f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Serious Business => Topic started by: Ironwood on December 21, 2006, 06:59:49 AM



Title: Blank Look
Post by: Ironwood on December 21, 2006, 06:59:49 AM
I don't even understand how this is possible :

BABIES (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6199363.stm)


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: schild on December 21, 2006, 07:04:51 AM
The odds are 1 in 25,000,000. How many babies are born every day?

As such, shouldn't this happen more often?

Edit: Also, why is it whenever I see a woman give birth to twins (or more), the first thought that goes through my head is "can the family (or single mother) afford this?" Normally, I'd clump that under evil/tasteless/tacky thoughts, but these days, not so much.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Strazos on December 21, 2006, 07:06:22 AM
Perhaps it does, but doesn't make it to the news? Prolly happens more often in China or India.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: schild on December 21, 2006, 07:07:19 AM
I'm not so sure women in China are allowed to have 3 baby girls. Could be wrong. Probably wrong in fact.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Strazos on December 21, 2006, 07:18:01 AM
Yeah, that order was rescinded a couple years ago.

Also, on the twins thing...yeah, I get the exact same thought. Every time. How about people who have like, 4 or more in a single go? I'm probably hang myself with the medical bills and spare diaper bags.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Trippy on December 21, 2006, 07:20:34 AM
The odds are 1 in 25,000,000. How many babies are born every day?

As such, shouldn't this happen more often?
I'm pretty sure that's the odds if you have two wombs. The odds of having two wombs is a separate probability.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Strazos on December 21, 2006, 07:21:48 AM
Well, they said 1 in 1000 have dual wombs in the UK. Not sure if that was factored in or not.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Trippy on December 21, 2006, 07:24:44 AM
Yeah, that order was rescinded a couple years ago.
What order was rescinded a couple of years ago?


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Trippy on December 21, 2006, 07:27:29 AM
Well, they said 1 in 1000 have dual wombs in the UK. Not sure if that was factored in or not.

Quote
The chances of a woman with two wombs having twins or two separate births is estimated to be five million to one.
Quote
The odds of having triplets from two wombs are around 25 million to one.
Note the inclusion of the words "with/from two wombs" in both probabilities.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Strazos on December 21, 2006, 07:30:51 AM
Yeah, that order was rescinded a couple years ago.
What order was rescinded a couple of years ago?


The child limits. Last I heard anyway.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Trippy on December 21, 2006, 07:54:57 AM
Yeah, that order was rescinded a couple years ago.
What order was rescinded a couple of years ago?
The child limits. Last I heard anyway.
No.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: geldonyetich on December 21, 2006, 10:20:59 AM
From what I've heard, what they did in China was provide more incentive to have girls, since the patrilineal society had a definate preference to birth boys and it was resulting in a lot of infanticide.  So before it was something like one child per couple now it's something like one child per couple but up to two girls doesn't count.  Some parts of China never had these restrictions, however.

So, anyway.  Two wombs, three babies.  I don't suppose the husband was complaining about twice the work of impregnating her. ;)


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Raging Turtle on December 21, 2006, 01:29:52 PM
It's not a restriction exactly - you can have multiple children, but your taxes go way up if you have more than one.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: NowhereMan on December 22, 2006, 10:58:11 AM
Yeah, if you have more than one child you lose all state benefits for the second child. You need to have pay for all their medical, educational, etc. needs. Result is now that you can identify the really rich Chinese because they have more than one child.

Also this does count if you have twins and in the countryside couples are allowed up to two children to try and keep the countryside population high and so they can help on the farm.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 22, 2006, 09:35:17 PM
One out of every 1000 women in the UK is sporting dual-wombs?  WTF?


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Signe on December 23, 2006, 06:17:42 AM
They have racing stripes, too.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Ironwood on December 23, 2006, 07:11:33 AM
And wicked rims.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Signe on December 23, 2006, 08:15:23 AM
You're always just a little bit dirty minded... except when you're being extraordinarily dirty minded!


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Lantyssa on December 23, 2006, 09:38:03 AM
And I can't even get one.  Their distribution system is hosed.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: CmdrSlack on December 23, 2006, 09:53:17 AM
From the article I read, most women who have multiple wombs have a 50-50 shot of being able to carry the baby to term.  Sadly, I can't find the damn thing at CNN.com any more, so yeah.  The way it was described was "separate or partially joined wombs."  I assume that they're subbing "womb" for "uterus?"  Is this just a case of dumbing it down for the public?

ETA -- Apparently yes, it is.  The BBC article is not dumbed down.

Quote from: Geldon
twice the work of impregnating her

Quote from: RTFA
In Miss Kersey's case, the babies were conceived from two eggs - one in each womb - which were fertilised at the same time by two different sperm.



Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: geldonyetich on December 23, 2006, 10:22:29 AM
I was kidding.

It's kinda misleading to call them all "identical" when different sperm were involved in the fertilization of one out of the three of them.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Lantyssa on December 23, 2006, 12:57:45 PM
There were three babies.  Two were identical and the third was a fraternal from the second womb.  They didn't say they were all identical.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Tale on December 23, 2006, 03:10:33 PM
Maybe evolution is solving declining fertility rates.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: geldonyetich on December 23, 2006, 05:33:54 PM
Given enough time, evolution can solve a wide range of environment limitations.  But in this case, the triplets came from the UK.

So, apparently 1 in 1000 women in the UK have mutant double-wombs.  That's news to me.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Strazos on December 23, 2006, 05:36:01 PM
Ya know, that stat is going to be in the back of my mind next time I have an unprotected one-night stand with a woman from the UK.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Ironwood on December 24, 2006, 04:54:51 AM
If you're drunk enough to fuck a woman from the Uk, it's going to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay in the back of your mind.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: bhodi on December 24, 2006, 07:22:53 AM
ouch. You mean it isn't like eurotrip?


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Ironwood on December 24, 2006, 07:26:29 AM
It's really, really not.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Llava on December 27, 2006, 06:00:55 AM
They're all Kate Beckinsale in my imagination.


Title: Re: Blank Look
Post by: Samwise on December 27, 2006, 04:35:24 PM
I thought the "1 in 1000 have double wombs" stat was a bit unbelievable until I scrolled down a bit and looked at the explanatory diagram.  Not nearly as exciting or freakish as the term 'double womb" would lead you to believe.  It's not "doubled" so much as "partitioned".