fertility issues

[lumberjim]

thanks, scope, but i think i'll leave the reccomendations to their doctor. They're friends, but not really close friends...I don't think they want any advice from me about it.

It just got me thinking, I guess




PS> Jinx is watching "Babe" on TV right now.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Scopulus Argentarius

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome is one such cause, that is really common and easily tratable with anti-biotics.
These links may be of some help....

I have PCOS, but it wasn't diagnosed until a couple of years ago. For those of you who don't know what it is:

In a normal woman (those with a 28 day cycle), an egg will mature on the surface of the ovary and in the course of hormonal fluctuation (which also can cause PMS), the surface of the ovary will burst, releasing the egg into the fallopian tube, where it travels into the uterus and waits there to be fertilized. If not fertilized, the lining of the uterus sheds, and the period occurs.

In a woman with PCOS, the hormonal situation is widely different from normal. PCOS women (generally) have too much of one hormone, but too little of another, and this means in most cases that the fluctuation necessary to burst the egg from the ovary doesn't happen. So what you end up with is a bunch of mature eggs sitting on the ovaries, and no bursting. Obviously, this means no eggs in the uterus waiting to be fertilized. The COOL part is that it generally means no period, either (my favorite part). But it also usually means no babies.

Now here's the weird part. When I was 16, and my dad took me to the GYN for the first time (I was ripening...) the doctor said that normal, regular 28 day periods can take up to 2 years to start happening once you start, so if I was irregular at first, no biggie. This was in January.

I got pregnant in April (on the 2nd) but didn't know it, because I hadn't had a period since January. So here I am, tra la la, oblivious, and on my birthday (about 5 months in to the pregnancy) I feel Justin move and that's when I know I'm pregnant. I was also 5 months pregnant with Bryan before I knew. (I delight in telling people that I didn't have one day of morning sickness. With ANY of them.)

I could get pregnant dang near by looking at me, but I never had regular periods. Then I got an ultrasound, and my GYN said I had PCOS. Now maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I was REALLY fertile despite the PCOS.


Edit:
And I sure have been posting "all about me"s tonight, so I'ma shut up now.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Scopulus Argentarius

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome is one such cause, that is really common and easily tratable with anti-biotics.

I don't think the "easily treatable with anti-biotics" is entirely accurate. This is an endocrine issue, and from my understanding, NOT a bacterial infection, which is what anti-biotics treat.

[Scopulus Argentarius]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


I don't think the "easily treatable with anti-biotics" is entirely accurate. This is an endocrine issue, and from my understanding, NOT a bacterial infection, which is what anti-biotics treat.

Read the articles.. From what I've hear from Dr. Mirkin, there are nuances in the contributing factors that antibiotics can treat. PCS ...can be caused by a hidden infection...can be caused by diatary factors.... Usually a fert specialist will prescribe an antibiotic sweep (with settling time) before attempted pregnancy ( according to Mirkin's Radio show - he's retired it)

Great Guy

[juju]

Originally posted by lumberjim
Yeah, buce it's THEIR business, and I would never presume to judge them or tell them about how I feel about such a sensitive issue. And Juju, it IS basically an "it's not natural " line of thinking. Sorry if you've heard this before, and if this is a tired argument, I'll gladly read old threads and not run you through it again. But, I was a little vague in my initial post on purpose. My opinion is based mainly on gut feel, and I don't have lots of info or fact to support it. That's why I ask how "we" feel. I think there is something to be said for the philosophy of " if it feels right, do it"......so why SHOULD I be OK with it. If i'm accurately interpreting your tone to mean that you would defend it?

Well, I judge things based on reasons (or at least, I try to). To me, saying that because the baby was helped along by chemistry, which was created in an evil, corrupted human lab, is just silly.

But there are good reasons for your line of thinking, I think. Like, you could bring up potential medical dangers. Or the increased risk of having sextuplets (though I don't know the percentage risk that is).

I mean, I'm not saying one way or the other. As long as the medical procedure produces a healthy child, then I think it's completely moral and okay. But if there are potential problems with it, or there are always sextuplets, then obviously that's not okay.

BTW, I kind of touched on my thinking on the "natural" subject here:

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3883

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by juju
Well, I judge things based on reasons (or at least, I try to). To me, saying that because the baby was helped along by chemistry, which was created in an evil, corrupted human lab, is just silly.

I didn't say anything about evil or unnatural. And as it relates, I am a minimalist when it comes to medicine. I'm no Jehova's witless, but I think we are a little big for our britches.

I think it has more to do with my belief that nature works like it does for reasons we can't understand sometimes. We had a big long discussion about gay marriage, for example. That issue reminds me of ancient Greece and the prevalant homosexuality that existed. jinx and I pondered over this and decided that our best guess on the reasons why had to do with limited space and population control. There are frogs that can change sex if the population is too lopsided for the species to continue.

So, I think Nature (or GOD if you prefer) has it's own set of controls within the chaos. We have survived as a species this long without the benefit of modern medicine. and yet, People recognize that there are problems, big problems in the world. And these problems have largely manifested themselves since the time that we began overriding nature with science and medicine.

If two people have to resort to heroic measures in order to reproduce, who can say we SHOULD override nature?

It sounds a little harsh even to me, and if it was me in that situation, I can't say I wouldn't be on the other side of the fence on this. Who can say unless it REALLY happens to you?

At the same time, if the problem that causes this is bacterial or physical, and a simple treatment can restore the normal physiology of the patient,.....I'd do that if it were me.

I said in my first post that i was pretty sure that i disapproved. In thinking about it a little deeper, I think it comes down to the specific situation and reasons. Yet, I still think In vitro is pushing it.

Most importantly, my opinion on the matter is irrellevant and I wouldn't presume to condemn or even discourage anyone else from their freedom to do what they choose with their body unless it effects someone else's rights.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by lumberjim
Yeah, buce it's THEIR business, and I would never presume to judge them or tell them about how I feel about such a sensitive issue. And Juju, it IS basically an "it's not natural " line of thinking. Sorry if you've heard this before, and if this is a tired argument, I'll gladly read old threads and not run you through it again. But, I was a little vague in my initial post on purpose. My opinion is based mainly on gut feel, and I don't have lots of info or fact to support it. That's why I ask how "we" feel. I think there is something to be said for the philosophy of " if it feels right, do it"......so why SHOULD I be OK with it. If i'm accurately interpreting your tone to mean that you would defend it?

No. My first thought was to not post but then I realized I do have an opinion, which is *they* are the only ones that have all the factual and emotional data needed to make this decision.

[juju]

Originally posted by lumberjim
So, I think Nature (or GOD if you prefer) has it's own set of controls within the chaos. We have survived as a species this long without the benefit of modern medicine. and yet, People recognize that there are problems, big problems in the world. And these problems have largely manifested themselves since the time that we began overriding nature with science and medicine.

It's not possible to override nature with science and medicine, because science and medicine are a <i>part</i> of nature.

In fact, I'd say that it's not possible to override nature at all.

But yeah, I agree that it depends on the situation and how dangerous it is. Your opinion is relevant, though. That's what this board is all about. :)

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by juju
It's not possible to override nature with science and medicine, because science and medicine are a <i>part</i> of nature.

In fact, I'd say that it's not possible to override nature at all.

when I say nature, juju, i mean what would happen naturally if a human did not intercede using science or medicine. And dont say that humans ARE natural and therefore can't interfere with themself. we'll never get out of that spiral argument.

We have acheived a level of knowledge that allows us to alter almost everything we can touch. we genetically modify vegetables, for christs sake. there is a line where something is natural and something that would not ordinarilly occur meet.

[juju]

I see. So knowledge is bad, dangerous, and not to be used?

[juju]

What do you mean when you say "natural"? In your attempted definition, you used the word "natural" in the definition. You can't do that! Not if it's to be official, anyway.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by juju
I see. So knowledge is bad, dangerous, and not to be used?

i'd prefer if you didn't attempt to put words in my mouth. knowledge is good. playing god is bad.

is this the kind of shit that dave used to call you a retard over?

i think you understand from my explanation how i intended the use of the word natural in my post......

[juju]

I wasn't <i>saying</i> that you said that. I was just asking if that's what you meant. I'm just trying to understand.

Really, though, I don't understand what you mean by "natural". I figured a definition would prevent further misunderstanding.

[FileNotFound]

Whats wrong with playing god given that there is no god?

[april]

Originally posted by FileNotFound
Whats wrong with playing god given that there is no god?

You know thats a whole nother ball game.

Just leave that out of here.

That causes to many arguements.