LISTEN. Can you hear that?
That's the sound of Tasmania's elected representatives settling down in their respective houses, ready to decide the outcome of two of the most divisive debates in Tasmania's history.
In the lower house, MPs are putting the finishing touches on their speeches for the conscience vote on legislation to decriminalise abortion.
In the upper house, MLCs are stacking their shopper trolleys high with amendments ready for the final week of debate on the forest peace deal legislation.
The outcome of both debates rests on a few fence-sitters changing their mind.
Listen closely. Can you hear politicians weighing up the risks?
It's not the first round for either debate.
Parliament last debated abortion in 2001, when it voted to exempt medically justified terminations from criminal sanctions.
The Reproductive Health Bill aims to decriminalise all abortions that are performed by a doctor, and make the woman's consent the only legal requirement for terminating a pregnancy that is less than 16 weeks along.
It's a different piece of legislation, but you wouldn't know it from the submissions received.
Of the 2040 private submissions received, just 709 were from Tasmania. Of those, about 87 per cent subsisted entirely of pictures or did not specifically address the legislation.
The signs lofted by anti-abortion protesters outside parliament last week would not have looked out of place 10 years ago, or 40 years ago when the US Supreme Court decided abortion was a constitutional right.
Vocal opposition has meshed with general public acceptance that abortion is a medical procedure and created a curious sub-sect of people who are pro-choice, so long as that choice is not one that they personally disagree with.
But ask organisations that have spoken out against the proposed legislation and most give the same response: Nothing. It should be torn up.
Health Minister Michelle O'Byrne, who sponsored the legislation, said the debate about whether women could have an abortion was over in Tasmania, and now we were just discussing the legal framework.
With a fight as long-running and emotive as this, all the history gets dredged up.
Just ask the upper house.
Today they will sit down for the third week of debate on the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Bill, after the government snatched it away from them before Easter when they looked ready to throw it out in disgust.
The foot soldiers in the forestry debate, industry groups and environmental organisations, put down their weapons and shook hands six months ago.
But after 30 years of fighting, those who weren't inside the peace process are reluctant to believe that the war is over.
The forestry bill, as it passed the lower house, will create 500,000 hectares of new reserves in exchange for a guaranteed quota of 137,000 square metres of native sawlogs a year and a promise that none of the undersigned groups will dress up as marsupials and hang around Bunnings.
The debate is divided between those who think the legislation is the only way forward and those who want to rip it up.
Amendments have been proposed, but neither side has shifted its core position.
That's not a debate, it's a bloody row.
Most legislation passed by parliament does so unanimously.
It takes a sensitive issue for the cracks to show.
Debate in both houses today will show Tasmania's politicians for what they are.
You might want to step back now. They're about to start shouting.