Humanae Vitae

2,062 Views | 41 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Aggrad08
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Today is the 50th anniversary of the publication of this lifesaving and life affirming Papal Encyclical.

Humanae Vitae

Pope Paul VI was truly prophetic in his predictions for what a contraceptive culture would lead to.

Mine is not a popular opinion, but I have come to believe that artificial contraception is one of the greatest evils perpetrated on humanity.

It has lead to a complete disconnect in the minds of most people between sex and child-bearing. It has led to the belief that a pregnancy can be an "accident".

You can't "accidentally" get pregnant unless you can "accidentally" have sex.

Countless children have been able to surmise that if their parents had had their preferences, they would not have been born. Sure, they are happy they are here, love them unconditionally, and would do anything for them; but at some point they heard that they were "an accident".

The society that considers children a problem to be avoided will not last long.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's been a tremendous good for women the world over. And ive always found the Catholic argument that timing sex to deliberately lower the odds of conception is somehow superior than using a drug or condom to deliberately lower the odds of conception incredibly wanting.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For one thing, NFP is working with, rather than against, nature.

NFP doesn't intentionally break that which is working as designed.

It is also misogynistic to believe that the only way women can excel is to block the one thing they can do that men cannot. It gives the message that for women to be truly valuable to society, they have to become more like men.

Society used to believe that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world". I think that it is doing women a disservice to make them have to change their very biological nature in order to be considered "valuable" in today's society.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

I think that it is doing women a disservice to make them have to change their very biological nature in order to be considered "valuable" in today's society.
Who "makes" them? I also don't think women who aren't on birth control are considered less "valuable" in society. Then again, my wife couldn't care less what society thinks about her (at least when she was on bc), so maybe it's just not a discussion that we've had.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Working with" is meaningless, it's definition only means non artificial, and I view it as meaningful as the distinction between natural and artificial pesticides.

Your goal is to get nasty and not concieve-which is fine but no different than someone using a condom. You've the same goal and are no more "allowing " god than any other means with a similar success rate.

And it's not about being more masculine, it's about planning. A woman is down for the count from school or employment for a good while when pregnant and breastfeeding. It's been instrumental in allowing women yo participate in the workforce
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:


Quote:

I think that it is doing women a disservice to make them have to change their very biological nature in order to be considered "valuable" in today's society.
Who "makes" them? I also don't think women who aren't on birth control are considered less "valuable" in society. Then again, my wife couldn't care less what society thinks about her (at least when she was on bc), so maybe it's just not a discussion that we've had.
No, they aren't "forced", but media and society tend "look down on" and minimize women who choose not to be in the workforce but to stay home and raise their children.

Just look through the disparaging comments on this site alone about Stay at Home Moms.

My wife was told many times that she was "wasting her degree" by staying home to raise our children.

Then there is the subtle pressure of society for the nicer homes, the better vacations, the boats, etc... that cause families to believe that the wife "has to work" in order to just keep the bills paid.

Our society does not currently value motherhood as it once did. Women are expected to bear the child, then get back to work within a few weeks and then pay someone else to take care of the baby while the woman gets back to her "real job" which is actually valued by society.

I'm not disparaging "working" mothers, I'm just noting that our society seems to place more value on the women who have jobs rather than those who are stay at home Moms.

Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

"Working with" is meaningless, it's definition only means non artificial, and I view it as meaningful as the distinction between natural and artificial pesticides.

Your goal is to get nasty and not concieve-which is fine but no different than someone using a condom. You've the same goal and are no more "allowing " god than any other means with a similar success rate.

And it's not about being more masculine, it's about planning. A woman is down for the count from school or employment for a good while when pregnant and breastfeeding. It's been instrumental in allowing women yo participate in the workforce
You do not even know what NFP is or does or how it works.

You can't just compare the ends and say they are "just the same". They are not.

Yes, "non artificial" has value.

NFP requires discipline and communication. It respects the human person.

You're wrong about a woman being "down for the count" for work and employment when pregnant and breastfeeding; but it is this attitude that minimizes the value of women.

Our first child was born while we were in college. My wife was in school while pregnant. She never took a semester off. She took a lighter load one semester and didn't go to summer school, but by no means was she "down for the count".

It is the idea that for a woman to be valuable to society that she has to "participate in the workforce" that is one of the problems.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I need to get back to work and avoid this for a little while. I'll be back later, I'm sure.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I know exactly what it is and exactly how it works. You insult from a position of ignorance. Your assumptions are as poor as your foundational argument.

Pray tell what is the value in non artificial? Let's hear it provide a logical foundation for a moral distinction. One that may apply to many moral positions rather than some ad hoc nonsense.

And how am I disrespecting a person wearing a condom? It's far more respectful to wear one in all kinds of instances. It requires communication and respect.

And if you don't think pregnancy and early motherhood takes a toll on a woman's ability to participate in the workforce you are blind. Even the ones that can do part time school like your wife are impacted. Much more so if they are single.

Further, it's not about working women being superior, it's about choice being superior, it's about planning being superior. Even stay at home moms plan the number of kids they want. Trying to make this about some culture war against stay at home moms is nonsense.
Post removed:
by user
dds08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

Today is the 50th anniversary of the publication of this lifesaving and life affirming Papal Encyclical.

Humanae Vitae

Pope Paul VI was truly prophetic in his predictions for what a contraceptive culture would lead to.

Mine is not a popular opinion, but I have come to believe that artificial contraception is one of the greatest evils perpetrated on humanity.

It has lead to a complete disconnect in the minds of most people between sex and child-bearing. It has led to the belief that a pregnancy can be an "accident".

You can't "accidentally" get pregnant unless you can "accidentally" have sex.

Countless children have been able to surmise that if their parents had had their preferences, they would not have been born. Sure, they are happy they are here, love them unconditionally, and would do anything for them; but at some point they heard that they were "an accident".

The society that considers children a problem to be avoided will not last long.

Quote:

Countless children have been able to surmise that if their parents had had their preferences, they would not have been born. Sure, they are happy they are here, love them unconditionally, and would do anything for them; but at some point they heard that they were "an accident".

The society that considers children a problem to be avoided will not last long.


Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7, makes a case for and against marrying altogether.

Here is his case against (with a touch of the pro):

Quote:

7 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.

What he says here takes the cake:

Quote:

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairshow he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this worldhow he can please his wife 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this worldhow she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

No marriages, no parents, no kids, no more society.

Besides, from an eternal outlook of things, when we meet Him in heaven, all will be His children, and he will be the only parent; meaning marriage, and parenthood on earth is just temporary. Serving Him is eternal for all his followers.

There is no free lunch either way.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Our society definitely does not value motherhood like it used to. I always feel bad for the women who have a baby and then have to be back at work weeks later. That's tough.

Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'll add a thumbs up for NFP. It does work and it's natural. Society doesn't like it which is an added bonus.

diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Then there is the subtle pressure of society for the nicer homes, the better vacations, the boats, etc... that cause families to believe that the wife "has to work" in order to just keep the bills paid.

For many, it's not a subtle pressure, and not just about getting nicer homes...it's about getting a home at all. Their choice is a modest home they own in safe neighborhood with ok schools or a 1-2 bed room apartment that probably won't be that safe. It's a pretty easy decision.

I think it lacks empathy to think that dual income families are just selfish.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

Then there is the subtle pressure of society for the nicer homes, the better vacations, the boats, etc... that cause families to believe that the wife "has to work" in order to just keep the bills paid.

For many, it's not a subtle pressure, and not just about getting nicer homes...it's about getting a home at all. Their choice is a modest home they own in safe neighborhood with ok schools or a 1-2 bed room apartment that probably won't be that safe. It's a pretty easy decision.

I think it lacks empathy to think that dual income families are just selfish.
you're right, it would lack empathy to do so, which is why I did not and do not.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Our society definitely does not value motherhood like it used to. I always feel bad for the women who have a baby and then have to be back at work weeks later. That's tough.

eh, I don't know that it really valued it. Maybe it provided lip service...but it's always been perceived that the man goes out to "slay the day and bring home money for the family" while the woman just "stays home". Women were called upon to serve their husbands because they worked so hard all day.

The question we should be wrestling with is...what should we do with this bad feeling?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

you're right, it would lack empathy to do so, which is why I did not and do not.

I guess we will just disagree. Your assumption is that women are working because society doesn't value them as mothers and you also said they work to get nicer things. I don't think this is really the case. I think it boils down to 2 main motivations: 1) they simply don't make enough to afford safe neighborhoods/good schools on 1 income or 2) they fear that their marriage will not last and they "need" to maintain a source of income.

These have nothing to do with them as mothers.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

you're right, it would lack empathy to do so, which is why I did not and do not.

I guess we will just disagree. Your assumption is that women are working because society doesn't value them as mothers and you also said they work to get nicer things. I don't think this is really the case. I think it boils down to 2 main motivations: 1) they simply don't make enough to afford safe neighborhoods/good schools on 1 income or 2) they fear that their marriage will not last and they "need" to maintain a source of income.

These have nothing to do with them as mothers.
There is a difference between making a judgment about a particular person's choice based upon their specific circumstances and making a general judgment about society.

I am making a general judgment about society. I make no judgments about a specific individual's choice since I do not know their circumstances.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

It's been a tremendous good for women the world over. And ive always found the Catholic argument that timing sex to deliberately lower the odds of conception is somehow superior than using a drug or condom to deliberately lower the odds of conception incredibly wanting.
It's been a tremendous good for MEN the world over. And ive always found the Catholic argument that timing sex to deliberately lower the odds of conception is somehow superior than using a drug or condom to deliberately lower the odds of conception incredibly wanting.

Fixed it For You.

Torbush
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Women have been the primary beneficiary. Look at their writing from earlier in the 21st and late 20th centuries, it often shows of women with education being very unhappy and unfilled. I doubt many women would trade their options today for what they were in those time periods.

And how is it superior? What's your basis?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

There is a difference between making a judgment about a particular person's choice based upon their specific circumstances and making a general judgment about society.

I am making a general judgment about society. I make no judgments about a specific individual's choice since I do not know their circumstances.

You believe that generally women are working because they want nicer things and that society doesn't value them as mothers. I think your general judgment about society is incorrect.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Feminism is the lie that it's slavery to help a husband but fulfilling to be a slave for a corporation.

Working Women are miserable.

And contraception only serves the man. Man can sleep around without any consequences.

Torbush
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seamaster said:

Feminism is the lie that it's slavery to help a husband but fulfilling to be a slave for a corporation.

Working Women are miserable.

And contraception only serves the man. Man can sleep around without any consequences.
Wrong on all counts. Maybe "radical" feminism, but all feminists I know (especially Christian feminists) would vehemently disagree with your characterization of what they believe. Also, I know countless "working women", and have yet to find one claim to be "miserable". And contraception serves both man and woman, and they are both able to sleep around without any "consequences".
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some things to consider with regard to "Humanae Vitae" and Pope Paul VI's "prophecies" of what a contraceptive culture would lead to:

"Prophecies" from Humanae Vitae"

Keep in mind, this article was written in 1988. In my opinion, things have gotten only worse since then.

From Humanae Vitae, published on 7/25/1968 -- 50 years ago.

"Prophecy" 1
Quote:

The Pope first noted that the widespread use of contraception would "lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality."

"Prophecy" 2
Quote:

Paul VI also argued that "the man" will lose respect for "the woman" and "no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium" and will come to "the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion."

"Prophecy" 3
Quote:

Paul VI also observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a "dangerous weaponin the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies."
(see China and the Obamacare contraceptive mandate)

"Prophecy" 4
Quote:

The final warning Paul VI gave about contraception is that it would lead man to think that he had limitless dominion over his own body.
See the "confusion" today regarding transgenderism as one example.



Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
" Also, I know countless "working women", and have yet to find one claim to be "miserable". And contraception serves both man and woman, and they are both able to sleep around without any "consequences"."

And that's good because????
Torbush
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

Some things to consider with regard to "Humanae Vitae" and Pope Paul VI's "prophecies" of what a contraceptive culture would lead to:

"Prophecies" from Humanae Vitae"

Keep in mind, this article was written in 1988. In my opinion, things have gotten only worse since then.

From Humanae Vitae, published on 7/25/1968 -- 50 years ago.

"Prophecy" 1 - "conjugal infidelity" has existed since the dawn of man. And how are we defining "morality"? I would agree it's likely more common now, but we've seen that permeate throughout society (see current political issues). The problem isn't birth control, but the church not being the church.
Quote:

The Pope first noted that the widespread use of contraception would "lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality."

"Prophecy" 2 - I would say that this has had the opposite effect. When women had no real rights, which was also before widespread use of contraception, they seem to have been treated more like property and less like equals.
Quote:

Paul VI also argued that "the man" will lose respect for "the woman" and "no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium" and will come to "the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion."

"Prophecy" 3 - Government is a dangerous weapon regardless.
Quote:

Paul VI also observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a "dangerous weaponin the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies."
(see China and the Obamacare contraceptive mandate)

"Prophecy" 4
Quote:

The final warning Paul VI gave about contraception is that it would lead man to think that he had limitless dominion over his own body.
See the "confusion" today regarding transgenderism as one example. - Ugh. Trans persons have always existed and it's not "confusion". Even recent studies have shown that there very well may be a biological component to it, as there appears to be a possible link between gender identity and brain structure (brain structure being closer to gender they identify as vs. their biological sex). Lili Elbe ("Danish Girl") lived long before this. The only difference is we're getting a better understanding of it and becoming more accepting of it.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seamaster said:

" Also, I know countless "working women", and have yet to find one claim to be "miserable". And contraception serves both man and woman, and they are both able to sleep around without any "consequences"."

And that's good because????
I didn't say it was "good". I pointed out the flaw in your statement that it's only "serves the man".
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yea none of that is true. Again it's not an attack on mother's, most women still have kids. It's about options and timing. And I've never known a miserable working woman. I've known a few stay at homes who found it miserable and went back to work, but most people aren't miserable for the very reason that they have a choice.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, these things have existed for millenia, but when you remove the procreative aspect from the conjugal act, you increase these issues greatly.

re: women as property -- This will be misunderstood and misinterpreted, but there is a huge difference between an asset and a commodity.

Where women were once treated as an asset, cared for and protected; they are treated by more today as a commodity, to be used.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

Yes, these things have existed for millenia, but when you remove the procreative aspect from the conjugal act, you increase these issues greatly. - you remove the procreative aspect from sex when engaging in NFP as well. The problem isn't the presence of contraception, which has existed for millenia.

re: women as property -- This will be misunderstood and misinterpreted, but there is a huge difference between an asset and a commodity.

Where women were once treated as an asset, cared for and protected; they are treated by more today as a commodity, to be used.- they are people. They aren't an asset. They aren't a commodity. They are human beings and equals. They are treated as such much more now than in the "good ol' days".
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

Yes, these things have existed for millenia, but when you remove the procreative aspect from the conjugal act, you increase these issues greatly. - you remove the procreative aspect from sex when engaging in NFP as well. The problem isn't the presence of contraception, which has existed for millenia.
Actually, I do not. Nature does.

Quote:


re: women as property -- This will be misunderstood and misinterpreted, but there is a huge difference between an asset and a commodity.

Where women were once treated as an asset, cared for and protected; they are treated by more today as a commodity, to be used.- they are people. They aren't an asset. They aren't a commodity. They are human beings and equals. They are treated as such much more now than in the "good ol' days".



As I noted, this was misunderstood. Yes, I know, understand, and believe that women are people and are not property or owned by anyone other than themselves. I am not saying that women are or should be an asset. But they are not a commodity either.

The difference between how women were treated as "property" before, and how they are often treated today is the difference between how people generally treat an asset versus a commodity.


PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

RetiredAg said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

Yes, these things have existed for millenia, but when you remove the procreative aspect from the conjugal act, you increase these issues greatly. - you remove the procreative aspect from sex when engaging in NFP as well. The problem isn't the presence of contraception, which has existed for millenia.
Actually, I do not. Nature does.

Quote:


re: women as property -- This will be misunderstood and misinterpreted, but there is a huge difference between an asset and a commodity.

Where women were once treated as an asset, cared for and protected; they are treated by more today as a commodity, to be used.- they are people. They aren't an asset. They aren't a commodity. They are human beings and equals. They are treated as such much more now than in the "good ol' days".



As I noted, this was misunderstood. Yes, I know, understand, and believe that women are people and are not property or owned by anyone other than themselves. I am not saying that women are or should be an asset. But they are not a commodity either.

The difference between how women were treated as "property" before, and how they are often treated today is the difference between how people generally treat an asset versus a commodity.
You say "nature" does. Well, you're using nature to remove the procreative aspect. Just as others us non-natural methods to remove the procreative aspect.

And if you don't want your comment misunderstood, then it's best to avoid referring to women with terms that are associated with property. I would argue women are treated better today than before, because they aren't treated like property (regardless of whatever demeaning term you wish to equate them with). Women are far more likely to be treated as equals today than even 50 years ago.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:



You say "nature" does. Well, you're using nature to remove the procreative aspect. Just as others us non-natural methods to remove the procreative aspect.

It's much more than that. the "nature versus artificial" is a response to the ridiculous assertion that using NFP is just like using contraception because in both cases you have sex with a reduced chance of pregnancy. You are arguing that the ends justifies the means.

Quote:

And if you don't want your comment misunderstood, then it's best to avoid referring to women with terms that are associated with property. I would argue women are treated better today than before, because they aren't treated like property (regardless of whatever demeaning term you wish to equate them with). Women are far more likely to be treated as equals today than even 50 years ago.

The encyclical, written in the 60s, predicted that women would become viewed more as objects or property. The exact quote is:
Humanae Vitae said:

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

and yes, this happened in the past, but not to the extent as is the case today. There is a great argument that this is one of the reason that fewer couples are getting married today.

I compare this phenomenon of treating women as a "mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires" as treating her as a commodity.

You said that in the past women were literally property (that ended much earlier than the 60s) and I just noted that there is a difference in property as an asset and property as a commodity.

Regardless of the terms used, women are treated more as a commodity by many "men" today and this was predicted by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

RetiredAg said:



You say "nature" does. Well, you're using nature to remove the procreative aspect. Just as others us non-natural methods to remove the procreative aspect.

It's much more than that. the "nature versus artificial" is a response to the ridiculous assertion that using NFP is just like using contraception because in both cases you have sex with a reduced chance of pregnancy. You are arguing that the ends justifies the means. - No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying the ends are the same. There's nothing "immoral" of the means of either case. Natural vs non-natural means....the intent is the exact same. To engage in conjugal acts while minimizing the risk of procreation. You choose NFP, and good for you. My wife and I chose birth control, up until I had a vasectomy. Good for us. Neither are wrong "means".

Quote:

And if you don't want your comment misunderstood, then it's best to avoid referring to women with terms that are associated with property. I would argue women are treated better today than before, because they aren't treated like property (regardless of whatever demeaning term you wish to equate them with). Women are far more likely to be treated as equals today than even 50 years ago.

The encyclical, written in the 60s, predicted that women would become viewed more as objects or property. The exact quote is:
Humanae Vitae said:

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

and yes, this happened in the past, but not to the extent as is the case today. There is a great argument that this is one of the reason that fewer couples are getting married today. - Women have long been treated like property. Now they are far more likely to be treated as equals. That's a good thing.

I compare this phenomenon of treating women as a "mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires" as treating her as a commodity.

You said that in the past women were literally property (that ended much earlier than the 60s) and I just noted that there is a difference in property as an asset and property as a commodity. - No, it didn't end "much earlier than the 60s". You can note the difference in which demeaning term you wish to use for them all you want, but I prefer to use the term "equals" or "human beings".

Regardless of the terms used, women are treated more as a commodity by many "men" today and this was predicted by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. - You make this as though it's a statement of fact, when in reality, it's merely an opinion that you hold. Yes, some men treat women today like a commodity. I grew up with many of them in fundie churches. But using women as "mere instruments for the satisfaction of his own desires" is as old as man himself. IMO, women are treated far better today. It seems like your issue isn't how women are treated, but that women now behave as men always have.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Have you read Humanae Vitae?

If not, I would ask that you do so before continuing this discussion. It really doesn't take long.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.