Jump to content

My eye! Sweet Jesus, Ouch!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 24.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hedganian

    2259

  • shmook

    2034

  • FireKnife

    1686

  • scorch

    1618

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, it's nearly Christmas! A time to laugh and joke, to sing and... who am I trying to kid? I hate this time of year, it always makes me irritable and angry. And that tends to spill into other areas

ahhh.... that reminds me...   The losers who say that I'm wasting my money on airsoft... you spend $4000 on an ATV... and you accuse me of wasting money??

Wow, you've chosen to play today's edition of 'Wheel of Fortune!'   Let's see what you've won!   CONGRATULATIONS! For using homophobic language (because I'm sure as *suitcase* you're not calling m

Posted Images

People have had big families for hundreds and hundreds of years, dating back to when it was a necessity to do so.

 

If you want to lay blame somewhere, look at the lucrative system these people are abusing to milk taxpayers out of thousands of pounds for each child they have.

 

If we didn't pay for them, these bottom-feeding, scum-sucking excuses for 'parents' wouldn't bother having them.

 

Ben.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How so?

Whats wrong with having more than two kids?

 

Do you guys really not know???

 

What I mean is that it is globally irresponsible.

 

Having more than 2 kids per couple is selfish and will (if it becomes the policy of everybody) destroy the world.

There's your answer.

 

But some people have only 1 child, some don't have any at all.

 

There aren't many people with 4 or more children, but 3 is a very common number in the area I live in.

Yet, the global population continues to increase. Even with one of the largest populations (China) making a concerted effort to lower the average by allowing only 1 child. For over 40 years!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Greg.

Edited by greg
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's OK Greg.

 

Technology will save us.

 

Reliable fusion power will provide the electricity.

GM plankton based protein will feed us (with the very slight downside of eradicating most of the other marine species).

The heat burden of 100,000,000 people all watching TV and having the aircon on will destroy the climate but that's OK, we can just turn the aircon up and stay indoors to watch TV where it's nice and cool.

 

Even people in Canada will know what it's like to live with a population density like London or Tokyo's.

 

Perhaps we could run a scheme where you can only go out on odd numbered days if your birthday is on one and vice-versa.

That would cut down on street congestion.

 

 

What a rosy future.

 

 

Of course there is the other possible outcome, the population expands at an exponential rate, no technology is developed to save us, resources become scarce and a global war begins to control them,

 

World War III, a war over who gets the farm land and power stations rages on for 40 years going nuclear from time to time.

Of course the farm land and power stations are mostly wiped out in the fighting, brutal hand to hand fighting since there aren't enough bullets to go around.

 

In the end almost every human on earth is wiped out and the survivors settle down to try and bring humanity back from the brink in a charred and scarred habitat.

 

That means breeding as fast as possible to get the numbers up again, oh shi-

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stunt, Just checking you have considered the IVF route?

 

Greg, There are 3 dental Hospitals in London, the Eastman Dental Hospital, King's College, and the Royal London.

 

If you're having problems with a previously root filled tooth then get a referral to a reputable endodontic specialist, if you can afford it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IVF has a good success rate if you have low motility sperm or similar but in cases of non-specific infertility it is only 2% more effective than Clomid tablets, 6 orders of magnitude more painful and extremely emotionally draining.

 

Our friends have just gone through their 3rd cycle of IVF and that means 3 early term miscarriages, 3 sets of painful egg harvests and three roller coasters of elation and despair.

 

It's not worth the heartache.

 

 

Don't tell my wife this but although that is "our" reason for not doing IVF I have a personal reason that is much more important to me.

 

Evolution.

 

My wife and I are not fit to reproduce (fit in the Darwin sense of the word) and we can't have kids.

If the reason for our infertility is hereditary then using medical science to force the issue will mean that all our offspring could potentially be infertile too.

 

Over time and considering the numbers of people who use IVF the gene pool will be filled up with people who can't conceive naturally.

People who would not normally be born if it were not for medial intervention.

 

That is an affront to natural selection and I am against it on principal.

 

The same argument applies to Cesarean Sections too and I think voluntary ones should be banned.

In an emergency, if natural childbirth fails then yes but voluntary ones are removing the size of a child's head as an evolutionary pressure and making it harder for future generations to have natural births.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm all for Darwinian evolution as far as it goes - it break down in the face of technology. You can't just ignore that. Humans have beaten natural selection. Well, more or less. Of course, natural selection tries to fight back with things like cancer, AIDS, Ebola, MRSA, "bird-flu", "swine-flu" and so on, but humans will beat those too. And what comes after them. It's only a matter of time, resources and willpower.

 

Humans will also beat reproduction problems. Once the Uterine Replicator technology is available, no women will *have* to go through childbirth again. Some may *choose* to, but it won't be medically necessary. Your unborn child will not be at the mercy of your own survival. Genetic defects will be detected and corrected at any point before birth - some even before conception. And come on, childbirth is a messy and traumatic process for all concerned. Much better to "tube" the fetus, then birth simply becomes opening a bottle on the required day.

 

Of course, these sorts of things require prerequisite technological and socialogical advancement, which is why things which serve to impede such advancements annoy me. Immensely. Things like protestors, "do-gooders", religions and "ethical committees".

 

Without knowing *WHY* you're having trouble having a kid, stunt, I can't comment. But, if I were you, I'd look into finding out what the problem is. Knowing is half the battle. It might be something you can overcome - and while you're damn ugly, ( ;) ) you seem to have more than the average amount of wits about you, so it'd be a shame if you can't pass that onto some of the next generation. God knows, they'll need it.

 

(Hopefully the kid would take after your goregous missus in the looks department, buddy!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

IVF success rate is very variable upon the clinics too. My wife and I had a no specific problem too. We were quoted a 77% success rate based on age. Worked second cycle and your wrong about it being not worth it.

 

Your personal reasons are your own and ypu have every right to them, but your logic is flawed, by the simple reason that now Darwinian evolution is just about anything you can warp it to be, based on whatever criteria you use as a baseline.

 

As far as C-sections are concerned, if your going to allow them for emergencies, then you might as well have them electively, as it will make no evolutionary difference as those mothers/babies with too small/large bits will still survive to carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it's where my "damn them all" policy runs into my mushy centre.

Strictly my policy should be: Let them both die during childbirth. But I'm just not cold enough.

 

We've been quoted 38% sucess rate for IVF, 36% for clomid, to us it's not worth the pain.

 

As for the details of it Hed, 20 million sperm per ml is considered just about enough with a 60% motility rate considered to be OK.

 

I have 55% motility but 48 million swimmers so I am OK.

The wife has all the right hormones, her tubes are clear, ova are producing eggs, the works.

 

It is I'm afraid a case of "tough *suitcase* fella".

 

The only interesting thing anyone has come up with is that we might be too similar, genetically.

Like sleeping with your sister.

It would mean nonviable embryos and early term miscarriages which we think we had on the clomid.

 

 

It's all a bit much really, my thoughts and opinions are as dynamic as those of a teenager recently.

 

I know we'll get through things one way or another but we'll just have to do it in the way that's right for us.

 

If that is putting on a mask and cape and cutting off the balls of everyone who appears on Jeremy Kyle with a pair of secateurs then so be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Staying out of this debate entirely, as I don't want kids, ever...

 

Just found out my MA course is a slightly bigger deal than they led me on... I applied on a flippant comment from my tutor and got on and bypassed the bumpf, sent in a writing sample and got accepted. I've been merrily tapping away at my novel for the past three months pretty casually, and I've just found out I should be taking it rather more seriously so I'm hitting the panic button :blink:

 

if anyone has editing/writing experience I could do with some good workshopping, my old writing class have gone to the four winds and are generally too busy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stunt, buddy, I *really* didn't want all the gory details of your little sailors... :waggle:

 

And I told you that marrying your cousin would lead to trouble! :huh::flamed:

 

Seriously, though, I'd get more opinions. I know a bit about how unpleasant miscarriages can be (don't ask) so I understand where you're coming from, but what have you got to lose by getting a second opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys should know me by now.

 

I've been to 2 clinics in Kent, one in London and contacted one in New York and one in Kiev.

 

When we put all the info into out own personal cost/benefit analysis we come out with a no go for launch.

 

Especially when you consider how many unloved children there are in the care system.

It would be selfish not to go for fostering/adoption.

 

 

Hed, come on man, get with the program. I dumped my cousin years ago, my wife is my daughter from my previous marriage (to my cousin).

 

To drag this thread back on (off) topic.

 

Today I would like to complain about internet bingo adverts on the TV.

Just *fruitcage* off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

China does it. Theyre quite successful

 

If you ignore the fact that that particular policy is about to destroy their economy and industry as the workforce ages and retires, without a large enough young adult population to replace them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.