Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

More to the point (and something I really should have addressed), I don't really think self awareness should be the issue, but sentience. Fetuses are supposed to gain sentience at around 12-13 weeks or so (If my memory holds up), and that's the point where I, personally, will treat it as a baby and not just a fetus. When it is more than a bundle of cells with potential.

An unconscious person is also not sentient. Do you think it is okay to kill people when they are unconscious?
And if not, then why do you still think it is okay to kill fetuses? What is the difference?

Sentience and consciousness are two very different things. And you know this. Try and make actual arguments.

I am. Show some effort to understand them.
Consciousness and sentience can be different things (sometimes at least, they are also often defined as being the same), but when there is no conciousness there can be no sentience. Unconsciousness can literally be defined as a temporary lack or severe reduction of sentience. This is basic knowledge...
Unless you are somehow able to feel and think subjectively while being unconscious

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Also, what is the difference between a "bundle of cells with potential" and a human being?

One has sentience and the other doesn't. I literally just explained this.

That is not a scientifically justified argument, but fair enough. Now where is exactly the border between sentience and non-sentience? And why is it okay to kill one human being with a temporary lack of sentience, but not okay to kill the other human being with a temporary lack of sentience?

And as a general question, why should it be okay to harm non-sentient beings?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am. Show some effort to understand them.
Consciousness and sentience can be different things (sometimes at least, they are also often defined as being the same), but when there is no conciousness there can be no sentience. Unconsciousness can literally be defined as a temporary lack or severe reduction of sentience. This is basic knowledge...
Unless you are somehow able to feel and think subjectively while being unconscious

That's not how it works. Not at all. Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.* When you are unconscious, you are still sentient. Unless you're suggesting we lose our sentience when we go to sleep.

That is not a scientifically justified argument, but fair enough. Now where is exactly the border between sentience and non-sentience?

As I said, the accepted answer in the medical community is 12-13 weeks. And it's not my place to argue with that, I'm not a doctor.

And why is it okay to kill one human being with a temporary lack of sentience, but not okay to kill the other human being with a temporary lack of sentience?

What? Please elaborate.

And as a general question, why should it be okay to harm non-sentient beings?

Because society has deemed it as such. Otherwise we'd all starve.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am. Show some effort to understand them.
Consciousness and sentience can be different things (sometimes at least, they are also often defined as being the same), but when there is no conciousness there can be no sentience. Unconsciousness can literally be defined as a temporary lack or severe reduction of sentience. This is basic knowledge...
Unless you are somehow able to feel and think subjectively while being unconscious

That's not how it works. Not at all. Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.* When you are unconscious, you are still sentient. Unless you're suggesting we lose our sentience when we go to sleep.

You are making a mistake by confusing the popular usage of unconscious with the scientific term. Normal sleep is technically not a state of unconsciousness, but rather a state of altered consciousness because brain activity still continues normally (easy to demonstrate since a sleeping person still reacts to loud noises or other external stimuli and therefore is still sentient).
When you are in a state of unconsciousness however (such as being in a deep coma) you do not respond to any external stimuli. Much like a fetus, you have temporarily (or permanently, if the coma is permanent) lost the capacity to feel and perceive entirely. This is different from being asleep, where we maintain that capacity. Therefore, someone who is unconscious is not sentient as even though the neccessary infrastructure to feel and perceive is there, it is not active. Again, this is much like a fetus, in which the neccessary infrastructure also develops very early, but does not become active until much later.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

That is not a scientifically justified argument, but fair enough. Now where is exactly the border between sentience and non-sentience?

As I said, the accepted answer in the medical community is 12-13 weeks. And it's not my place to argue with that, I'm not a doctor.

Well, there really is not a single accepted answer since it is a rather controversial issue that is not a question of medical facts but rather one of philosophy. Let us say that the debate centers on what exactly is meant by perceive in "the capacity to perceive subjectively". Since recent research suggest that plants or embryos do seem to react to external stimuli, it could be argued that they must be able to perceive them somehow and are therefore sentient. In short, the only things that really are uncontroversially not sentient are objects such as rocks. Sentience in a living being is very hard to prove or disprove in many cases. Sentience is not relevant to the medical community, but it is to questions of ethics.
The 12-13 weeks thing is a border after which some say we can be certain that there is sentience (iirc, that is when the neccessary brain infrastructure to process basic information is completed), even though plenty of others say it is not until 30 weeks that a fetus gains sentience. Yet others, who use a much more limited definition of sentience (they usually argue that sapience and self-awareness are requirements for sentience), argue that it does occur until long after a child is born.
And this is without even going into Eastern philosophy and cultural traditions which state that all living beings are inherently sentient. It is therefore not so easy to simply draw a border and say "everthing on this side is sentient and on the other side is not."

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And why is it okay to kill one human being with a temporary lack of sentience, but not okay to kill the other human being with a temporary lack of sentience?

What? Please elaborate.

Why is it okay to kill a fetus but not okay to kill someone who is in a coma?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And as a general question, why should it be okay to harm non-sentient beings?

Because society has deemed it as such. Otherwise we'd all starve.

And is support of society a correct criterion to determine good or wrong?
Slavery was deemed by society to be okay. Does that mean it was good? Because otherwise your ancestors would have had to work themselves?

Let me rephrase my original question to show the problem I want to talk about:
Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it? There is an argument to be made for this when needed for survival of course (like killing plants for food). But what if there is no need for survival?

Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it?

Umm whats the difference between hurt and harm?

I kick a dog. It harms it (bruise on the leg). I hurt it by kicking it (bruise on the leg).

?

 Ratius wrote:

Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it?

Umm whats the difference between hurt and harm?

I kick a dog. It harms it (bruise on the leg). I hurt it by kicking it (bruise on the leg).

?

English is a complicated language and the two words have overlapping connotations, however "hurt" is primarily talking about a sensory response, "harm" is primarily about doing damage.

You harmed the dog because it has a bruise (damage) you hurt the dog because the dog felt pain and whimpered in the corner (sensory response). If you can inflict damage without causing pain, you can harm something without hurting it, if you can inflict pain without causing damage you can hurt it without causing harm.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are making a mistake by confusing the popular usage of unconscious with the scientific term. Normal sleep is technically not a state of unconsciousness, but rather a state of altered consciousness because brain activity still continues normally (easy to demonstrate since a sleeping person still reacts to loud noises or other external stimuli and therefore is still sentient).
When you are in a state of unconsciousness however (such as being in a deep coma) you do not respond to any external stimuli. Much like a fetus, you have temporarily (or permanently, if the coma is permanent) lost the capacity to feel and perceive entirely. This is different from being asleep, where we maintain that capacity. Therefore, someone who is unconscious is not sentient as even though the neccessary infrastructure to feel and perceive is there, it is not active. Again, this is much like a fetus, in which the neccessary infrastructure also develops very early, but does not become active until much later.

Then maybe say you are using that sort of usage before you ask a question, hmm?

Why is it okay to kill a fetus but not okay to kill someone who is in a coma?/quote] Well, first people in comas with no signs of brain function are routinely "killed" (i.e. taken off life support).

Second, a fetus never had those functions to begin with. That's sort of the point. A person in a temporary coma, had those functions, they are just not in use. (This has been explained to you about two times).
Morally, they are an established creature in the world, where if a fetus that has yet to develop dies "nothing" is lost.

And is support of society a correct criterion to determine good or wrong?

That's a pretty personal question, because each person's morals are their own. It all depends on whether or not you agree with that society.

Slavery was deemed by society to be okay. Does that mean it was good? Because otherwise your ancestors would have had to work themselves?

Absolutely not. In today's prospective at least.
Also, my ancestors never got above middle class, so owning slaves would not be something they'd be able to do, and at least one was an abolitionist.

Let me rephrase my original question to show the problem I want to talk about:
Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it? There is an argument to be made for this when needed for survival of course (like killing plants for food). But what if there is no need for survival?

That's up to your own moral compass.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it?

Umm whats the difference between hurt and harm?

I kick a dog. It harms it (bruise on the leg). I hurt it by kicking it (bruise on the leg).

?

English is a complicated language and the two words have overlapping connotations, however "hurt" is primarily talking about a sensory response, "harm" is primarily about doing damage.

You harmed the dog because it has a bruise (damage) you hurt the dog because the dog felt pain and whimpered in the corner (sensory response). If you can inflict damage without causing pain, you can harm something without hurting it, if you can inflict pain without causing damage you can hurt it without causing harm.

It's actually the other way around (or I am misreading you). Hurt is physical damage, harm can be anything. Like psychological, breach of contract or loss of reputation are all ways of harming someone without hurting them.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And just like life is not gradual, humanity is also not gradual. Something is either human or it is not. Cancer cells are not human, a fetus is.

Yes, humanity is gradual. Simply because lay people approach the concept as binary does not make it so.

Also, cancer cells which exist in a human are human. Cancer isn't like some magical dust that wafts down onto people, it is the result of damage to existential cells within the body.

 welshhoppo wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it?

Umm whats the difference between hurt and harm?

I kick a dog. It harms it (bruise on the leg). I hurt it by kicking it (bruise on the leg).

?

English is a complicated language and the two words have overlapping connotations, however "hurt" is primarily talking about a sensory response, "harm" is primarily about doing damage.

You harmed the dog because it has a bruise (damage) you hurt the dog because the dog felt pain and whimpered in the corner (sensory response). If you can inflict damage without causing pain, you can harm something without hurting it, if you can inflict pain without causing damage you can hurt it without causing harm.

It's actually the other way around (or I am misreading you). Hurt is physical damage, harm can be anything. Like psychological, breach of contract or loss of reputation are all ways of harming someone without hurting them.

As I said the terms have overlapping connotations, but hurt usually means some response, ie. pain/distress, where as harm just means damage has been done. If you can damage something without causing pain or distress, you'd use the word "harm" rather than "hurt".

But both words have connotations that mean you could use them interchangeably if you wanted. I assume the Captain was using them as I suggested.

From the Collins...
Word forms: hurts, hurting or hurt
1. to cause physical pain to (someone or something)
2. to cause emotional pain or distress to (someone)
3. to produce a painful sensation in (someone) ⇒ the bruise hurts
4. (intransitive) informal to feel pain
noun
5. physical, moral, or mental pain or suffering
6. a wound, cut, or sore
7. damage or injury; harm
adjective
8. injured or pained physically or emotionally ⇒ a hurt knee, ⇒ a hurt look

Harm
noun
1. physical or mental injury or damage
2. moral evil or wrongdoing
verb
3. (transitive) to injure physically, morally, or mentally

So you can see one of the connotations of "hurt" is literally "harm", but most of them relate to pain, distress, suffering, ie. sensory responses, where as "harm" focuses on damage or injury rather than pain/suffering.

If you use the "free dictionary" then the meanings are more blurred, but if you look at the Collins or Oxford, there's more distinction between hurt and harm.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
And there are studies that sing praises of all three methods.

I have yet to see a study singing the praises of "abstinence only" programs. I've seen a lot of rhetoric on the matter, but never a positive study.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Traditional families, with married couples, tend to offer the best chances for a stable family life, even in this age of high divorce rates. While there are exceptions, this is generally a good "rule of thumb".

Well, yeah. You really didn't need to go beyond "traditional". Kids that are the product of tradition don't have to explain things to people, won't be harassed for being different, and will generally have an easier time of things. Same goes for the parents, arguably even more so.

It is possible to have a stable family life without marriage, or even civility between the two parents. I mean, it isn't like married couples don't have spats that impact their kids. The problems arise, generally, due to negative social pressure.

 dogma wrote:
Well, yeah. You really didn't need to go beyond "traditional". Kids that are the product of tradition don't have to explain things to people, won't be harassed for being different, and will generally have an easier time of things. Same goes for the parents, arguably even more so.

It is possible to have a stable family life without marriage, or even civility between the two parents. I mean, it isn't like married couples don't have spats that impact their kids. The problems arise, generally, due to negative social pressure.

The problems usually arise when there isn't a stable relationship between the parents.

I don't think negative social pressure from having parents not married is much of an issue in this day and age in western societies. The problems from having one or both parents unstable is leagues worse.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are making a mistake by confusing the popular usage of unconscious with the scientific term. Normal sleep is technically not a state of unconsciousness, but rather a state of altered consciousness because brain activity still continues normally (easy to demonstrate since a sleeping person still reacts to loud noises or other external stimuli and therefore is still sentient).
When you are in a state of unconsciousness however (such as being in a deep coma) you do not respond to any external stimuli. Much like a fetus, you have temporarily (or permanently, if the coma is permanent) lost the capacity to feel and perceive entirely. This is different from being asleep, where we maintain that capacity. Therefore, someone who is unconscious is not sentient as even though the neccessary infrastructure to feel and perceive is there, it is not active. Again, this is much like a fetus, in which the neccessary infrastructure also develops very early, but does not become active until much later.

Then maybe say you are using that sort of usage before you ask a question, hmm?

Sorry, I will try to define the question better next time.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Why is it okay to kill a fetus but not okay to kill someone who is in a coma?/quote] Well, first people in comas with no signs of brain function are routinely "killed" (i.e. taken off life support).

Second, a fetus never had those functions to begin with. That's sort of the point. A person in a temporary coma, had those functions, they are just not in use. (This has been explained to you about two times).
Morally, they are an established creature in the world, where if a fetus that has yet to develop dies "nothing" is lost.

Well, people in coma are normally only killed if there is no hope of recovery. That is different from killing a fetus who will gain sentience if left alone.
And what is the practical difference between yet having to develop those functions and having already developed but lost those functions?
I do not think I understand your argument yet. Could you define what is an "established creature" and explain why nothing is lost when you kill a fetus? In both cases you are killing a human being which has the chance to (re)gain sentience.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And is support of society a correct criterion to determine good or wrong?

That's a pretty personal question, because each person's morals are their own. It all depends on whether or not you agree with that society.

True. But in that case, rather than hiding behind 'society', you might as well say 'It is good (or wrong) because I think it is good (or wrong)'.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Let me rephrase my original question to show the problem I want to talk about:
Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it? There is an argument to be made for this when needed for survival of course (like killing plants for food). But what if there is no need for survival?

That's up to your own moral compass.

And so what does your moral compass say about it?

I wonder, if an one-week fetus can be considered a human being, why sperm and egg cells should not be considered half-human (or at least, beings with the potential of becoming human), and therefore male masturbation and female menstruation become half-murder.

 dogma wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And just like life is not gradual, humanity is also not gradual. Something is either human or it is not. Cancer cells are not human, a fetus is.

Yes, humanity is gradual. Simply because lay people approach the concept as binary does not make it so.

Go and tell the biologists, will you?
Humanity is pretty much binary:

humanity
hjʊˈmanɪti/
noun
noun: humanity; plural noun: humanities

human beings collectively.

human being
hjuːmənˈbiːɪŋ/
noun
noun: human being; plural noun: human beings; noun: humanbeing; plural noun: humanbeings

a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

"Human" is a member of the species Homo sapiens (or in biological and archeological circles also any other member of the genus Homo). Nothing more. That is pretty damn binary. Member of H. sapiens? Human. Not member of H. sapiens? Not human.

 dogma wrote:
Also, cancer cells which exist in a human are human. Cancer isn't like some magical dust that wafts down onto people, it is the result of damage to existential cells within the body.

Calling a cancer cell human is like looking at a wheel and calling it a cart. Cancer cells are part of a human, but parts are not the whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:
I wonder, if an one-week fetus can be considered a human being, why sperm and egg cells should not be considered half-human (or at least, beings with the potential of becoming human), and therefore male masturbation and female menstruation become half-murder.

Because sperm and egg cells are only parts of a human organism. It is not until the fusion of gametes during fertilisation that these human parts are transformed into a new whole human being.
So yeah, on their own, before fertilisation, sperm and egg cells really are not much more special than any other cells of the human body.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

noun: human being; plural noun: human beings; noun: humanbeing; plural noun: humanbeings

a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Go and tell the biologists, will you?
Humanity is pretty much binary

Why? They already know it isn't. If you want another example, look at the debates regarding the classification of species.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

"Human" is a member of the species Homo sapiens (or in biological and archeological circles also any other member of the genus Homo). Nothing more. That is pretty damn binary. Member of H. sapiens? Human. Not member of H. sapiens? Not human.

So a blastocyst is not human?

At any rate, you're getting really close to creating a false choice. There is a hell of a lot of philosophical, and scientific, consideration involved in determining what a human is.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Calling a cancer cell human is like looking at a wheel and calling it a cart. Cancer cells are part of a human, but parts are not the whole.

The word "human" is an adjective, as well as a noun.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

So when we strap you up as an involuntary blood donor to save someone Mad Max style we won't hear you complain?

I find the idea that humanity is gradual an interesting philosophical question. I think we as humans place more value on human life than makes sense evolutionarily speaking or socially speaking.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

So when we strap you up as an involuntary blood donor to save someone Mad Max style we won't hear you complain?

My understanding is that in western countries it's rare for someone to die because they don't have blood available, more likely elective and non-life threatening surgeries get postponed so that reserves don't get run down in case of life threatening emergencies.

If I could just give blood 9 to 5 every day and it was saving lives without killing me, sure I'd do it I think many other people would as well, but that's not the reality so it's just a hypothetical question.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

So when we strap you up as an involuntary blood donor to save someone Mad Max style we won't hear you complain?

Don't forget to take a kidney and part of the liver while you're at it, people need those organs and the donor doesn't!

Being generous with other people's suffering is so easy.

Downs people being exterminated by abortion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37500189

Comparison

http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/life-in-nazi-occupied-europe/non-jewish-minorities/disabled/#.V_F9UjR4Xv4

 Knockagh wrote:
Downs people being exterminated by abortion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37500189

Comparison

http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/life-in-nazi-occupied-europe/non-jewish-minorities/disabled/#.V_F9UjR4Xv4

Ah, the good old godwin. I guess it was only a matter of time.

 Knockagh wrote:
Downs people being exterminated by abortion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37500189

I don't think you understand what "extermination" means. Nobody is going around killing people with Down's syndrome, they are simply declining to have more children with that flaw.

Comparison

http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/life-in-nazi-occupied-europe/non-jewish-minorities/disabled/#.V_F9UjR4Xv4

No, that is not a comparison at all. There is nothing at all similar between deciding not to have children with a serious genetic disability and murdering people who already exist.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
I wonder, if an one-week fetus can be considered a human being, why sperm and egg cells should not be considered half-human (or at least, beings with the potential of becoming human), and therefore male masturbation and female menstruation become half-murder.

Because sperm and egg cells are only parts of a human organism. It is not until the fusion of gametes during fertilisation that these human parts are transformed into a new whole human being.
So yeah, on their own, before fertilisation, sperm and egg cells really are not much more special than any other cells of the human body.

So its ok to kill human cells then. Which means its ok to kill a fetus.

There's two parts to this argument and most of the discussion focuses on if a fetus is or isn't human. My vote is on it isn't, but lets say for a moment that it is. I know that in the US (especially Texas) we are allowed to kill other humans, even fully sentient ones walking around fully conscious, if we feel it is in self-defense. So why can't a woman kill the fetus in self-defense? Certainly it poses a threat of bodily harm in multiple ways.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Like I said to the poster above, that's what government programs and charities are for. They are there to help the child and the parent(s). There is no excuse for it. Besides, I said nothing about child welfare and assistance. My point was about making people take responsibility for their actions. In this case, harsh penalties are needed for the sorry who are willing to do the fun stuff, but don't want the responsibility for the end result of said "fun". Even with government assistance, parents are not absolved of the responsibility for the kid's well being.

So you are extremely puritical who thinks sex is flat out no-go in any other scenario than when you WANT to get children? Because you are punishing people for having sex for any other reason than child making since no matter what you do there is always risk of pregnancy...

Anyway moot point anyway. Ultimately decision is mothers. Her decision, her's alone. Nobody else has any right to intervene.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Downs people being exterminated by abortion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37500189

I don't think you understand what "extermination" means. Nobody is going around killing people with Down's syndrome, they are simply declining to have more children with that flaw.

Comparison

http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/life-in-nazi-occupied-europe/non-jewish-minorities/disabled/#.V_F9UjR4Xv4

No, that is not a comparison at all. There is nothing at all similar between deciding not to have children with a serious genetic disability and murdering people who already exist.

More children with 'that flaw' nice one, you my man are a tough and hardened heart.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' - Matthew 13:15

tneva82 wrote:
Anyway moot point anyway. Ultimately decision is mothers. Her decision, her's alone. Nobody else has any right to intervene.

Except in Poland.

Given the context I find it ironic to quote from a book that advocates killing on several occasions, even if the quote sounds nice.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Given the context I find it ironic to quote from a book that advocates killing on several occasions, even if the quote sounds nice.

I don't see the point in quoting a book that most people in the discussion don't believe.

If everyone believed in the bible then you could discuss the relevant parts of text and discuss the context of them and how they relate to the discussion at hand....

...but if no one even believes it's true you just sound like a crazy person.

If you can't build an argument that doesn't rely on the bible being true, you aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe the bible is true.

 Knockagh wrote:
More children with 'that flaw' nice one, you my man are a tough and hardened heart.

Down syndrome is indisputably a genetic flaw. It comes from having an extra copy of a chromosome and causes development to go wrong, both physically and mentally. You can have an emotional reaction to the idea of calling it what it is, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' - Matthew 13:15

Peregrine 69:69
For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would bring them to the peace of eternity in submission to My rightful rule. PS: abortion is awesome. - Peregrine 69:69