Babies.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:23 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:
jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:Just an FYI...trying to find the actual study with data for you guys:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Most+birth+defects+don't+rise+with+age.+(age+of+mother)-a010527677

Proof to my point that age really has nothing to do with birth defects in most cases unless there are mitigating factors (i.e. other genetic factors). Screens are done as precautions for chromosomal abnormalities, which in many cases are unavoidable regardless of age, but as I said, there is a correlation with age, not a causation by age in most cases.



LoL at the fact that the website URL says "MOST birth defects don't..." . Fail.


LOL HARRRRRD at the fact that you seem not to have read that I said "many" or "most" 3 times in my last post, but you seem to have missed that. RC fail on your part there, buckaroo.



I'll give it to you, I missed the fact that you said most. But that means I'm right. The longer a woman waits to have kids, the more likely it is the baby will be born with birth defects, whatever those defects may be. So in the end, FAIL on your part.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:25 am

yawn

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:31 am

jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:
jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:Just an FYI...trying to find the actual study with data for you guys:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Most+birth+defects+don't+rise+with+age.+(age+of+mother)-a010527677

Proof to my point that age really has nothing to do with birth defects in most cases unless there are mitigating factors (i.e. other genetic factors). Screens are done as precautions for chromosomal abnormalities, which in many cases are unavoidable regardless of age, but as I said, there is a correlation with age, not a causation by age in most cases.



LoL at the fact that the website URL says "MOST birth defects don't..." . Fail.


LOL HARRRRRD at the fact that you seem not to have read that I said "many" or "most" 3 times in my last post, but you seem to have missed that. RC fail on your part there, buckaroo.



I'll give it to you, I missed the fact that you said most. But that means I'm right. The longer a woman waits to have kids, the more likely it is the baby will be born with birth defects, whatever those defects may be. So in the end, FAIL on your part.


More likely for chromosomal defects, but if you actually read that article (and see the data once I find it...what was that website from back in UG? Ebscohost or something? I swear, they save nothing from before 2000 anymore), the risk of defects in 75% of cases is the same at any age given genetics, or in some cases, even decline with age. Did you miss that, RC champion?

So age and birth defects, again, have a CORRELATIVE relationship in some cases, but it is correlative at best. CAUSATION is a different story. Please tell me you've taken some science and math classes since HS....

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby IAFG » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:35 am

i got Cs in all my stats classes but does it matter if birth defects are correlated or caused by old age, from a family planning perspective? unless you know for sure you're exempt, seems like 6 of one and a half dozen of the other.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:37 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:More likely for chromosomal defects, but if you actually read that article (and see the data once I find it...what was that website from back in UG? Ebscohost or something? I swear, they save nothing from before 2000 anymore), the risk of defects in 75% of cases is the same at any age given genetics, or in some cases, even decline with age. Did you miss that, RC champion?

So age and birth defects, again, have a CORRELATIVE relationship in some cases, but it is correlative at best. CAUSATION is a different story. Please tell me you've taken some science and math classes since HS....


lol that you keep trying to talk your way out of the fact that there is A relationship between age and birth defects, whatever that relationship is.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:37 am

IAFG wrote:i got Cs in all my stats classes but does it matter if birth defects are correlated or caused by old age, from a family planning perspective? unless you know for sure you're exempt, seems like 6 of one and a half dozen of the other.


Exactly

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:38 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:
More likely for chromosomal defects, but if you actually read that article (and see the data once I find it...what was that website from back in UG? Ebscohost or something? I swear, they save nothing from before 2000 anymore), the risk of defects in 75% of cases is the same at any age given genetics, or in some cases, even decline with age. Did you miss that, RC champion?

So age and birth defects, again, have a CORRELATIVE relationship in some cases, but it is correlative at best. CAUSATION is a different story. Please tell me you've taken some science and math classes since HS....


And I always know that people have lost an argument when they start throwing out irrelevant insults. :D

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:40 am

dear god, neither of you have babies.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:40 am

booyakasha wrote:dear god, neither of you have babies.


Yes I do.

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:40 am

jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:More likely for chromosomal defects, but if you actually read that article (and see the data once I find it...what was that website from back in UG? Ebscohost or something? I swear, they save nothing from before 2000 anymore), the risk of defects in 75% of cases is the same at any age given genetics, or in some cases, even decline with age. Did you miss that, RC champion?

So age and birth defects, again, have a CORRELATIVE relationship in some cases, but it is correlative at best. CAUSATION is a different story. Please tell me you've taken some science and math classes since HS....


lol that you keep trying to talk your way out of the fact that there is A relationship between age and birth defects, whatever that relationship is.


I never said there wasn't a relationship. I said that it's not causative in MOST CASES, so a woman shouldn't necessarily shut the baby shop at a given age. Get tested to make sure you're not at risk? Abso-fucking-lutely. But avoid it altogether, unless you don't want children. Hell to the naw.

Again with that RC fail issue you seem to have. You should read more, and talk less. You'd make yourself seem a little more educated.

And on the topic of irrelevant insults, you ARE the one who brought up my mother first in the discussion. Don't see her here in the discussion with us. I would probably put that at the top of the irrelevancy list.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:41 am

jhare wrote:
booyakasha wrote:dear god, neither of you have babies.


Yes I do.



lolwut

I was telling you not to have them, not accusing you of lacking babies.

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:42 am

jhare wrote:
booyakasha wrote:dear god, neither of you have babies.


Yes I do.


Terrifying.

And I will admit I don't. Hence why I'm not discussing how difficult I'm sure it is. I am SO not ready for children at this juncture. Terrified at the thought actually. I need a few more years to get my life in order.
Last edited by chicagolaw2013 on Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby IAFG » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:42 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:I never said there wasn't a relationship. I said that it's not causative in MOST CASES, so a woman shouldn't necessarily shut the baby shop at a given age. Get tested to make sure you're not at risk? Abso-fucking-lutely. But avoid it altogether, unless you don't want children. Hell to the naw.

but... once you know you can't have kids, it's too late.

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:44 am

IAFG wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:I never said there wasn't a relationship. I said that it's not causative in MOST CASES, so a woman shouldn't necessarily shut the baby shop at a given age. Get tested to make sure you're not at risk? Abso-fucking-lutely. But avoid it altogether, unless you don't want children. Hell to the naw.

but... once you know you can't have kids, it's too late.


Agreed there...trust me, I'm not waiting til the last minute or anything. I mean, I haven't tried. I could be infertile right now, who knows. Just saying this guy is completely missing my point.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:46 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:
jhare wrote:
booyakasha wrote:dear god, neither of you have babies.


Yes I do.


Terrifying.

And I will admit I don't. Hence why I'm not discussing how difficult I'm sure it is. I am SO not ready for children at this juncture.


See, there's that insult thing again. You're right, you don't sound ready for kids. To raise a child you first have to be a grown up (unless of course you can hire someone to raise your kids for you, which for many on this board is a definite possibility).

booyakasha wrote:
jhare wrote:
booyakasha wrote:dear god, neither of you have babies.


Yes I do.



lolwut

I was telling you not to have them, not accusing you of lacking babies.



lol, well too late for that.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:46 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:I never said there wasn't a relationship. I said that it's not causative in MOST CASES, so a woman shouldn't necessarily shut the baby shop at a given age. Get tested to make sure you're not at risk? Abso-fucking-lutely. But avoid it altogether, unless you don't want children. Hell to the naw.

but... once you know you can't have kids, it's too late.


Agreed there...trust me, I'm not waiting til the last minute or anything. I mean, I haven't tried. I could be infertile right now, who knows. Just saying this guy is completely missing my point.



What's your point exactly?

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:46 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:Agreed there...trust me, I'm not waiting til the last minute or anything. I mean, I haven't tried. I could be infertile right now, who knows. Just saying this guy is completely missing my point.


maybe I'll just tell my parents I'm infertile so they don't guilt trip me when I don't have kids.

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:48 am

jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:I never said there wasn't a relationship. I said that it's not causative in MOST CASES, so a woman shouldn't necessarily shut the baby shop at a given age. Get tested to make sure you're not at risk? Abso-fucking-lutely. But avoid it altogether, unless you don't want children. Hell to the naw.

but... once you know you can't have kids, it's too late.


Agreed there...trust me, I'm not waiting til the last minute or anything. I mean, I haven't tried. I could be infertile right now, who knows. Just saying this guy is completely missing my point.



What's your point exactly?


READ MY POSTS instead of just shooting back clueless banter.

I'm too lazy to write it again. Since it's 1AM, I should probably go to bed instead of fighting with someone who clearly doesn't understand any kind of logical reasoning and is lacking in the reading comp area as well. I'll be here all damn night.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby IAFG » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:49 am

booyakasha wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:Agreed there...trust me, I'm not waiting til the last minute or anything. I mean, I haven't tried. I could be infertile right now, who knows. Just saying this guy is completely missing my point.


maybe I'll just tell my parents I'm infertile so they don't guilt trip me when I don't have kids.

and then, if it turns out you do, they'll be doubly happy. win win.

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:51 am

IAFG wrote:
booyakasha wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:Agreed there...trust me, I'm not waiting til the last minute or anything. I mean, I haven't tried. I could be infertile right now, who knows. Just saying this guy is completely missing my point.


maybe I'll just tell my parents I'm infertile so they don't guilt trip me when I don't have kids.

and then, if it turns out you do, they'll be doubly happy. win win.


IT'S A MIRACLE! heehee sorta tempted to do this to my future mom in law so she gets off our case, but I don't know, that's just mean. She is seriously up in our business CONSTANTLY...come on, we're not even married yet. Slow your roll, lady.
Last edited by chicagolaw2013 on Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:51 am

IAFG wrote:
booyakasha wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:Agreed there...trust me, I'm not waiting til the last minute or anything. I mean, I haven't tried. I could be infertile right now, who knows. Just saying this guy is completely missing my point.


maybe I'll just tell my parents I'm infertile so they don't guilt trip me when I don't have kids.

and then, if it turns out you do, they'll be doubly happy. win win.


this is an excellent idea. no guilt and a little pity followed by MIRACLE BABY.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:52 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:
READ MY POSTS instead of just shooting back clueless banter.

I'm too lazy to write it again. Since it's 1AM, I should probably go to bed instead of fighting with someone who clearly doesn't understand any kind of logical reasoning and is lacking in the reading comp area as well. I'll be here all damn night.



So when someone opposes your argument you throw out insults, and when someone asks you what the point you're making is you shut down. Wow, I didn't know TLS was frequented by elementary school children. It's probably way passed your bed time. Night. :wink:

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:54 am

jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:
READ MY POSTS instead of just shooting back clueless banter.

I'm too lazy to write it again. Since it's 1AM, I should probably go to bed instead of fighting with someone who clearly doesn't understand any kind of logical reasoning and is lacking in the reading comp area as well. I'll be here all damn night.



So when someone opposes your argument you throw out insults, and when someone asks you what the point you're making is you shut down. Wow, I didn't know TLS was frequented by elementary school children. It's probably way passed your bed time. Night. :wink:


Honey, it's "past", not "passed". Guess you are the one in elementary school. And look in the mirror, insult master. :roll:

Apparently, you also are God, because you do not need sleep to function all day.

Go you!

Actually because of your comments, I'm going to stay here and banter with you all night. Sound good? Just want to prove a point that you are a fucking idiot.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:56 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
booyakasha wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:Agreed there...trust me, I'm not waiting til the last minute or anything. I mean, I haven't tried. I could be infertile right now, who knows. Just saying this guy is completely missing my point.


maybe I'll just tell my parents I'm infertile so they don't guilt trip me when I don't have kids.

and then, if it turns out you do, they'll be doubly happy. win win.


IT'S A MIRACLE! heehee sorta tempted to do this to my future mom in law so she gets off our case, but I don't know, that's just mean. She is seriously up in our business CONSTANTLY...come on, we're not even married yet. Slow your roll, lady.



Oh, crap. I just looked at your profile and realized that you go to soon-to-be TTT Depaul. Sorry about that, I guess I really am talking to someone of inferior intellect. Next time I'll go easy on you. Sorry.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:57 am

THIS IS THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVAR. JHARE IS RETARDED AND HAS PRODUCED A RETARDED BABY. SOCIETY IS FUCKED.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests