Everyone . . . Thank You

Prof. Rosecrest · Post by **Prof. Rosecrest** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:33 pm

There was some misinformation it has been cleared up.
It could have something to do with the fact that her body was, well reformed from scratch as it were?

Bert_the_Turtle · Post by **Bert_the_Turtle** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:34 pm

My "Oh Shit"-O-Meter is pinging again.

KonThaak · Post by **KonThaak** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:34 pm

That's a possibility... Hormones are rather finicky, at that.

Well...I guess this means Eilonwy can breathe a sigh of relief... It's one less thing to weigh on her shoulders...

At least it isn't cancer.

Ron Caliburn · Post by **Ron Caliburn** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:51 pm

We could hope it was her eyes getting ready to grow back.

concrete_Angel · Post by **concrete_Angel** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:53 pm

?

Yo, doc, you've got a blood test saying she's preganat, and a drugstore test saying she's not, and you're trusting the second one?
There's so many things wrong with this...

Bert_the_Turtle · Post by **Bert_the_Turtle** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:57 pm

That's one of the reasons my "Oh Shit"-O-Meter went off...

KonThaak · Post by **KonThaak** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:12 pm

concrete_Angel wrote:?

Yo, doc, you've got a blood test saying she's preganat, and a drugstore test saying she's not, and you're trusting the second one?
There's so many things wrong with this...

They both test for the same thing, the presence of hCG in the bloodstream... hCG is a chemical produced when a woman is pregnant. There aren't very many things that could lead to a false positive... Usually, it's only a miscarriage, the presence of fertility drugs, or certain kinds of cancer that will give either test a false positive.

Bloodwork, store-bought test, essentially, they're all about as accurate as the other... While a blood test can detect the hormones earlier than a store-bought test, I believe Eilonwy has been back for long enough that, were she actually pregnant, the store-bought tests would be picking up on it by now... I would wait a week and test again, just to be 100% certain, but I'd say that if the latest test came up negative, we should be alright...

If the last test comes up positive, my gut says to check for cancer rather than zygotes.

concrete_Angel · Post by **concrete_Angel** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:23 pm

I'm not going to say it.

Prof. Rosecrest · Post by **Prof. Rosecrest** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:31 pm

Latest test show everything as normal. Well at least as normal as someone who just returned from the dead can be?

concrete_Angel · Post by **concrete_Angel** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:36 pm

Yeah, where's the catch? I'm expecting something else to pop itself up in those test results any second.

Eilonwy Solstice · Post by **Eilonwy Solstice** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:55 pm

What do you mean, Angel? Do you expect me to blow up or something? Sorry, I don’t mean to sound rude. But, well . . . this is my body you guys are talking about. I know that I’m not exactly normal, but still . . . .

concrete_Angel · Post by **concrete_Angel** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:59 pm

Well, KT's hoping it's not cancer, doc's going back and forth, and I'm trying not to say something that might actually offend you. You seem nice, after all.

Eilonwy Solstice · Post by **Eilonwy Solstice** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:26 pm

concrete_Angel wrote:Well, KT's hoping it's not cancer, doc's going back and forth, and I'm trying not to say something that might actually offend you. You seem nice, after all.

Thank you. Go ahead and say it, Angel. I won’t be offended.

concrete_Angel · Post by **concrete_Angel** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:31 pm

Just remember, you asked.

All we need is to find out when your next period is, that'll answer all our questions right there.

Eilonwy Solstice · Post by **Eilonwy Solstice** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:48 pm

Yes, I did ask. And you didn’t offend me Angel, so don’t worry about it. Ron might get a little red in the face when he reads these, though. Or when I mention it. As for my period . . . I haven’t had one since I was Turned into a vampire. So I gues we will have to wait.

concrete_Angel · Post by **concrete_Angel** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:27 pm

Of course, if there IS none, that probably could answer a few things in itself.

Eilonwy Solstice · Post by **Eilonwy Solstice** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:35 pm

I’m trying to decide if I should be relieved about that statement. While I’d like to be a mother some day . . . I’d also prefer remembering going through with it. But . . . well, I guess there’s really no use pontificating it yet, is there? If I have another period . . . if I can have another period . . . it will come next month.

Bert_the_Turtle · Post by **Bert_the_Turtle** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:20 pm

Either situation has its own problems to overcome. Granted one with more obvious ones than the other.

BraveSirRobin · Post by **BraveSirRobin** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:22 pm

*blinkblink*

I've GOT to get myself in a situation that allows less fitful internet access if people are going to start coming back from the dead while I'm not looking...

and can we please not talk about periods?

Bert_the_Turtle · Post by **Bert_the_Turtle** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:32 pm

What's wrong Robin? Has mother nature finally made you into a real woman? :lol:

BraveSirRobin · Post by **BraveSirRobin** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:40 pm

rather the opposite, actually.

Shadowstalker · Post by **Shadowstalker** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:53 pm

You may want to explain that Robin, before Bert takes any more Potshots.

BraveSirRobin · Post by **BraveSirRobin** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:45 am

well, being from Missouri (state motto: we're less inbred than Arkansas), manhood for most of my life has been defined as the lack of virginity.

by that definition, Mother Nature has blocked my play for manhood. :oops:

that just opens a whole other range for taking potshots, doesn't it?

Bert_the_Turtle · Post by **Bert_the_Turtle** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:48 am

Hahaha.

Don't be in a rush man.

We don't need any little Robins running around.

Remember, the purpose of that is to create more little humans, so take the proper precautions.

BraveSirRobin · Post by **BraveSirRobin** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:52 am

on the plus side, if this kind of luck holds up for another 19 years, I can say there's a movie about me

Bert_the_Turtle · Post by **Bert_the_Turtle** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:59 am

Haha XD

Hannah · Post by **Hannah** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:39 am

Hi Robin,

You should wait until you and the right girl get married.

Hannah

PS: That's what is supposta happen.

Ron Caliburn · Post by **Ron Caliburn** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:47 am

Periods . . . Babies . . . Puppies . . . I really hope my house is still stnading when I get back.

KonThaak · Post by **KonThaak** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:52 am

Sorry, Ron, I wish I could guarantee something, but like I said yesterday, I had to get home... As y'all could pry tell from the fact that I was posting again last night, I did indeed make it there. Err...here.

KonThaak · Post by **KonThaak** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:11 am

Hannah wrote:Hi Robin,

You should wait until you and the right girl get married.

Hannah

PS: That's what is supposta happen.

Mm... Hannah, would you think any less of me if I told you that Lex and I didn't wait until we were legally married? Nor were we ever married by another person in a spiritual sense...so by a lot of churches, we wouldn't be considered married at all, because we were wed by a justice of the peace.

In this day and age, there is a great deal that needs to fall into consideration when it comes to sexual ethics... For one, we have forms of protection and birth control that vastly lowers the chances that a baby could come from the act. For another, there are options available to the potential parents of a "mistake" child, who aren't ready to have a baby of their own, yet. Because I don't want to open the floor to a raging debate, I will quickly move on to a third consideration, the fact that the law provides a few means for single parents to raise a child, should that occur, and should the parents decide to keep it.

Unlike what Christian mores have taught over the centuries, sex is not only a means to the end of childbirth. Some people view it as a casual act; I'm not one of those people, but I can't exactly condemn that viewpoint, given some of the considerations I just mentioned. Other people view it as something deeper, an extreme form of romance... To others, it's a spiritual activity, a way to bond with someone you care about in the deepest means possible.

Because sex is something different to different people, there is an entire new field of sexual ethics... I have come to realize that sex itself is a morally neutral act, much like driving a car. It isn't the act itself that is morally right or wrong, but what one does with it... If one engages in sexual activities to hurt or impair others, then it is wrong, no matter how one slices it, even if the couple in question is engaged in wedlock.

I could debate this for forever and a day, but I know I've prattled on quite a while... I think I've said all that needs saying, however.