h a l f b a k e r yFlaky rehab
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I read in an etiquette book that you shouldn't assume a woman is pregnant unless you see an actual baby coming out of her. Everyone is afraid of finding out unexpectedly that a woman is not pregnant, but just fat. As a result, truly pregnant women aren't getting the attention and/or congratulations
that they deserve.
This credit card-sized device works like a portable sonagram, and can detect unborn babies from up to 10 feet away. There is no need to take it out of your pocket to use it, either. Activate it, then excuse yourself and check the results in private. A pink "+" indicates the presence of a living, writhing fetus inside her; a pink "-" together with an indistinct pinkish vertical crossbar indicates a negative.
Not only is this product useful on women who look pregnant but you are not sure, and for first dates with women who may have lied on their personal ads, but it is especially useful for parents of teenage girls. No longer will their daughters be able to wear baggy clothes or starve themselves in order to conceal their pregnancy from their parents. Earlier detection means earlier solutions.
Thank you.
Vaquita
http://images.googl...safe%3Doff%26um%3D1
This particular vaquita will be unavailable for pregnancy detection work. [bungston, Mar 25 2009]
[link]
|
| |
Wait, pregnant is a pink +, and not pregnant is a pink - with a vertical I? Isn't gonna look a lot like the +? What are you doing to my head? Are you or aren't you pregnant? Wait till I tell your father! |
|
| |
I dunno. Sounds like invasion of privacy to me. |
|
| |
Remote pregnancy test? Handheld sonogram? I don't think so. |
|
| |
Second DrC – invasion of privacy. |
|
| |
i had the pleasure of giving a deadpan "i'm ... not pregnant" to a business man who heartily congratulated my husband and myself in front of a group of colleagues. you should have seen his face. his wife could tell i was joking and burst into a howl of laughter at his discomfort. |
|
| |
This is a consent issue, i think. Leaving aside questions of evidence, which i always prefer to do, some people see ultrasound as harmful to the fœtus. There's also a practical problem. Would you be able to get the ultrasound to go through the air? You normally need gloop for this. Alternatively, you could just go round smearing strange women with jelly when their girth arouses your suspicion. |
|
| |
I admit this idea is magic until explained, but I'm amazed there is no known way to do what it proposes. |
|
| |
It'd be nice to make it work somehow from a technical perspective, regardless of ethical issues, but i'm not sure scanning would be the way to go. I wonder about terahertz radiation, but i think that's probably just my version of your ultrasound magic (no offence meant). A couple of other thoughts: are there frequencies of sound or electromagnetic radiation which could do this? Alternatively, is there some other aspect of pregnancy which can be detected remotely, for instance, could there be magic pregnancy pheromones? |
|
| |
Infrared? Do fetuses have different heat level from their surroundings? Or maybe a huge neon sign that lights up "ARE YOU PREGNANT?????" when someone walks by, and you could watch whether the suspected mother-to-be subconsciously turns her head slightly. |
|
| |
Dolphins can tell. And if they made themselves useful and squeaked for fish a little bit less, people might take them out and about more often, which I am sure they would appreciate. Alternatively, the woman in question might need to get into the water with the dolphin. Surely some plausible ruse can be contrived to explain why this should occur. |
|
| |
I just noticed the pocket-size part. Dolphins are pretty big. But vaquitas are small enough to fit into a big pocket. The pocket could be left full of water, and the vaquita's head, disguised as pocket lint, could poke out for pregnancy detection. |
|
| |
Dolphins can tell because they live in a liquid and their sonar picks it up. I was wondering if there was a way of picking up the "glow" of mid-pregnancy. Alternatively, i'm wondering about changes in central circulation. Near infrared can see a few millimetres deep to the skin, but that may not help. The heart "unfolds" a bit on the aorta and i think there's sometimes a bruit, and there's also the mammary souffle. What else? Bronchial dilation, the ribcage expands, the diaphragm gets higher. |
|
| |
I bet dogs could tell by scent. Pregnancy-sniffing dogs. |
|
| |
This can easily be solved if we women would merely wear buttons, pins, or shirts that let people know: |
|
| |
[-] I agree. If a woman wants me to notice something she should say so. |
|
| |
If a person's body is chemically advertising a physical condition at such a level that simple passive exposure makes that condition evident then I would assert that this is not an invasion of privacy but a real and dangerous threat to unbiased treatment which would need recognition and legal protection. Like it or not, if such a thing is possible (very likely) then it is not legislated by invasion, but by laws regarding discrimination. You cannot avoid the negative consequences of invention simply by saying "i wouldn't" or "it would be objectionable" because to do so is to stick your head in the sand, better with clear eyes to take a firm grasp on the wheel and steer the ship. |
|
| |
Fishbone for the indicator. (This special fishbone puts a little more focus on the outer lines, and has the inner lines less distinct. Additionally, the head and tail regions are less pronounced) |
|
| |
Right. I reckon this could be done in at least two ways. One would be to use RADAR to pick up on increased volume in the renal artery, and the other would be to do the same thing with the mammary souffle. You wouldn't need physical contact to do that, and there are devices which can detect movement at a distance through opaque solid objects. However, it wouldn't be so simple as to display a plus or a minus. You would actually have to look at a display of what you could see. The other thing is, if you did have such a device, you'd be able to see through walls with it. |
|
| |
Actually, i did used to think it was «soufflé», which conjures up strange images. |
|
| |