Rape as justification? ANY Rational/Unselfish reason at all for it?

[Chaotic Void]

Every time I point out that there is no rational reason to have an Abortion, females especially, attempt to say that Rape justifies abortion. Basically, "Its justified if it was a Rape Baby, because its not her fault".

1)Does the fact that the child was a 'Rape Baby' and it 'wasn't her fault' Justifiy the Abortion?

I'll ask a second question on here, just becase I see it pointless to start another thread just for a little question....

2) Is there ANY rational and unselfish reason to have an Abortion?

MY OPINIONS:
1) It still boils down to putting yourself over someone else, so its a selfish reason nevertheless

[aside from that, Last time I checked, the rape count was low, and even lower was the pregnancys from the rapes.]

2)None have been given to me, so I assume a blatant NO.

[technomage]

The question of a "rational reason for abortion" becomes much less vital if one assumes a fetus is not a person. (Note: that's not a view I agree with, but it is one that must be understood if we are to understand the pro-choice position.) If an embryo/fetus is not a person, then the question of "Is it rational" can be answered with a simple cost-benefit analysis. Selfishness is not a serious issue in that case.

But I do not hold the view that an embryo/fetus is not a person. So we must look at the three cases in which I would not oppose an abortion:
1: Health of the mother at risk
2: Rape/incest
3: "Selective reduction" of a multiple pregnancy for the health of the non-selected fetus.

I almost count rape/incest pregnancies as "health of the mother," because we cannot discount her mental and emotional health. But as you note, this is not a very common circumstance. And ... I must also note that a lot of "for the mental health of the mother" abortions do not actually consider mental health, but simply convenience.

Selective reduction of pregnancy is also very rare, but occasionally necessary when one fetus is having developmental problems which threaten the lives of both fetuses. my mother, for instance, should have had an elective reduction of her twins--but the procedure was not available then. Of the twins, one was stillborn, and had been dead for two to three months. This had a deleterious effect on her health, and on the health of her sister (who die at nine months of age).

But CV ... what precisely is "selfish" or "irrational" about any of these decisions? Even if we consider that a fetus is a person (which I do), it is not irrational to consider one's own health as important.

[Chaotic Void]

The question of a "rational reason for abortion" becomes much less vital if one assumes a fetus is not a person. (Note: that's not a view I agree with, but it is one that must be understood if we are to understand the pro-choice position.) If an embryo/fetus is not a person, then the question of "Is it rational" can be answered with a simple cost-benefit analysis. Selfishness is not a serious issue in that case.
Indeed. However, there are other methods besides abortion to treat issues like lack of money, such as adoption or getting child support from the father. I even hear that some adoptive parents allow visitation.

[to be honest, I've never really understood how one can hold the view that a fetus is not a person... those who hold the view were once feti {is that the plural?}]


But I do not hold the view that an embryo/fetus is not a person. So we must look at the three cases in which I would not oppose an abortion:
1: Health of the mother at risk
2: Rape/incest
3: "Selective reduction" of a multiple pregnancy for the health of the non-selected fetus.

I almost count rape/incest pregnancies as "health of the mother," because we cannot discount her mental and emotional health. But as you note, this is not a very common circumstance. And ... I must also note that a lot of "for the mental health of the mother" abortions do not actually consider mental health, but simply convenience.
Agreed, these situations are rare. However, I have heard of mental conditions that were excaberated by aborting rape/incest babies. For things like Rape/Incest babies, there's things like Adoption. [My eldest sister did this, actually, with her Rape Baby.]


Selective reduction of pregnancy is also very rare, but occasionally necessary when one fetus is having developmental problems which threaten the lives of both fetuses. my mother, for instance, should have had an elective reduction of her twins--but the procedure was not available then. Of the twins, one was stillborn, and had been dead for two to three months. This had a deleterious effect on her health, and on the health of her sister (who die at nine months of age).

This would also seem to be a necessary situation. However, is there an absolute way to prove that abortion is necessary beyond a reasonable doubt?


But CV ... what precisely is "selfish" or "irrational" about any of these decisions? Even if we consider that a fetus is a person (which I do), it is not irrational to consider one's own health as important.

Such situations are boiled down to "Lesser of Two Evils" which is a rational reason, If they are genuine.

PS... This is the kind stuff I was looking for. Thanks, Technomage

[technomage]

[to be honest, I've never really understood how one can hold the view that a fetus is not a person... those who hold the view were once feti {is that the plural?}]

Fetuses. :wink:

And ... I think I understand the views of some who that a fetus is not a person, but there are many possible reasons for holding this view. I cannot be sure of even explaining the reasons I think I understand accurately, much less all of them. However, I will explain what I do understand, if you wish.

Agreed, these situations are rare. However, I have heard of mental conditions that were excaberated by aborting rape/incest babies. For things like Rape/Incest babies, there's things like Adoption. [My eldest sister did this, actually, with her Rape Baby.]

For incest babies, that's ... a lot touchier situation. Incest offspring with damaging double-recesive traits are almost guaranteed that their brief life will be brutally painful ... but such things also happen in non-incestuous relationships. We currently have the technology to test for some of these conditions, but we cannot cure (or in most cases even treat) them.

And life-threatening genetic disorders are one other situation where I don't think I'd have the heart to say "Abortion is wrong." Things like trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome) can still offer a child a full, productive life, but genetic disorders like Canavan disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canavan_disease) or Crie du chat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cri_du_Chat) are tragedies that ensure a child will know nothing but misery. The problem with targeting "genetic disorders" is that it opens the door to "Superbaby Syndrome," and while that's technically a slippery slope argument, it's not something I think we're wise enough to avoid.

However, is there an absolute way to prove that abortion is necessary beyond a reasonable doubt?

CV, is anything in life absolute, especially when it comes to medicine?

[dizzle]

What about those women who take fertility drugs and then "selectively reduce"?

[technomage]

What about those women who take fertility drugs and then "selectively reduce"?
I've never heard of any cases like that, but I wouldn't be surprised.

No, my big thing about selective reduction is "medical necessity." This whole "abortion for convenience" thing ... I can't countenance that.

[Chaotic Void]

Fetuses. :wink:

And ... I think I understand the views of some who that a fetus is not a person, but there are many possible reasons for holding this view. I cannot be sure of even explaining the reasons I think I understand accurately, much less all of them. However, I will explain what I do understand, if you wish.

thanks for the plural.

Go ahead. I'm intrigued.


For incest babies, that's ... a lot touchier situation. Incest offspring with damaging double-recesive traits are almost guaranteed that their brief life will be brutally painful ... but such things also happen in non-incestuous relationships. We currently have the technology to test for some of these conditions, but we cannot cure (or in most cases even treat) them.

And life-threatening genetic disorders are one other situation where I don't think I'd have the heart to say "Abortion is wrong." Things like trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome) can still offer a child a full, productive life, but genetic disorders like Canavan disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canavan_disease) or Crie du chat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cri_du_Chat) are tragedies that ensure a child will know nothing but misery. The problem with targeting "genetic disorders" is that it opens the door to "Superbaby Syndrome," and while that's technically a slippery slope argument, it's not something I think we're wise enough to avoid.
ugh... Genetic Engineering... "Doing a Hitler with Genetics" as some people call it.


CV, is anything in life absolute, especially when it comes to medicine?
Death, Taxes, Change and Uncertainty as to what the future will hold.

[dizzle]

I've never heard of any cases like that, but I wouldn't be surprised.

No, my big thing about selective reduction is "medical necessity." This whole "abortion for convenience" thing ... I can't countenance that.

It is recommended very often when there are multiples from fertility drugs.

(and I don't know if this was from a fertility drug, I can't remember) but there was a lady up in New England not too long ago who learned she was carrying twins, and didn't want two kids, so "reduced" her pregnancy by one - imagine what the surviving twin will feel like if he/she ever finds out - and considering that the mother was proud about it and didn't shy away from publicity, he/she will.

[Chaotic Void]

What about those women who take fertility drugs and then "selectively reduce"?

I'd wonder if those fertility pills were laced with something.

As we Canadians put it, That's like taking medicine to prevent drinking alchohol, then downing a Two-Four of Beer.

[dizzle]

Here is one reference Justin

However, selective reduction is recommended often in cases of multi-fetal pregnancy, or the presence of more than one fetus, typically, at least three or more fetuses. In the general population, multi-fetal pregnancy happens in only about 1-2% of pregnant women. But multi-fetal pregnancies occur far more often in women using fertility drugs.

Precautions

Because women or couples who use fertility drugs have made an extra effort to become pregnant, it is possible that the individuals may be unwilling or uncomfortable with the decision to abort a fetus in cases of multi-fetal pregnancy. Individuals engaging in fertility treatment should be made aware of the risk of multi-fetal pregnancy and consider the prospect of recommended reduction before undergoing fertility treatment.

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/abortion_selective.jsp

[dizzle]

Check out this monstrous dork


Evans said he does not believe selective reduction is abortion. "Technically, this is not an abortion, a procedure that kills the fetus and empties the uterus," he said, adding, "The bottom line is, abortion ends the pregnancy. We very specifically don't end the pregnancy."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/71806.php

I bet the aborted child would tend to disagree

[Chaotic Void]

Check out this monstrous dork


Evans said he does not believe selective reduction is abortion. "Technically, this is not an abortion, a procedure that kills the fetus and empties the uterus," he said, adding, "The bottom line is, abortion ends the pregnancy. We very specifically don't end the pregnancy."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/71806.php

I bet the aborted child would tend to disagree
I wouldn't be surpriused if the aborted child[ren] would probably disagree.


[That guy just proved my point from my other thread regarding Pleading Ignorance.]

[Smokering]

(and I don't know if this was from a fertility drug, I can't remember) but there was a lady up in New England not too long ago who learned she was carrying twins, and didn't want two kids, so "reduced" her pregnancy by one - imagine what the surviving twin will feel like if he/she ever finds out - and considering that the mother was proud about it and didn't shy away from publicity, he/she will.
Indeed. I wonder how she chose which twin to abort? 'Of course Mummy loves you honey, she flipped a coin'...

Every time I point out that there is no rational reason to have an Abortion, females especially, attempt to say that Rape justifies abortion. Basically, "Its justified if it was a Rape Baby, because its not her fault".
Curious. So abortion is only wrong if it's 'the woman's fault'? If she was using protection but got pregnant anyway, wouldn't that also 'not be her fault'? Therefore by the same argument, would abortion is OK in her case? In other words, is abortion only wrong if the woman deliberately got pregnant? What bizarre reasoning.

'Fault' is a ridiculous way of looking at it, because it implies that keeping the baby is a punishment. 'It's your fault you got pregnant, so you can't abort'. Whereas of course the abortion debate has nothing to do with 'punishing' the mother; it's to do with saving the life of the child!

If someone brings up the rape issue, I'd tend to list all the pro-life arguments and simply ask after each point, 'Does the fact that the baby is a product of rape change that?'. For instance, if the argument is 'a fetus is a human being', the question of rape becomes entirely irrelevant. Same with pretty much any solid argument! Distinguishing between 'wanted' and 'unwanted' babies is nonsensical; if a fetus is a human being, it's a human being. (Or whatever other argument you choose to use).

[technomage]

Go ahead. I'm intrigued.

OK, but realize that this is a view I do not hold, so I may be misrepresenting things.

Say someone honestly and sincerely believes that the soul enters the body with the first breath. This is the default position in Jewish beliefs, and was (until 18something) the view in Catholicism and many branches of Protestant Christianity. To them, destroying an embryo or fetus is, then, nothing more than destroying a group of cells with life, but no soul.

Additionally, there are those who believe (again, honestly and sincerely) that an embryo or fetus in utero is not a separate entity, but an extension of the mother. It only becomes a separate entity at birth, so again, to them there is no moral wrong done.

A third possibility is that someone may believe that by aborting the pregnancy, they are actually giving the child a better alternative than birth would result in. This goes far beyond the person who lives in poverty and does not want her child to beborn poor--a dear friend of mine who was trapped in an abusive marriage decided to abort a pregnancy to save her chld from experiencing the same abuse she was experiencing.

The big problem, I guess, is that all of the possible positions regarding the sacredness of life are belief-based. Fundamentally speaking, beliefs are mostly non-rational: most people cannot, without tremendous effort, critically examine their beliefs, nor consciously change them. That's probably why both sides fight so hard for their side of the issue: they literally cannot understand the othe person's point of view, and to them their opponent is either evil, deranged, or malicious.

ugh... Genetic Engineering... "Doing a Hitler with Genetics" as some people call it.

Or even something so mundane as finding out the child is a girl when you wanted a boy, or vice versa. I find such things disturbing in the extreme.

Death, Taxes, Change and Uncertainty as to what the future will hold.

Ah, but I said "especially when it comes to medicine."

Case in point: when my wife and I got married, we did absolutely nothing to protect ourselves from pregnancy: wedidn't particularly want kids, but I'm clinically sterile, so no big deal, right? Well, eighteen months later we decide we want a kid ... we did a fertility spell. Two weeks later, my wife woke me up at three o'clock in the morning and informed me that she wanted a pear salad, and she wanted it RIGHT NOW. The reason for her craving is now our fifteen year old daughter. :smile:

But medical uncertanty is not always that fun. Before I met her, she had been told that she was not supposed to get pregnant: doing so risked her life, and the child's life. (She didn't tell me this, and I still occasionally tease her about keeping secrets.) Our daughter was born nine weeks early and stayed in the hispital 42 days after she was born, but (thank the Gods) had no substantive health problems, and is as fit as a fiddle today. My wife was not always so lucky. Her last pregnancy before we got married (with her ex husband) was born ten weeks early, and lived ninety minutes.

Would we have been horrible people to have aborted? Well, hindsight is 20-20, as we all know, so we know everything turned out allright. But when my daughter was born, they wheeled two crash-carts in the room--her pulse, during the contractions, was down to 40, and the baby' pulse was around 20. I almost lost both of them.

CV, like you I oppose "convenience abortion." But I have grave difficulties condemning those who abort due to medical issues.

[technomage]

Here is one reference Justin

However, selective reduction is recommended often in cases of multi-fetal pregnancy, or the presence of more than one fetus, typically, at least three or more fetuses. In the general population, multi-fetal pregnancy happens in only about 1-2% of pregnant women. But multi-fetal pregnancies occur far more often in women using fertility drugs.

Precautions

Because women or couples who use fertility drugs have made an extra effort to become pregnant, it is possible that the individuals may be unwilling or uncomfortable with the decision to abort a fetus in cases of multi-fetal pregnancy. Individuals engaging in fertility treatment should be made aware of the risk of multi-fetal pregnancy and consider the prospect of recommended reduction before undergoing fertility treatment.

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/abortion_selective.jsp
I'd say "thank you," but this is ... a most unpleasant bit of news.

[Gabby]

I'd say "thank you," but this is ... a most unpleasant bit of news.


Jonathan and Kate Gosselin (http://www.sixgosselins.com/Our_Story.html)
I will never forget this day as long as I live. There were seven sacs with four yolk sacs, or babies in four of them. At the count of four, I was scared. At five I started crying and at six I was shaking absolutely sobbing........The doctor “reassured” us by telling us we would talk about reduction. I pulled myself together and stared right at him and said “We’re not doing reduction!” After the ultrasound he called us into his office and tried to convince us that reduction was the thing to do. Again, we refused! ......Now here I am, lying in bed in the hospital, 26 weeks pregnant with 6 babies. (One baby never developed on its own), three boys and three girls and I wouldn’t change it for the world!

[Philosophickle]

I think it makes perfect sense to punish a baby for something a criminal did. Kill away.

[Chaotic Void]

I think it makes perfect sense to punish a baby for something a criminal did. Kill away.

its Pretty much a ye olde scapegoat gag if someone aborts a rape-baby, imho.


PS....
was this statement sarcasm? I couldnt tell..

[technomage]

Yes, it was sarcasm--Phil's anti-abortion, but he's good at sarcasm. :wink:

[Chaotic Void]

Yes, it was sarcasm--Phil's anti-abortion, but he's good at sarcasm. :wink:

:lmbo: thats a relief.

[technomage]

OK, but realize that this is a view I do not hold, so I may be misrepresenting things.

Say someone honestly and sincerely believes that the soul enters the body with the first breath. This is the default position in Jewish beliefs, and was (until 18something) the view in Catholicism and many branches of Protestant Christianity. To them, destroying an embryo or fetus is, then, nothing more than destroying a group of cells with life, but no soul.

Additionally, there are those who believe (again, honestly and sincerely) that an embryo or fetus in utero is not a separate entity, but an extension of the mother. It only becomes a separate entity at birth, so again, to them there is no moral wrong done.

A third possibility is that someone may believe that by aborting the pregnancy, they are actually giving the child a better alternative than birth would result in. This goes far beyond the person who lives in poverty and does not want her child to beborn poor--a dear friend of mine who was trapped in an abusive marriage decided to abort a pregnancy to save her chld from experiencing the same abuse she was experiencing.

The big problem, I guess, is that all of the possible positions regarding the sacredness of life are belief-based. Fundamentally speaking, beliefs are mostly non-rational: most people cannot, without tremendous effort, critically examine their beliefs, nor consciously change them. That's probably why both sides fight so hard for their side of the issue: they literally cannot understand the othe person's point of view, and to them their opponent is either evil, deranged, or malicious.



Or even something so mundane as finding out the child is a girl when you wanted a boy, or vice versa. I find such things disturbing in the extreme.



Ah, but I said "especially when it comes to medicine."

Case in point: when my wife and I got married, we did absolutely nothing to protect ourselves from pregnancy: wedidn't particularly want kids, but I'm clinically sterile, so no big deal, right? Well, eighteen months later we decide we want a kid ... we did a fertility spell. Two weeks later, my wife woke me up at three o'clock in the morning and informed me that she wanted a pear salad, and she wanted it RIGHT NOW. The reason for her craving is now our fifteen year old daughter. :smile:

But medical uncertanty is not always that fun. Before I met her, she had been told that she was not supposed to get pregnant: doing so risked her life, and the child's life. (She didn't tell me this, and I still occasionally tease her about keeping secrets.) Our daughter was born nine weeks early and stayed in the hispital 42 days after she was born, but (thank the Gods) had no substantive health problems, and is as fit as a fiddle today. My wife was not always so lucky. Her last pregnancy before we got married (with her ex husband) was born ten weeks early, and lived ninety minutes.

Would we have been horrible people to have aborted? Well, hindsight is 20-20, as we all know, so we know everything turned out allright. But when my daughter was born, they wheeled two crash-carts in the room--her pulse, during the contractions, was down to 40, and the baby' pulse was around 20. I almost lost both of them.

CV, like you I oppose "convenience abortion." But I have grave difficulties condemning those who abort due to medical issues.


Just wanted to :bump: this to get your opinion, CV. :smile:

[Chaotic Void]

OK, but realize that this is a view I do not hold, so I may be misrepresenting things.

Say someone honestly and sincerely believes that the soul enters the body with the first breath. This is the default position in Jewish beliefs, and was (until 18something) the view in Catholicism and many branches of Protestant Christianity. To them, destroying an embryo or fetus is, then, nothing more than destroying a group of cells with life, but no soul.

Additionally, there are those who believe (again, honestly and sincerely) that an embryo or fetus in utero is not a separate entity, but an extension of the mother. It only becomes a separate entity at birth, so again, to them there is no moral wrong done.

A third possibility is that someone may believe that by aborting the pregnancy, they are actually giving the child a better alternative than birth would result in. This goes far beyond the person who lives in poverty and does not want her child to beborn poor--a dear friend of mine who was trapped in an abusive marriage decided to abort a pregnancy to save her chld from experiencing the same abuse she was experiencing.

The big problem, I guess, is that all of the possible positions regarding the sacredness of life are belief-based. Fundamentally speaking, beliefs are mostly non-rational: most people cannot, without tremendous effort, critically examine their beliefs, nor consciously change them. That's probably why both sides fight so hard for their side of the issue: they literally cannot understand the othe person's point of view, and to them their opponent is either evil, deranged, or malicious.

Just wondering, but could doubt be considered critical examination? and what about those who have their beliefs logically grounded?

Or even something so mundane as finding out the child is a girl when you wanted a boy, or vice versa. I find such things disturbing in the extreme.
If anyone were to abort just for that, I'd smack 'em personally. Just because their kid doesn't have the right reproductive organs doesn't mean that they have to kill him/her.


Ah, but I said "especially when it comes to medicine."
Good point. probably the only thing absolute about that is that its subject to change.

Case in point: when my wife and I got married, we did absolutely nothing to protect ourselves from pregnancy: wedidn't particularly want kids, but I'm clinically sterile, so no big deal, right? Well, eighteen months later we decide we want a kid ... we did a fertility spell. Two weeks later, my wife woke me up at three o'clock in the morning and informed me that she wanted a pear salad, and she wanted it RIGHT NOW. The reason for her craving is now our fifteen year old daughter. :smile:

But medical uncertanty is not always that fun. Before I met her, she had been told that she was not supposed to get pregnant: doing so risked her life, and the child's life. (She didn't tell me this, and I still occasionally tease her about keeping secrets.) Our daughter was born nine weeks early and stayed in the hispital 42 days after she was born, but (thank the Gods) had no substantive health problems, and is as fit as a fiddle today. My wife was not always so lucky. Her last pregnancy before we got married (with her ex husband) was born ten weeks early, and lived ninety minutes.

Would we have been horrible people to have aborted? Well, hindsight is 20-20, as we all know, so we know everything turned out allright. But when my daughter was born, they wheeled two crash-carts in the room--her pulse, during the contractions, was down to 40, and the baby' pulse was around 20. I almost lost both of them.
Congrats on the kid. My mother was actually supposed to be unable to have kids when I was conceived.
Pear salad, eh? doesn't sound so bad if you use the right lettuce and vinigarette.


CV, like you I oppose "convenience abortion." But I have grave difficulties condemning those who abort due to medical issues.
I find it rather depressing when someone has to abort due to medical problems. If people who abort due to medical problems are telling the truth, We shouldn't be condemning those people.

[technomage]

Just wondering, but could doubt be considered critical examination?

Hmmm ... I dunno.It would depend on what the perso does with the doubt, I guess.

and what about those who have their beliefs logically grounded?

In most any belief system I'm familiar with, there comes a point where presuppositions become all (or at least a large part) of the foundation. One can logically examine the ramifications of one's presuppositions, but if one cannot critically question and evaluate those presuppositions, then I'd say it's difficult to call those presuppositions "rational."

However, please realise that I'm speaking of the "typical" believer of any faith, and such a "typical" believer is just that--an example. Everybody is potentially able to critically examine their own beliefs ... the question is, how many people actually do so.

I find it rather depressing when someone has to abort due to medical problems. If people who abort due to medical problems are telling the truth, We shouldn't be condemning those people.

I quite agree.

[yxboom]

The question of a "rational reason for abortion" becomes much less vital if one assumes a fetus is not a person. (Note: that's not a view I agree with, but it is one that must be understood if we are to understand the pro-choice position.) If an embryo/fetus is not a person, then the question of "Is it rational" can be answered with a simple cost-benefit analysis. Selfishness is not a serious issue in that case.

But I do not hold the view that an embryo/fetus is not a person. So we must look at the three cases in which I would not oppose an abortion:
1: Health of the mother at risk
2: Rape/incest
3: "Selective reduction" of a multiple pregnancy for the health of the non-selected fetus.

I almost count rape/incest pregnancies as "health of the mother," because we cannot discount her mental and emotional health. But as you note, this is not a very common circumstance. And ... I must also note that a lot of "for the mental health of the mother" abortions do not actually consider mental health, but simply convenience.

Selective reduction of pregnancy is also very rare, but occasionally necessary when one fetus is having developmental problems which threaten the lives of both fetuses. my mother, for instance, should have had an elective reduction of her twins--but the procedure was not available then. Of the twins, one was stillborn, and had been dead for two to three months. This had a deleterious effect on her health, and on the health of her sister (who die at nine months of age).

But CV ... what precisely is "selfish" or "irrational" about any of these decisions? Even if we consider that a fetus is a person (which I do), it is not irrational to consider one's own health as important.
id agree. i know a person that really irritates me. i should be justified in murdering him because my mental health is at stake.

[Chaotic Void]

id agree. i know a person that really irritates me. i should be justified in murdering him because my mental health is at stake.

Personally, I'd let the guy live. Too costly to whack him, and I hear insanity just makes life more interesting.:hehe: