Joy and Austin: Attending Conferences and Getting Pregnant

[Rachel333]

1 minute ago, unicorncastle said:

Well, women typically don't ovulate unless they are getting their periods, so if a woman hasnt had her period in a year, then chances are she hasn't ovulated in a year. 

It's really not that uncommon for women to get pregnant without having periods though. The misconception that no periods means no ovulation is one of the reasons that anorexic women have much higher rates of unplanned pregnancies than the general female population.

[Kailash]

I'm with @SilverBeach on this one. I understand it but think it's rather ridiculous. The only thing I can compare it to would be if someone's age was older than their birth date. Just weird, that's all. 

[Snarkle Motion]

8 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

What part of SCIENCE do YOU not understand? Condescend all FUCKING day long, erroneously! Talk about RUDE. lol

If I understand correctly, gestational age calculated by last missed period is an estimate. More reliable assessment of fetal age is done via early ultrasound. For them to be saying they are X many weeks pregnant when sex happened X-1week is false. Their estimated due date can be calculated by missed periods and that corresponds to the term "gestational age" but not actual fetal age or length of pregnancy since conception. 

Take it easy, it's not worth getting upset over and is pretty confusing. 

 

[unicorncastle]

For anyone who has been pregnant or hasn't for that matter, when you go to the ob/gyn for the first time after you take a pregnancy test and it comes back positive the Doctor will ask you the first day of your last cycle. Then they look at this little wheel chart thing (mine did) and they reply "According to the first day of your last period, your due date is this day." So because we know that women ovulate approximately 14 days after the first day of their cycle, at conception they are already 2 weeks pregnant. Most women don't know the day they conceived, so that is why they use the first day of your last menstrual cycle to determine a due date. Don't believe me, google it.  

[Jenn The Heathen]

Imagine the confusion if this is a wedding night/honeymoon baby and he/she is born mid-February (or even early February).... People who don't know how pregnancy is measured will be jumping all over it saying the rumors of premarital hanky panky were true... 

[SapphireSlytherin]

Y'all non-scientists need to get a grip. Lol

Just because it's confusing or doesn't "make sense" to you doesn't mean it's wrong!

 

[Jenn The Heathen]

Just now, SapphireSlytherin said:

Y'all non-scientists need to get a grip. Lol

Just because it's confusing or doesn't "make sense" to you doesn't mean it's wrong!

 

Kind of like flat earthers.  Or climate change deniers.

[Jatalie1996]

Imagine the confusion if this is a wedding night/honeymoon baby and he/she is born mid-February (or even early February).... People who don't know how pregnancy is measured will be jumping all over it saying the rumors of premarital hanky panky were true... 

That's exactly what happened with Jill. Lol. Not the rumors part so much, but some people were pretty confused.

 

 

 

[singsingsing]

6 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

For them to be saying they are X many weeks pregnant when sex happened X-1week is false. Their estimated due date can be calculated by missed periods and that corresponds to the term "gestational age" but not actual fetal age or length of pregnancy since conception. 

But when people talk about a woman being 'X weeks' pregnant, they almost always mean 'X weeks from first date of last menstrual period'. So when various posters started speculating about how many weeks pregnant Joy might be, they weren't talking about actual fetal age. They were talking about the generally accepted method of dating a pregnancy.

[unicorncastle]

8 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

It's really not that uncommon for women to get pregnant without having periods though. The misconception that no periods means no ovulation is one of the reasons that anorexic women have much higher rates of unplanned pregnancies than the general female population.

I think it would be safe to say that most women who do not have their periods do not ovulate. I think that using a very small percentage of the general population and using a much smaller percentage of that population to prove a point, doesn't prove it. Statistically speaking, most women who do not get their periods are not ovulating. On the contrary, women can not ovulate and still get their periods. 

[Kailash]

@unicorncastle It's not an issue with believing that's how it's done. We get it. It's just strange to some of us. 

[TheDuggarnaut]

Height of the fundus (top of uterus) can be used  to determine how pregnant you are. Now ultrasound measurements can be very specific in determining the age of the fetus.

[Rachel333]

18 minutes ago, Fun Undies said:

wouldn't necessarily say it's harder on either sex, within limits (i.e. fear of rape and abuse come to mind).  Because both suck major cahones.  

The pressure for the man to provide for like a good ten people has got to be staggering. And though I joked earlier about pregnancy fetishes, not every man is into it.  Or the hormones.  I'm assumming here, but I'm guessing if the man would like anything besides missionary, the typical fundie wife might actually chastise him with a Bible verse (or two).  And God forbid if the man is into anything besides hard labor, or missionary stuff (i.e. lawyer, doctor, *cough* accountant, or *la gasp* art!).  

Worse, if he shares any of this with anybody, he's told to pray about it, then "man up" . . . So yup, I agree, in general it's "better" for the man, but that doesn't mean it's any less fucked up for them :/

I think it is absolutely harder on one sex. There are definitely aspects of fundamentalism that affect men negatively but I think it's really important to make it clear that fundamentalism specifically oppresses women and girls and privileges men and boys.

[Kailash]

6 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Y'all non-scientists need to get a grip. Lol

Just because it's confusing or doesn't "make sense" to you doesn't mean it's wrong!

 

I never said it was wrong. I didn't know that's how it works. Now I do. I appreciate everyone who was able to explain it without being condescending or rude. 

[Snarkle Motion]

But Naegles Rule was for estimating conception before we had modern technology. It's an approximation it's not science. It's why Jill basing her pregnancy length down to the day using a technique from over a century ago is stupid. We have better, more reliable ways of estimating conception, fetal age, and due dates. It's why I suspect Jill was given a "second" due date that was more than a week passed her initial estimate.

[Jenn The Heathen]

1 minute ago, singsingsing said:

But when people talk about a woman being 'X weeks' pregnant, they almost always mean 'X weeks from first date of last menstrual period'. So when various posters started speculating about how many weeks pregnant Joy might be, they weren't talking about actual fetal age. They were talking about the generally accepted method of dating a pregnancy.

Also, gestational age is most likely the first known age of the pregnancy as fetal age can't be measured until ultrasounds are performed.  And as long as the gestational age and fetal age are close, doctors stick with the gestational age.

[SilverBeach]

I'm getting quite a pile on here. Didn't say the calculation was new. My only point being that it is physically impossible to actually be pregnant longer than you have been having PIV sex. That's all I'm saying.

I had irregular periods so my doctor didn't count this way.

I wasn't rude in my initial posts, so I don't understand why it was ok to be rude to me. 

[Rachel333]

15 minutes ago, unicorncastle said:

I think it would be safe to say that most women who do not have their periods do not ovulate. I think that using a very small percentage of the general population and using a much smaller percentage of that population to prove a point, doesn't prove it. Statistically speaking, most women who do not get their periods are not ovulating. On the contrary, women can not ovulate and still get their periods. 

Well sure, but I'm not trying to "prove a point" other than that it happens and that I was curious about how due dates are calculated when a woman isn't getting periods.

I do think it's really important to know that no periods doesn't always mean no ovulation, though, because on forums discussing eating disorder issues I have seen so many women think that they don't need to worry about preventing pregnancy because they aren't getting periods.

Part of it too is that even though, yes, most of the time women who aren't getting their periods aren't ovulating, you can start ovulating again at any time. If a woman is having unprotected sex because she thinks she can't get pregnant and she ovulates then she can get pregnant before her period comes back.

[singsingsing]

9 minutes ago, unicorncastle said:

I think it would be safe to say that most women who do not have their periods do not ovulate. I think that using a very small percentage of the general population and using a much smaller percentage of that population to prove a point, doesn't prove it. Statistically speaking, most women who do not get their periods are not ovulating. On the contrary, women can not ovulate and still get their periods. 

Well... yes and no. Yes, if you're not menstruating for months and months, chances are you're not ovulating. But that's not really the same thing as, say, a woman who gave birth six months ago, who hasn't gotten her period yet, but gets pregnant anyway. And that happens fairly often.

 

5 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

But Naegles Rule was for estimating conception before we had modern technology. It's an approximation it's not science. It's why Jill basing her pregnancy length down to the day using a technique from over a century ago is stupid. We have better, more reliable ways of estimating conception, fetal age, and due dates. It's why I suspect Jill was given a "second" due date that was more than a week passed her initial estimate.

It's not stupid. The fact that it's an approximation doesn't make it 'not science'. It's how due dates are generally calculated. Are you really saying Jill is stupid for calculating her due date the same way that the vast majority of other women do? Come on! I can criticize her for a lot, but not for that! And just because a technique was developed a century ago doesn't mean it's stupid or worthless. ffs.

[SilverBeach]

@Kailash, I totally agree. Don't understand the rudeness or condescension, it just wasn't necessary. But, apparently it's okay to talk to other members that way. But the member is wrong if she gets upset. I thought this was the kinder, gentler FJ. Feels like old times. Geesh.

[SapphireSlytherin]

1 minute ago, SilverBeach said:

5 minutes ago, Kailash said:

I never said it was wrong. I didn't know that's how it works. Now I do. I appreciate everyone who was able to explain it without being condescending or rude. 

You jumped MY shit after if posted a calculator and then accused ME of being condescending. Lmao

 

[Snarkle Motion]

8 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

But when people talk about a woman being 'X weeks' pregnant, they almost always mean 'X weeks from first date of last menstrual period'. So when various posters started speculating about how many weeks pregnant Joy might be, they weren't talking about actual fetal age. They were talking about the generally accepted method of dating a pregnancy.

Yes, it's a common way of referring to pregnancy but it's also not literally correct. It was always meant to be an estimate for due date, not to refer to how long you've been pregnant if pregnancy could not have occurred before sex. I imagine states with abortion bans after certain number of weeks don't rely on last missed period for calculations but on actual ultrasound data. Basically, it's confusing and understandable that people question this method of discussing pregnancy. It was never meant for the kind of exact fetal age or time since conception, it was always meant to be an estimate.

[Kailash]

If anyone cares, I didn't jump anyone's shit. Didn't mean to cause a shitstorm though by asking a question.

[Snarkle Motion]

4 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Well sure, but I'm not trying to "prove a point" other than that it happens and that I was curious about how due dates are calculated when a woman isn't getting periods.

I do think it's really important to know that no periods doesn't mean no ovulation, though, because on forums discussing eating disorder issues I have seen so many women think that they don't need to worry about preventing pregnancy because they aren't getting periods.

This is anecdotal but I know of three women who got pregnant with absent periods. One didn't realize until 7 months in because she was a runner and still very thin.

My periods are completely irregular. I get maybe 3-5 a year and have had to induce them if I miss too many. Even when I was on birth control I would occasionally miss them or get them at weird times not consistent with the placebo pills.

[SilverBeach]

In the great scheme of things, amd with current events being what they are, how Joy's due date is calculated is of little importance.