Male Reproductive Rights

did you see a picture of that dude who made the billboard, its no wonder his girl had an abortion...would have been one ugly ass baby!!!

Just me,

I think any weight or serious role, if they are indeed serious, probably should be discussed "before" not after..

boomer, It should be but casual sex is way too common for that to be a realistic expectation. As a society we seem to be turning sex into a recreational item that is just another part of our individuality that we should celebrate and flaunt. I'm sure that contributes to the absentee dad problems but even if we were to find a way to address that, I can't imagine we'll see any serious improvement until we take the role of fathers as seriously as we seem to expect them to.

I don't think the guy cared about anything but punishing the woman for rejecting him.

Which may also be the case, and if it is he's a scumbag. But I still believe that if one of the parents wants to keep the child alive, that should take priority, so long as that parent is also willing to bear sole responsibility for the child.

thiscantbe, I don't give half a @!$%# about her body. I don't want her to kill my child. She still would have the right to, but that would mean the absolute end of our relationship. My opinion should count for something, even if she gets to have the final say.

I don't give half a @!$%# about her body. I don't want her to kill my child.

It's not a child yet - only she can turn it into one - not you. Insemination (the only part a man plays in conception) is only a fraction of what takes place during a pregnancy.

The only right a man should have regarding a pregnancy is to opt out of child support (and forfeit all rights to see the child) after birth.

Your opinion counts, but it's not your body. Maybe someday medicine will evolve to the point that the fetus can be removed from a female body and be transplanted into a male body, until then the woman does have the final say.

The only right a man should have regarding a pregnancy is to opt out of child support

The only problem with that is too many men will say they wanted the woman to abort just so they can avoid paying child support. That pretty much removes the man from any responsibility. It seems like that may lead to even more unwanted pregnancies because a man wouldn't have any skin in the game. :-)

I often wondered at that myself, trm. So how many husbands can abandon families & not pay child support or be required to pay child support if they can "opt" out?

The only problem with that is too many men will say they wanted the woman to abort just so they can avoid paying child support.

And I realize what's wrong with that morally/financially however doesn't that kind of level out the whole "fairness" argument? If the man doesn't want anything to do with the child he would have to sign documents within a certain time frame - pretty much financially aborting the future child.

If they're willing to abandon their families to get out of support, they're not exactly father material anyhow. Absentee fathers are pretty common now - not giving them any say or any rights hasn't prevented that from happening. I'm wondering what impact it would have on sexually active women to have the solid knowledge that the men would legally have the option to leave them holding all responsibility should they choose to carry an unplanned pregnancy?

There are plenty of absentee fathers, but most are still held responsible for financial support. Until men can carry the baby themselves, there is no way to make it totally fair.

No I agree we can't make it totally fair but I also don't think we can expect fathers to take it more seriously until we do ourselves as society.

The only things missing from this fairness argument is that the father carries no risk through pregnancy (yea, duh..not his body). For every pregnancy there are risks for the mother...even when everything appears normal. And child support is not an equivalent to a woman's physical autonomy.

Seems like this is a pretty appropriate place to write what I had written in another thread. Just food for thought and truly tries to look at our "new" society objectively. In full disclosure, I am firmly pro-choice but as you read, you'll probably identify that. In addition, you'll probably see that I don't think we've come as far with choice as we need to:

Prefaced, I believe that a woman has a right to get rid of a "growth" inside of them. But for clarity of the point, let's take that part out of the argument for a brief moment. What if every time two people had sex, society accepted the fact that they were consenting to have a child. Therefore, the government, at its discretion, had the option of giving that couple a child (whether married or not) that needed a home. When the couple says, "But we were responsible and used birth control," the government says, it doesn't matter. When you have sex you are authorizing us to determine whether or not to give you the responsibility of a child and you have no say in it, because you made that decision when you decided to have sex. For the government's defense, it would be in the best interest of the children to have a home instead of an orphanage. It would take children off the government payroll and give responsibility to two people who decided to have sex. Puritan law. Neither has any choice about it (except not to have sex of course).

Would you believe the government should have the right to force a child on you if you had no intention to have a child, solely because they made the decision to give you one, stating you consented to it by default when you had sex? This society sounds completely ridiculous doesn't it? But in our current society, it is exactly what happens if you're male. Not so much if you're female.

I personally don't believe the government or any individual should have the right to force a child on ANYONE, no matter how "consenting" we believe it is when you decide to have sex. If a woman decides to bring a child into the world and believes she can support it, she should have every right to do so. If she does not want to bring a child into the world because (enter ANY reason here), then she should have the right to say, "No, I am not ready to have a child and I don't want one." But to allow the government to dictate whether or not you will be responsible for a child solely because you had sex is wrong, especially in this day and age where we have the technology that gives the ability to choose to terminate the pregnancy.
In the 1800's, most women would be FORCED to carry the pregnancy as there wasn't a safe way to choose NOT to have it. In THAT society, the man should share in that forced responsibility. But when she is given an autonomous choice based on her circumstances, it makes no sense to continue to FORCE that choice onto someone else. In three of the four possible endings everyone COULD make an autonomous choice about what they wanted, regardless of gender...except in ONE circumstance, in which her choice SHOULD supersede his choice as we cannot accept the slavery of one due to the choice of another. I'll explain briefly:

1. Both want the child, great, shared responsibility.
2. Neither want the child, great, no problem.
3. She wants the child, he does not. She has the child and takes the responsibility for it. (We should not enslave him because of her choice.)
4. And this is the exception...She does not want the child, he does. Well, since we should not enslave her because of his choice, she CANNOT be FORCED to carry that child. He will have to find a woman who DOES want to have a child.

So #3 above is the area of our current society where the government steps in and FORCES one to be responsible for another's choice. Just as we don't want HER to be forced into the responsibility of his choice (#4), we cannot just turn the other way and say it is OK to force him into responsibility with her choice.

However, in the grand scheme, if she knows whether or not he WANTS to be responsible for a baby, it just may factor into her choice in having it or not. I think a lot of current single mothers may have made a different choice if they knew they weren't going to get any help if they CHOSE to have the child. That could mean millions of women and children (that are born) in much better situations; and as a side-effect, a society that treats all citizens equally regardless of gender.

Basic equality should NEVER be denied whether by race, gender, religion or any justified moral belief (myth, legend, invention, or political fantasy) of the majority. If our society ever does remove the basic right to choose for women for any of the aforementioned reasons, then you must force all to abide by the same cruel judgment. If she can be forced to be a parent, then so can he. If she can choose, then give her the right and responsibility that comes with that right. We currently do not force it on one gender, but allowed the forced choice on another using the concept of "consented" at the time of conception. If the woman didn't consent to a child at the time of conception, then neither did the man.

I think the laws are designed the way they are now not to punish men who don't want to become fathers, but to insure that the child now born, has a better shot at life.

Were that really true, we wouldn't see this 'giving your children up for adoption' bull. 'Good luck, hope the taxpayers will do a good job of raising you in place of a parent or two' just doesn't meet that 'better shot at life' standard.

I see your reasoning behind this by doesn't this just let men off the hook?

No more than it let's women "off the hook." In fact, if a man commits to being the father, he is much more likely to be a part of the child's life than if he is more or less kicked out of the family picture and used only as a source of income, and then chastised by a society for not spending more time in the family. The basic societal expectation for a father has developed into a mechanical one. Society tells him he is neither important nor needed in any decisions about the family, but then turns around and expects him to "buy" hook line and sinker into her decisions. In fact, it demands that he does. But we don't do that with women (thank God).

A child is a lot of work, and they created that child?

Yes, they both had a hand in it, but it is important to note that the decision was hers, and that is the way society MUST have it (and should have it). I don't believe any person should be making a decision for another. He certainly has an option to take on the responsibility of her decision, but I don't believe he should be forced into doing that, anymore than I believe she should be forced into taking the responsibility of having a child just because he is ready to. And if he does take on the responsibility, then any future action involving that child should be a mutual 50/50 responsibility and accountability for that child. If he does not, then she has to determine if she is ready to take on that responsibility by herself (e.g. has she finished school, does she have a good job, is she ready to be a parent, etc.). The children brought into this world would then have a much better chance of succeeding since the stage is set for the parent(s) to make an autonomous choice about becoming a parent.

I think the laws are designed the way they are now not to punish men who don't want to become fathers, but to insure that the child now born, has a better shot at life.

No, actually neither. The laws are designed the way they are now so the state is not held accountable for her decision. But if the state didn't promise to go after him to help her, perhaps she would have instead opted to not have a child. Thereby, any child that comes into the world has a MUCH, MUCH better shot at life. They do confuse people by pretending to help, but any time you FORCE something on someone, you are not going to get near the results as when you allow them to make the choice.

What about the fact that it is our child too? You didn't make it on your own. I agree that the woman has to have the final say, but our opinion should count for something.

Ah yes, but the fact that it isn't a part of you anymore ... it isn't inside you keeps you from having rights.

Once the fetus becomes a human after it is born, then you have rights again.

Not while it is an embryo.

If the fetus has nothing to do with the man and he has no say then why should he be required to have any responsibility? We can not and should not force a woman to become a mother but it's okay to force a man to become a father. Nine months is a drop in the bucket compared to the lifetime involved after those first nine months.

Agreed justme. If it really has nothing to with me, then don't expect me to be up running out to get you something for your craving, or to be going to classes with you, or taking care of you at all. Hey not my body, not my problem right?

Justme, are you suggesting that after the nine months is up women no longer contribute? That all they do is is that "drop in the bucket". I love it that so many talk about men contributing $$ as if a woman does not contribute $$ to children as well. It makes me laugh so much. Once she spits out the baby then she no longer gives it anything - only the man contributes. Her drop in the bucket is over.

I don't think that is what was intended nica, just that the man has life long responsibility in this too.

Nine months is a drop in the bucket compared to the lifetime involved after those first nine months.

This implies that after those first nine months the mother no longer contributes... AT least that is my take on statements that are made like this.

nica, Nope. That's not what I'm saying at all. You're not going to hear that from the mouth of a single mommy lol! My point is only that when talking about this subject we go on and on about those nine months but give zero importance to the lifetime impact on the fathers unless we're talking money. That is the only significance we give the man yet expect them to take their role seriously. I know for me those nine months were the easy part! I still got to sleep through the night and pee without an audience asking me "What's that?" or "Are you pooping mommy?" :o)

Justme, usually the ones that bring up money are the ones that want to allow men out of supporting their children because women have the option to abort. You always hear "18 yrs of paying for a kid I didn't want when she had the option not to be a mother". All I ever hear from them is the $$. They don't want to pay.

You can legally coerce a man to pay child support, you can't force him to be a "father".

It's okay for a woman to opt out if she doesn't want the financial responsibility of a child so I can't really lay fault on a man who has the same issue.

trm.....the $132,900 in back support my ex owes says you can't force him to do either one.....

Yea, there's no way to make a father pay unless you take him to court (at the cost of thousands) to have his wages garnished. The gov't doesn't automatically supervise who (men or women) are keeping up with their support payments. It is up to the custodial parent to take up the cause if she/he chooses...or can afford it!

That was court ordered. He was arrested in Boise ID in March of 1997 and brought back the the state where he waited for 4 months to get the case heard in July of 1997. The day he was released from jail, he hitchiked to my house and asked if he could some money from me.....when I said "no", he asked me to give him ONE good reason why not.....I had just gotten a printout of what he owed and I took it over to him and said "Here, I'll give you $60,000 reasons why not".......The gall!

That was court ordered.

Yes, that is what I meant...but the gov't won't make any of it automatic unless there is an agreement between mom and dad, or if one parent sues the other. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

You can legally coerce a man to pay child support, you can't force him to be a "father".

And therein lies the fun in what we do to fathers in our society. Family courts take away a father's right to be a father in most cases. They subject him to a couple weekends a month and bill him for the rest. Then, in the great wisdom of our system, we turn around and want to know why he is not more involved.

In order to help understand what we are doing, let's just invert the process and the complete stupidity of our system and expectation becomes clear. When a woman has a baby, immediately give custody to the father. Charge her 25% of her income, but in doing so, let her know she can see her kids twice a month and on holidays. She now has only enough money to barely survive herself in a one-bedroom apartment. When the children do come over, they sleep on the floor in sleeping bags. They complain about not having their comfortable bed. And over the next few years, she has to take on roommates to help with the rent, which further puts restrictions on what she can do with the children. A couple of the weekends, the father calls her and tell her the kids don't want to come over because they want to play with their friends and sleep in their own beds. However, even hanging on by a thread, when she does see her children, she wants to maximize every minute with them. So she plans something as special as possible every two weeks.

Now, while all this is happening, the father innocently mentions to all of his acquaintances that kids don't want to go over to her place. They don't feel comfortable there. She's not in a really nice part of town any way. He also mentions that when she does have them, she becomes a Disneyland Mom who only takes them out for ice cream, to the beach, or to visit with her relatives. Then you start hearing it on the news, kids need their Moms, but why are the Moms not there? Why are they losing touch with their children. Then the President comes out on Mother's Day and chastises mothers for not being more a part of their children's lives. That they need to step up and fulfill their duty to their children.

What we have been doing is tragic for our children, for fathers, unfair to mothers (as they are expected to be the primary care giver and generally need more flexible work environments), and puts our society as a whole in jeopardy.

So what do we do? If we give everyone the same rights, and only hold them accountable for their own decisions, most of the need for government control of the family leaves. Automatic 50/50 custody would all but abolish family court, allowing regular civil courts to handle the vastly reduced number of cases it needs to handle based on injustice.

If we want fathers to be involved in children's lives, you must first ALLOW them to be. Our system is not set up for that. It is set up to find him and bill him. However, this has become more and more of a non-gender issue as we see the number of women paying child support is at a higher delinquency rate than the percentage of men in delinquency. I think as more women ARE subjected to the system (maybe they are primary breadwinners and he stayed home with the children), the concept of being allowed to parent may seep into society's consciousness.

I'm really not sure if the courts aren't just following trends. But my ex had 50/50 custody with me...but he chose not to exert his rights. Sad really taht he got what so many dads lament, but then chose to not take a part in the parenting. So by your system what should we do with those fathers who do have the custody but aren't around...

So by your system what should we do with those fathers who do have the custody but aren't around...

We can't force anyone to do anything. If a person is removed from a household, they are going to be less likely to want to continue to be a part of that life. As a human, we are geared to move forward. It is important that when the separation exists that both parties work hard to make sure their children have both parents...not just on paper, but physical involvement. Working together to set up a new routine is all that can be done.

If the new routine is you see your kids two days, every other week, no one can expect a parental relationship to exist. I realize in your situation, legally it was 50/50, but I can only assume as you both started developing new routines, he was out of the picture.

I guess I would need to know more about your individual situation to respond more effectively, but I am NOT asking you to post it. If you both had to move to an apartment and start new lives, it may make a shared parenting more viable. But if one of you stayed in the marital home with the children, it sets up all sorts of issues that complete the parentectomy. Obviously, I don't know your specific situation, but as with divorces, one needs to try to pick up the pieces and move forward. If you have a home and your children, the only difference is that one of the parents is gone. If you're the one who is gone, your entire life is turned upside down with little if any room to have any "normalcy" of your former life. It is a natural reaction for survival.

All we can do is make it as easy as possible for BOTH parents to continue some semblance of "normal." After that, it is up to each individual situation as to what actually transpires.

So right Stephen. And not only are they taking away women's rights, it will inevitably fall on men as well. If many who complain about their support payments now think they have it rough...yikes, just wait until the conservatives take away all choice!! It will end up in more unwanted pregnancies!!

Haaahhhaaaa - wanting to be able to decide whats best for oneself is selfish only when it comes to being pregnant & terminating a pregnancy. In all other walks of life it is called being responsible for oneself.

BTW - abortion is taking responsibility - it is just one way you don't like.

but the baby is a different person. That's not HER body.... that's the BABY'S body.

What nonsense - a fetus/embryo/zygote cannot survive without it's host. Autonomy from it's host is not achieved until the umbilicus is cut and all bodily functions are working independently.

When was the last time you were fed from a placenta...lol?

should have considered the consequences before living so selfishly.

more speficially I meant to think about the future consequences of their actions. It's much less controvercial to wear a condom than it is to have an abortion.
Thinking about just the here and now and never thinking of the effect of your cause.... that is selfish.

abortion is taking responsibility

It's actually the complete opposite, in fact.

cannot survive without it's host

By that logic, we should be able to kill 1 year olds..... they can't survive on their own either.

By that logic, we should be able to kill 1 year olds..... they can't survive on their own either.

A 1 y/o can eat, digest food, breath air, etc...all on their own. They are not attached to another human being in order to survive - this is simple stuff here.

So what effect does an abortion affect any one other than those involved? The man & the woman? The fetus does not even know it is "alive". What is selfish is to try & decide what is best for people you don't even know because YOU know them better & their situation better than they do & you think that children should be a punishment for indulging in sex.

In your opinion it is the complete opposite. A woman cannot deal with an unwanted pregnancy - instead of becoming a "drain" on society she decides to terminate her pregnancy - taking responsibility for her actions - you just don't like that to be one of her choices.

Your last argument is asinine since other people can care for a 1 yr old. How can any other person but the pregnant woman care for a fetus?

A 1 y/o can eat, digest food, breath air, etc...all on their own

I dunno about that first one.

The man & the woman? The fetus does not even know it is "alive"

That doesn't make it not alive. It also doesn't make someone else in charge of it's life.

A woman cannot deal with an unwanted pregnancy - instead of becoming a "drain" on society

No one ever said she had to become a drain on society. She could take care of the baby... lots of women do it.

terminate her pregnancy - taking responsibility for her actions

Taking responsibility for her choices would be to have the baby that she made and take care of it... killing the baby is a pretty big bail on responsibility. If she didn't want to have a baby.... maybe she should ahve thought about that before having unsafe sex.... it's not hard to NOT have a baby.... I've been managing for years really easily.
Every action has a consequence... killing a baby is an attempt to avoid that consequence. (not responsible)

How does a fetus stay "alive" without the mother's womb? So I guess the woman is "in charge" of the fetus life, huh?

Again a fetus is not a baby. Can we stop using terms to evoke an emotional way of thinking.

Again - That is YOUR thoughts on taking responsibility. YOUR opinion on what is taking responsibility. You do not get to decide how I or other women take responsibility for our reproductive lives. How has the abortion I had affected you. I had an unwanted pregnancy & took responsibility for it & terminated the pregnancy - How did that affect you? How did MY deciding what was best for me affect you? Where does it say I have to live by your definition of "responsibility"? I think people should stop reproducing for awhile until population gets under control on this earth. I think that is the "responsible" thing to do, BUT would I expect everyone to accept my term of responsibility? No, why? because it is opinion.

AND do you really want to go there with the "unsafe sex" argument. There are many many reasons BC fail & not all pregnancies occur because of "unsafe sex".

I dunno about that first one.

What I do know is that your original argument was nothing more than a fallacy.

Taking responsibility for her choices would be to have the baby that she made and take care of it... killing the baby is a pretty big bail on responsibility.

Stop calling it a baby - it's just laughable. There is no baby killing going on - that's called infanticide. Read 6.2 again so you can try to understand the difference between a human baby and a zygote, embryo and fetus. Perhaps take A&P 101 - that might also help ;).

If she didn't want to have a baby.... maybe she should ahve thought about that before having unsafe sex.

Yes that's the only way conception happens - from unsafe sex...I mean condoms/birth control failures and rapes never happen right?

I've been managing for years really easily.

And we're all very impressed...

killing a baby is an attempt to avoid that consequence.

No - bringing a child into this already overburdened, overpopulated world without the means to support it is being irresponsible.

Santino, were you reading my mind as I typed?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm getting from you ruthless, is the following..because they had sexual relations whether unsafe or safe but something goes awry with the incorrect usage of birthcontrol this is what happens.....

Man - gets to squirt the baby juice and possibly pay child support....

Woman - gets to go thru 9 months of pregnancy, hours of childbirth, years of childrearing, while paying for all of it with hopes of collecting any court ordered childsupport, put on the mommy track at work, possibly fired if the child is chronically sick or ill at the same time the government is cutting back on WIC programs and medicaid services especially women/family planning services if she's in the lower income brackets....and hopefully doesn't live in a state that is proposing to make hormonal birthcontroll illegal so it's just a continual cycle......

Just doesn't seem worth it, now does it......b.o.b. where did you go?

Well I'm not going to convince you guys that killing babies is wrong, so that's a waste of time.

That is YOUR thoughts on taking responsibility. YOUR opinion on what is taking responsibility. You do not get to decide how I or other women take responsibility for our reproductive lives

When I "impose" my opinions or perspective of responsibility on others, I'm a bad guy...... when you do it, you're a hero. That's nice.

Yes that's the only way conception happens - from unsafe sex...I mean condoms/birth control failures and rapes never happen right?

I wasn't addressing those directly.

bringing a child into this already overburdened, overpopulated world without the means to support it is being irresponsible

correct... so don't get pregnant. Wow, that was easy.

Just doesn't seem worth it, now does it

Not if you prefer to focus on the worst possible scenario

I think people should stop reproducing for awhile until population gets under control on this earth

over populated? Ever visited texas?

Texas is not the world. AND last I knew they don't want to let anyone else in. Not to mention that land is NOT the only thing that is disappearing. Overpopulation leads to starving babies, but thats ok cuz they already came through the birth canal.

I am not the one telling you that what you said is not responsibility, however you are telling me that receiving an abortion is not taking responsibility. And then you go off on the killing "babies" tangent. So when someone mentions a baby what do you picture? DO you think of an infant wrapped in a blanket all pink & cuddly? Or do you think about a fertilized egg?

Lastly, in other posts have you ever mentioned that if a woman has sex she should be prepared to get pregnant cuz that is the consequence? If so then your statement correct... so don't get pregnant. Wow, that was easy is silly. Most women that opt for abortions do not set out to get pregnant so they can have an abortion.

Texas is not the world

Oh jeez, it was just an example, quit assuming vast extremes.

DO you think of an infant wrapped in a blanket all pink & cuddly? Or do you think about a fertilized egg?

both. I figured that was obvious at this point.

have you ever mentioned that if a woman has sex she should be prepared to get pregnant cuz that is the consequence

That IS a consequence of having sex.... if you do it wrong. I'm not sure how this is confusing.

Not assuming vast extremes - the world is overpopulated & food is becoming scarce as is fresh water.

I find it hard to believe when someone talks about babies you think about a fertilized egg, but whatever - so you also think about sperm & ovum?

Sex can lead to pregnancy but more times than not it does not. BC helps there, but it can fail. But that is neither here nor there - it all comes down to you assuming you knowing best for people you will never meet. You never answered - so did you know when I had my abortion - how did it affect you - did your world shake?

the world is overpopulated

Certain areas may be overpopulated... the WORLD is not.

I find it hard to believe when someone talks about babies you think about a fertilized egg, but whatever - so you also think about sperm & ovum?

I believe life begins at conception. sperm and ovum are before that... it's really very simple.

it all comes down to you assuming you knowing best for people you will never meet

Ya........ don't you hate it when that happens?

so did you know when I had my abortion - how did it affect you - did your world shake?

I don't remember when I claimed it was going to "shake my world"

I very much agree with this sentiment.

You mean like trying to pass law that restrict women's access to BC? That kind of government regulation? And once again terminating a pregnancy is taking responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. You may not like it or agree, but it is one way to take responsibility. And consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. And adults know that just because they have sex does not mean they have to consent to pregnancy. I firmly believe in sex education and make BC much more easier to access (like making insurance companies cover it like they cover other sex items - such as Viagra). Laws restricting BC should never be considered. I am all for people using BC, but we need to stop making sex something dirty to be hidden from our kids & actually teach them the truth AND we need to make BC more widely accessible.

Had both parties agreed to the abortion, or to not abort, then I would agree with you that it is taking responsibility. But the conversation should have happened BEFORE the pregnancy, not the other way around. That is truly being responsible. If your partner would not want to abort and you would, or vice versa, then you should not be taking the risk, period. Just because possession is 9/10 of the law, doesn't make the child any less his. This is an issue they should have discussed before moving to that level in their relationship. To do anything less is immature and reckless. I'm not saying it doesn't happen every day. I'm saying that it's hard for me to feel sorry for either of them to the point that I'd want to waste valuable time or money regulating something in either person's favor. I wasn't stating or implying that I think access to birth control should be restricted. Far from it. I'm for far LESS regulation of our freedoms. I'd just like to see people take responsibility for their actions without crying for government intervention for every little thing whenever they make a bad judgement call.

But the conversation should have happened BEFORE the pregnancy, not the other way around. That is truly being responsible. If your partner would not want to abort and you would, or vice versa, then you should not be taking the risk, period

I'd just like to see people take responsibility for their actions without crying for government intervention for every little thing whenever they make a bad judgement call.

Holy crap..... this guy is on to something.