My wife may have just gotten pregnant!

[angua]

Sorry to hear that, hopefully it turns out better next time. Good luck to you!

[Nyarlathotep]

I hope your wife isn't too torn up about it. Good luck next time.

[Vadrosaul]

Good luck. Keep at it

[Komag]

Well we just got back from the doctors and it turns out that after this whole second "cycle" my wife did get slighly pregnant but had a little miscarriage.

 

So we're going to take a few months off and start again in the Spring (March or April).

 

It a very long process with many appointments and it's kind of tiring, so we need a break. Not the most ideal form of baby-making, but hey, it can work.

[Tels]

Oh I hope for both (hopefully soon three or more) that it works out!

[OrbWeaver]

my wife did get slighly pregnant but had a little miscarriage.

 

As opposed to getting very pregnant and having a large miscarriage?

 

I always assumed both of those were fundamentally binary operations.

[Vadrosaul]

These things happen. My brother's wife just had one too. Life just doesn't take sometimes and you try again.

 

Have you ever considered adopting a baby? Someone else has already done the work, why bother putting your wife through 9 months of aggravation....

Edited November 27, 2007 by Vadrosaul

[Komag]

Some in my wife's family have adopted, but I don't want to unless there is no other option. IVF can work for us, it almost did this time, so we'll most likely just keep at it.

 

And Orb, after the whole process for quite a few months, I believe that yes, there are degrees of pregnancy and miscarriage. I realize that logically and denotatively that isn't so, but practically it is, because it helps to briefly describe the situation without going into detail.

[Crispy]

Ah, darn.

 

Keep at it!

[sparhawk]

Doesn't matter if you are doing it this way or more "natural". These misscarriages are very frequent, especially in the early days, so don't get discouraged. I can only confirm that I never regretted to get children and it's well worth it.

Despite some people telling me that I loose my freedom (which is true to some extent) and only get into troubles and so on. Just looking at my kids and seeing them grow, even if they screw up every now and then, makes me so proud of them, which is well worth all the troubles they cause.

[oDDity]

I don't know why people make such a big deal out of it these days.

Humans alone have managed reproduction billions of times over the millennia - even slugs and cockroaches manage to do it perfectly every time.

Women prattle on about how great it is being pregnant as if they are the first person ever to do it.

All they are is a incubator. They could be in a coma for the whole pregnancy and the baby would still grow, that's of how little importance they are in what is an entirely automatic process.

[sparhawk]

You are confusing the scope here. I know that millions of kids were born before my were born, but that doesn't matter because for ME it is still special. You are confusing the big scope with the personal experience.

If the personal experience wouldn't be a good feeling, then guess where we stand today.

[OrbWeaver]

Have you ever considered adopting a baby? Someone else has already done the work, why bother putting your wife through 9 months of aggravation....

 

Maybe because they don't want to be treated like potential paedophile-criminals who need auditing every step of the way to make sure they are "suitable" for adopting a baby, even though there is nothing stopping people from having a kid of their own and abusing it every day until they are found out.

[OrbWeaver]

I don't know why people make such a big deal out of it these days.

Humans alone have managed reproduction billions of times over the millennia - even slugs and cockroaches manage to do it perfectly every time.

 

It's simple evolution. If women didn't go gooey-eyed over babies then they wouldn't have babies, and the species would die out (as Sparhawk mentioned).

[sparhawk]

It's simple evolution. If women didn't go gooey-eyed over babies then they wouldn't have babies, and the species would die out (as Sparhawk mentioned).

 

Yup! I already did my share in the evolution. I just have to indoctrinate my kids, that they also participate and don't forget their duties to my genes.

[Sotha]

I don't know why people make such a big deal out of it these days.

Humans alone have managed reproduction billions of times over the millennia - even slugs and cockroaches manage to do it perfectly every time.

Women prattle on about how great it is being pregnant as if they are the first person ever to do it.

All they are is a incubator. They could be in a coma for the whole pregnancy and the baby would still grow, that's of how little importance they are in what is an entirely automatic process.

 

I started to write something to this, deleted it, wrote again, deleted it again.

I'll just say that you've an interesting point of view.

 

I'll also present a speculation that maybe the women you mentioned prattled about their pregnancy mainly due to the new and exciting behavior they experience because of the pregnancy, on a personal level. And the "big deal" with having children probably comes from the fact that people have other alternatives nowadays: they could stick with their careers or do something else. You can choose to use birth control. You do not need to produce children who take care of you when you're old and weak.

[sparhawk]

I'll just say that you've an interesting point of view.

 

That's a very diplomatic way to phrase it.

[oDDity]

It's simple evolution. If women didn't go gooey-eyed over babies then they wouldn't have babies, and the species would die out (as Sparhawk mentioned).

 

That's not true. In the past, sex is the reason people had kids, that's an irresistible enticement for males, and it's generally not tied to a desire to have kids. Kids were an inevitable result of that. You really think women in the past had a choice of who they married or when they were fucked?

The other reasons when society evolved a little more were intellectual - economics, inheritance rights etc.

Contraception has not been around long, and since it has, society has also been smart enough to know that need new generations of kids, so even if we all were programmed to find babies repugnant, we would still have introduced baby factories where people do it as a grisly job.

[Sotha]

That's not true. In the past, sex is the reason people had kids, that's an irresistible enticement for males, and it's generally not tied to a desire to have kids. Kids were an inevitable result of that. You really think women in the past had a choice of who they married or when they were fucked?

The other reasons when society evolved a little more were intellectual - economics, inheritance rights etc.

Contraception has not been around long, and since it has, society has also been smart enough to know that need new generations of kids, so even if we all were programmed to find babies repugnant, we would still have introduced baby factories where people do it as a grisly job.

 

One shouldn't forget that females of many species have also seem to an irresistible enticement to nurse their young, and they probably do not regard it as a grisly job. It is unknown to me how strong this enticement is, but usually you see women wanting to have kids more often than men. Surely this feature is hard-coded in the genes and like you've said it, it seems like an automated process. I wouldn't underestimate it's effect on history, before the evolution of the society.

[OrbWeaver]

One shouldn't forget that females of many species have also seem to an irresistible enticement to nurse their young, and they probably do not regard it as a grisly job. It is unknown to me how strong this enticement is, but usually you see women wanting to have kids more often than men. Surely this feature is hard-coded in the genes and like you've said it, it seems like an automated process. I wouldn't underestimate it's effect on history, before the evolution of the society.

 

That is correct. Oddity is right in as much as in previous times (in even today in many parts of the world), women didn't get much choice in having babies, however women are still required to nurse and look after their babies, and generally do so even if the actual pregnancy was not their choice. This is what evolution provides -- it's the difference between women looking after their unwanted children or just leaving them to die.

[oDDity]

No, that argument works for animals, but not for humans. We deal on a slightly more intellectual level of reasoning than 'aww, isn't it cute, look at it's ickle fingers and toes, I think I won't leave it to die after all'.

[OrbWeaver]

We deal on a slightly more intellectual level of reasoning than 'aww, isn't it cute, look at it's ickle fingers and toes, I think I won't leave it to die after all'.

 

I'm guessing you haven't met many women, then?

 

Or most people, for that matter. The "humans are not animals" viewpoint holds little water when you look at how the average human actually behaves.

[sparhawk]

No, that argument works for animals, but not for humans. We deal on a slightly more intellectual level of reasoning than 'aww, isn't it cute, look at it's ickle fingers and toes, I think I won't leave it to die after all'.

 

Oddity, not everbody lives in a cave without contact to other poeple.

[Nyarlathotep]

I find it slightly ironic that oDDity is the one placing too much faith in humanity's intellect. C'mon, where's the oDDity we know and lov^H^H^Hbegrudingly deal with?

[oDDity]

I'm guessing you haven't met many women, then?

 

Ha, I've met more than you little nerdlinger programmers, that's for sure, and they do not all gush and drool over babies. You're the one throwing the misogynistic stereotypes around. Now that women have a real choice in the matter for the first time in history, a large number of them choose not to have kids, and most of the diminishing number who do, make an intellectual decision, not an instinctual one.