
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The New Yorker is mad that pregnancy tests are "binary" regarding when pregnancy begins
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:19 am
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:19 am
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
Pregnancy tests draw a misleading, somewhat arbitrary, binary between a state of being pregnant and not being pregnant. You can be kind of pregnant, a little bit pregnant, or almost pregnant, or maybe pregnant, and still test positive for pregnancy. Pregnancy tests, particularly at-home urine tests, capture a moment in time at which an embryo has implanted and is interfacing with the uterus in some way. “We define how we understand the beginning of pregnancy based on this snapshot, but such a freeze-frame contains limited information,” Apoorva Tadepalli writes.
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:20 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
but such a freeze-frame contains limited information
Yeah. That you’re clinically pregnant.
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:21 am to Fun Bunch
Yeah. This is the kind of stuff that keeps me up at night. 
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:22 am to Fun Bunch
How the frick are you a little pregnant? You either are or aren't. They already have timelines for pregnancy, and they are called 1st trimester, 2nd trimester and 3rd trimester.
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:22 am to Fun Bunch
Wtf is “a little bit pregnant.. kind of pregnant”
These things are not complicated
These things are not complicated
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:24 am to Fun Bunch
Let's keep moving scientific definitions so that we can continuously push murderous ideas.
They've already got most people believing that a fetus is not a person, I don't know why this one is really necessary. But evil loves to out evil itself.
They've already got most people believing that a fetus is not a person, I don't know why this one is really necessary. But evil loves to out evil itself.
This post was edited on 9/17/26 at 11:25 am
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:25 am to Fun Bunch
I love the New Yorker. I just read the article. It's just fluff. Talks about chemical and ectopic pregnancies triggering a positive test.
The Unsettling Ambiguity of Early Pregnancy
The Unsettling Ambiguity of Early Pregnancy
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:27 am to Fun Bunch
Pregnancy is just a word in liberal land. You can end a pregnancy at any time you want, just say post partum psychosis and get a free pass.
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:42 am to Fun Bunch
Looking at who wrote this says a lot....
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:44 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Pregnancy tests draw a misleading, somewhat arbitrary, binary between a state of being pregnant and not being pregnant. You can be kind of pregnant, a little bit pregnant, or almost pregnant, or maybe pregnant, and still test positive for pregnancy
Tweekers are gonna fixate on this for days
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:46 am to Fun Bunch
What the hell are they smoking up there?
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:53 am to Fun Bunch
Can someone respond and tell them this is why we PIIHB ?
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:55 am to Fun Bunch
These people must be bored out of their fricking minds
Posted on 9/17/26 at 11:58 am to cascadia
quote:
Wtf is “a little bit pregnant.. kind of pregnant”
It’s certainly a new way for wives to tell their husbands the news:
“IM (a little) PREGNANT!”
What a dumb article
Posted on 9/17/26 at 12:32 pm to Dawgsontop34
just dumb
This post was edited on 9/17/26 at 12:33 pm

Popular
Back to top
13















