that there has never been a solution to the current issue other than abortion.

Point four requires that the evils committed by the solution not be worse than the problem itself. If our problem is the dramatic decrease in quality of life for the mother, and our solution is the killing of the child (which we have already determined is scientifically a separate life), this would assert that the quality of life of the mother is more important than the life of her child.

Are these all assertions that you wish to make?
1) That a baby in the womb is an aggressor, in the leagues of the likes of Putin.
2) That there is no other solution, throughout the whole of human history, that can address the issue.
3) That the quality of life of a mother is worth taking the life of her child.

I was responding to the weird "just war" wording that BrianBaru chose to use.

Do not blame me for that wording.

No I am not calling an embryo /foetus an "aggressor" - don't be stupid. Ask Brian why he chose those words.

He chose those words to make a point about the death penalty, which directly applies to the idea of a just war. You decided to apply that to abortion. If you disagree with the wording, then don't say that the points "certainly apply." By agreeing with the statement in totality and paralleling it to abortion, you parallel the totality to abortion.

If you want to draw a logical parallel, then be specific. If you agree to a statement, you agree to its wording, so if you don't mean that same wording, you should be specific.

My point was made, then, that point 1 does not, in fact, apply to abortion.

[CaptainFritz28]

You said life was an unalienable right. An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away in any circumstances.

Now you are saying that it is ok to kill some people.

You forget that some people use their unalienable rights to harm the unalienable rights of others. What do we do then? If my liberty conflicts with someone else's, what do we do?

It all comes down to justice. When one kills others, and abuses their right to life and liberty to destroy other's rights to life, they have forfeited their rights. If it is necessary to ensure that they do not further abuse those rights, their rights should be taken from them.

That means it isn't unalienable. You think it's fine to kill people in some circumstances (in your example, if they are found guilty of murder). So you accept that life is not an unalienable right.

By your framing of things, there is no such thing as an unalienable right.

The idea of life being an unalienable right is that it shall not be taken from you, unless that is what is necessary to ensure that you don't take the right to life of others.

Because we value people's right to life, when others take away that right, we do what is necessary to ensure that that does not happen again.

Thus, the death penalty should only be used when it is necessary to ensure that more lives will not be taken.

That is not how the death penalty is being used in practice in states like Alabama.

The people being put to death have, generally, been in high security jail for several years by the time of their execution. Their ability to commit any additional murder has been nullified by imprisoning them. They are killed as an act of retribution by the state.

By agreeing to the principle of the death penalty, must I agree to every single instance of it being used? No. I believe the death penalty is just when it falls into the description i gave. If that is not what Alabama does, then they are doing it wrong.

[CaptainFritz28]

You did the same thing when you said that it was ok for Alabama to kill people if they were criminals. You openly admitted that you think a murderer's life is of less value than the life of an unborn foetus.

I am not, for the purposes of this post, agreeing or disagreeing with your value judgement. What I am doing is pointing out that you made a judgement which holds that not all human life has the same value, when you endorsed Alabama's death penalty.

There are times when the life of one person comes into conflict with the lives of others. In these cases, the aggressor should be stripped of their rights, even, if necessary to save the lives of others, their right to life.

If you don't believe that that is true, then you should not support Ukraine's defense of their people, as they are taking the lives of Russian troops. But it is just and moral for them to do so, because if they did not, other lives would be taken.

It is only ever just to take a life when the taking of that life ensures that other lives are saved, and when that life is an aggressive threat to the lives of others.

In the case of abortion, the baby is neither an aggressor, nor an endangerment to anyone's life. In the miniscule amount of cases in which they are an endangerment to someone, namely the mother, then a judgement must be made as to who will live and who will die. Since there is no aggressor, the choice really doesn't matter, as it will be an equally tragic death either way. However, in the vast majority of cases, the life of the mother is not at stake, and thus there is no justification for the taking of the life of the child. The baby is innocent, and does not deserve death. It is not an aggressor, it is not endangering life, and thus it deserves its unalienable right to life.

The point is that you made a value judgement that sometimes one life can be more valuable than another. You had previously argued that it was wrong to value one life as more valuable than another. You have changed your position.

A murderer's life is just as valuable as anyone else's life. By murdering, and presenting an aggressive threat to others' lives, they have brought upon themselves the just punishment of, when necessary, the death penalty.

All lives are equally valuable. However, when you abuse your rights by purposefully and aggressively harming others' rights, you are forfeiting the rights that you abused. Hence, we put criminals in prison, depiving them of their liberty. The same applies to the death penalty, that when it is necessary to save lives, those who have abused their rights to destroy lives must have those rights taken from them, even, if necessary, to the point of death.

[DarthPorg36]

There are times when the life of one person comes into conflict with the lives of others. In these cases, the aggressor should be stripped of their rights, even, if necessary to save the lives of others, their right to life.

If you don't believe that that is true, then you should not support Ukraine's defense of their people, as they are taking the lives of Russian troops. But it is just and moral for them to do so, because if they did not, other lives would be taken.

It is only ever just to take a life when the taking of that life ensures that other lives are saved, and when that life is an aggressive threat to the lives of others.

In the case of abortion, the baby is neither an aggressor, nor an endangerment to anyone's life. In the miniscule amount of cases in which they are an endangerment to someone, namely the mother, then a judgement must be made as to who will live and who will die. Since there is no aggressor, the choice really doesn't matter, as it will be an equally tragic death either way. However, in the vast majority of cases, the life of the mother is not at stake, and thus there is no justification for the taking of the life of the child. The baby is innocent, and does not deserve death. It is not an aggressor, it is not endangering life, and thus it deserves its unalienable right to life.

The point is that you made a value judgement that sometimes one life can be more valuable than another. You had previously argued that it was wrong to value one life as more valuable than another. You have changed your position.

A murderer's life is just as valuable as anyone else's life. By murdering, and presenting an aggressive threat to others' lives, they have brought upon themselves the just punishment of, when necessary, the death penalty.

All lives are equally valuable. However, when you abuse your rights by purposefully and aggressively harming others' rights, you are forfeiting the rights that you abused. Hence, we put criminals in prison, depiving them of their liberty. The same applies to the death penalty, that when it is necessary to save lives, those who have abused their rights to destroy lives must have those rights taken from them, even, if necessary, to the point of death.

I'll counter with the point that criminals are not deprived of their right to life in prison. Is it really ethical to kill someone, even a murderer, when you could just as easily confine them to life in prison? This offers them a chance of repentance and changing their ways, even if they are not allowed to be freed.

[JECE]

. . . or even, as is sadly all too common, a chance to be proven innocent.

[Jamiet99uk]

Just to be clear, are you asserting that a baby in the womb, who did not choose to be there, nor has any concept of ill intent, is an aggressor, likened to Russia in Ukraine?

Also, your idea of success here is the killing of the life in the womb, correct?



Point two requires that there be no other practical or effective solution. Now, perhaps none of us have lived through it, but there are a few millennia of history before abortion was widespread, and birth control was not a major issue in a majority of cases. This means that there were other practical and effective solutions that did not involve the murder of millions of babies. So to support abortion based on point two would assert that there has never been a solution to the current issue other than abortion.

Point four requires that the evils committed by the solution not be worse than the problem itself. If our problem is the dramatic decrease in quality of life for the mother, and our solution is the killing of the child (which we have already determined is scientifically a separate life), this would assert that the quality of life of the mother is more important than the life of her child.

Are these all assertions that you wish to make?
1) That a baby in the womb is an aggressor, in the leagues of the likes of Putin.
2) That there is no other solution, throughout the whole of human history, that can address the issue.
3) That the quality of life of a mother is worth taking the life of her child.

I was responding to the weird "just war" wording that BrianBaru chose to use.

Do not blame me for that wording.

No I am not calling an embryo /foetus an "aggressor" - don't be stupid. Ask Brian why he chose those words.

He chose those words to make a point about the death penalty, which directly applies to the idea of a just war. You decided to apply that to abortion. If you disagree with the wording, then don't say that the points "certainly apply." By agreeing with the statement in totality and paralleling it to abortion, you parallel the totality to abortion.

If you want to draw a logical parallel, then be specific. If you agree to a statement, you agree to its wording, so if you don't mean that same wording, you should be specific.

My point was made, then, that point 1 does not, in fact, apply to abortion.

It seemed to me that he was applying those points to the abortion discussion, actually.

[CaptainFritz28]

The point is that you made a value judgement that sometimes one life can be more valuable than another. You had previously argued that it was wrong to value one life as more valuable than another. You have changed your position.

A murderer's life is just as valuable as anyone else's life. By murdering, and presenting an aggressive threat to others' lives, they have brought upon themselves the just punishment of, when necessary, the death penalty.

All lives are equally valuable. However, when you abuse your rights by purposefully and aggressively harming others' rights, you are forfeiting the rights that you abused. Hence, we put criminals in prison, depiving them of their liberty. The same applies to the death penalty, that when it is necessary to save lives, those who have abused their rights to destroy lives must have those rights taken from them, even, if necessary, to the point of death.

I'll counter with the point that criminals are not deprived of their right to life in prison. Is it really ethical to kill someone, even a murderer, when you could just as easily confine them to life in prison? This offers them a chance of repentance and changing their ways, even if they are not allowed to be freed.

I guess I haven't been clear. I think that the death penalty should only be used when there is no other way to ensure that the criminal will not continue to murder. This means that it would only be used in very rare cases where life in prison is not an option or not enough.

[CaptainFritz28]

I was responding to the weird "just war" wording that BrianBaru chose to use.

Do not blame me for that wording.

No I am not calling an embryo /foetus an "aggressor" - don't be stupid. Ask Brian why he chose those words.

He chose those words to make a point about the death penalty, which directly applies to the idea of a just war. You decided to apply that to abortion. If you disagree with the wording, then don't say that the points "certainly apply." By agreeing with the statement in totality and paralleling it to abortion, you parallel the totality to abortion.

If you want to draw a logical parallel, then be specific. If you agree to a statement, you agree to its wording, so if you don't mean that same wording, you should be specific.

My point was made, then, that point 1 does not, in fact, apply to abortion.

It seemed to me that he was applying those points to the abortion discussion, actually.

Well, perhaps I misunderstood it. I thought he was discussing the death penalty, and relating it to a just war. I'd like to see Brian's intentions with that post from himself, if possible, because now I'm curious that I may have missed something.

Regardless, the point is that we both agree that a baby in the womb is not an aggressor, and thus point 1 that Brian brought up as justification for war does not apply to abortion.

[CaptainFritz28]

A murderer's life is just as valuable as anyone else's life. By murdering, and presenting an aggressive threat to others' lives, they have brought upon themselves the just punishment of, when necessary, the death penalty.

All lives are equally valuable. However, when you abuse your rights by purposefully and aggressively harming others' rights, you are forfeiting the rights that you abused. Hence, we put criminals in prison, depiving them of their liberty. The same applies to the death penalty, that when it is necessary to save lives, those who have abused their rights to destroy lives must have those rights taken from them, even, if necessary, to the point of death.

I'll counter with the point that criminals are not deprived of their right to life in prison. Is it really ethical to kill someone, even a murderer, when you could just as easily confine them to life in prison? This offers them a chance of repentance and changing their ways, even if they are not allowed to be freed.

I guess I haven't been clear. I think that the death penalty should only be used when there is no other way to ensure that the criminal will not continue to murder. This means that it would only be used in very rare cases where life in prison is not an option or not enough.

So sure, Alabama has probably used it wrongly. I'm not saying they haven't. What I am saying is that there is justification for having a death penalty, even if only to be used highly infrequently.

Apologies for posting this twice, I meant to edit it but missed the window of oportunity.