If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   You should not conceive a child in May   (healthland.time.com) divider line 52
    More: PSA, pregnancy, marital status, socioeconomic status  
•       •       •

14317 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jul 2013 at 3:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-09 11:47:32 PM  
I don't know anyone by that name.
 
2013-07-09 11:56:42 PM  
What's wrong with her?
 
2013-07-10 12:28:19 AM  
First article comment says it all:


NOT SO FAST, TIME MAGAZINE:

Title: "...Why You Shouldn't Conceive a Baby in May"

Concluding Sentence: "So is timing really everything? PERHAPS [capslock added]. At the very least, it's one of the many things worth considering if you're thinking of starting a family."

In other words, the author makes an assertion in her title, and then blatantly walks back that assertion in her concluding sentence.  She sounds more ambivalent than sure of herself.

Just a word to the wise at TIME Magazine:  If you continue to post these lovely pieces of drivel, you will continue to bleed revenues and readership, because (quite frankly) a high school student could write a better article than this one.
 
2013-07-10 12:53:31 AM  
I hear she's a real whore. Stick with April or June
 
2013-07-10 01:36:28 AM  
I don't think my goat really cares about when we conceive.
 
2013-07-10 03:53:23 AM  
I generally have my concubines executed in April, so this is of no great concern.
 
2013-07-10 03:55:35 AM  
Kind of late, eh?
 
2013-07-10 03:56:42 AM  

TommyymmoT: I don't think my goat really cares about when we conceive.


TFTC bro.
 
2013-07-10 03:57:01 AM  
Spider-Man's aunt? She's a bit old for me. You can have her.
 
2013-07-10 03:58:28 AM  
By Belinda Luscombe @youseless

Couldn't of picked a better tag than that, with that kind of writing.
 
2013-07-10 04:06:34 AM  
If you're a woman trying to have a baby and have the wherewithal to control the timing of conception, then it really makes sense to heed warnings like this to minimize risks of having a handicapped child. With women having children later and later in life, it's a good idea to try to reduce avoidable risks while unavoidable risks increase.
 
2013-07-10 04:11:30 AM  
img850.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-10 04:23:41 AM  
Surely the can't mean a Lifeforce-era Mathilda May.

img99.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-10 04:31:59 AM  
The world needs ditch diggers too!
 
2013-07-10 04:50:07 AM  
Children are reprehensible creatures regardless of which month your rancid spurts found their way up inside their mother.
And they smell bad. Don't say yours don't, you know they do. Go into your den, I guarantee that blindfolded you could find the area of carpet where your kid(s) play. Hint; it's the bit covered in fecal matter and milk-breath drool.
I'm not advocating that we don't breed per se, just that the planet would be a lot calmer and smell way better if we took everyone under the age of 25 and shot them at the moon.
And yes, 25 is still a kid these days.
 
2013-07-10 04:58:41 AM  

Z-clipped: First article comment says it all:


NOT SO FAST, TIME MAGAZINE:

Title: "...Why You Shouldn't Conceive a Baby in May"

Concluding Sentence: "So is timing really everything? PERHAPS [capslock added]. At the very least, it's one of the many things worth considering if you're thinking of starting a family."

In other words, the author makes an assertion in her title, and then blatantly walks back that assertion in her concluding sentence.  She sounds more ambivalent than sure of herself.

Just a word to the wise at TIME Magazine:  If you continue to post these lovely pieces of drivel, you will continue to bleed revenues and readership, because (quite frankly) a high school student could write a better article than this one.


Consider this: it is pretty damned popular to write an article that refutes its headline. Everyone but the most hardcore academic journals has "Can Y spell the end of X?" headlines, then you read the article and find out the author admits to speculation. Someone is picking on Time for what is a common journalism cliche.
 
2013-07-10 05:18:46 AM  
Hm, and here I'd thought it would have been related to the fact that your crotchfruit might not have a birthday every year if you're lucky...
 
2013-07-10 05:19:07 AM  
 Meh. Trying to manipulate the baby's month of birth seems as crazy/compulsive as trying to manipulate the baby's gender. Young mothers worry about too much stuff. Get in a stable marriage, get healthy, get your vaccinations, get pregnant. Sure, do what you can with the big stuff, but manipulating every little probability factor seems compulsive, as if the monster bride and helicopter mom think are carried to even greater extremes. Relax, be good, and enjoy life.
 
2013-07-10 05:23:15 AM  

UsikFark: Z-clipped: First article comment says it all:


NOT SO FAST, TIME MAGAZINE:

Title: "...Why You Shouldn't Conceive a Baby in May"

Concluding Sentence: "So is timing really everything? PERHAPS [capslock added]. At the very least, it's one of the many things worth considering if you're thinking of starting a family."

In other words, the author makes an assertion in her title, and then blatantly walks back that assertion in her concluding sentence.  She sounds more ambivalent than sure of herself.

Just a word to the wise at TIME Magazine:  If you continue to post these lovely pieces of drivel, you will continue to bleed revenues and readership, because (quite frankly) a high school student could write a better article than this one.

Consider this: it is pretty damned popular to write an article that refutes its headline. Everyone but the most hardcore academic journals has "Can Y spell the end of X?" headlines, then you read the article and find out the author admits to speculation. Someone is picking on Time for what is a common journalism cliche.


NEWSFLASH (for the 10,000th time): Authors rarely write their own headlines (although they can sometimes suggest), especially at major (OK, formerly major) publications. Blame the copy editor or the layout guys if the (hit-grabbing) headline doesn't match the story.

/didn't RTFA
 
2013-07-10 05:25:47 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: If you're a woman trying to have a baby and have the wherewithal to control the timing of conception, then it really makes sense to heed warnings like this to minimize risks of having a handicapped child. With women having children later and later in life, it's a good idea to try to reduce avoidable risks while unavoidable risks increase.


Bullshiat, even knowing what you're about.

My sister and I were BORN near the end of May, four years and two days apart. She was nearly three months premature. I lucked out with the mere learning disability.

Either we're insanely more weighted in statistical probability, or this article is absolute horse shiat.
 
2013-07-10 05:26:04 AM  

YoOjo: better if we took everyone under the age of 25 and shot them at the moon.


Can you take the subset that is women between 18 and 25 and shoot them towards me first? Thanks.
 
2013-07-10 05:26:47 AM  

gregscott:  Meh. Trying to manipulate the baby's month of birth seems as crazy/compulsive as trying to manipulate the baby's gender. Young mothers worry about too much stuff. Get in a stable marriage, get healthy, get your vaccinations, get pregnant. Sure, do what you can with the big stuff, but manipulating every little probability factor seems compulsive, as if the monster bride and helicopter mom think are carried to even greater extremes. Relax, be good, and enjoy life.


This is about the farking, not the birth.
 
2013-07-10 05:30:20 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: UsikFark: Z-clipped: First article comment says it all:


NOT SO FAST, TIME MAGAZINE:

Title: "...Why You Shouldn't Conceive a Baby in May"

Concluding Sentence: "So is timing really everything? PERHAPS [capslock added]. At the very least, it's one of the many things worth considering if you're thinking of starting a family."

In other words, the author makes an assertion in her title, and then blatantly walks back that assertion in her concluding sentence.  She sounds more ambivalent than sure of herself.

Just a word to the wise at TIME Magazine:  If you continue to post these lovely pieces of drivel, you will continue to bleed revenues and readership, because (quite frankly) a high school student could write a better article than this one.

Consider this: it is pretty damned popular to write an article that refutes its headline. Everyone but the most hardcore academic journals has "Can Y spell the end of X?" headlines, then you read the article and find out the author admits to speculation. Someone is picking on Time for what is a common journalism cliche.

NEWSFLASH (for the 10,000th time): Authors rarely write their own headlines (although they can sometimes suggest), especially at major (OK, formerly major) publications. Blame the copy editor or the layout guys if the (hit-grabbing) headline doesn't match the story.

/didn't RTFA


This is true. It is the source of the infamous 'use of GOTO considered harmful' because editors liked the "considered harmful" headline in the '60s.
 
2013-07-10 05:33:56 AM  

ladyfortuna: AverageAmericanGuy: If you're a woman trying to have a baby and have the wherewithal to control the timing of conception, then it really makes sense to heed warnings like this to minimize risks of having a handicapped child. With women having children later and later in life, it's a good idea to try to reduce avoidable risks while unavoidable risks increase.

Bullshiat, even knowing what you're about.

My sister and I were BORN near the end of May, four years and two days apart. She was nearly three months premature. I lucked out with the mere learning disability.

Either we're insanely more weighted in statistical probability, or this article is absolute horse shiat.


I'm not discounting genetics, nor am I saying that abnormalities can't happen outside of May conception. But if you're gunning for a healthy kid, it makes sense to take all risk factors into account.
 
2013-07-10 05:35:05 AM  

ladyfortuna: AverageAmericanGuy: If you're a woman trying to have a baby and have the wherewithal to control the timing of conception, then it really makes sense to heed warnings like this to minimize risks of having a handicapped child. With women having children later and later in life, it's a good idea to try to reduce avoidable risks while unavoidable risks increase.

Bullshiat, even knowing what you're about.

My sister and I were BORN near the end of May, four years and two days apart. She was nearly three months premature. I lucked out with the mere learning disability.

Either we're insanely more weighted in statistical probability, or this article is absolute horse shiat.


Two births is not a trend. Your case having statistical significance would be the horseshiat. The article cites a particular study.
 
2013-07-10 05:42:52 AM  
Was born towards the end of May, if I had a couple more IQ points i'd be an evil genius.

/yes bald.
 
2013-07-10 06:13:24 AM  
Was conceived in June and my mother smoked, so here I am.
 
drp
2013-07-10 06:45:18 AM  
It's the October conceptions you have to watch out for, because they mean July deliveries, when the new interns are starting.  :-)
 
2013-07-10 07:03:30 AM  
There's this new thing called vaccines that...oh wait, I might have found the problem here.
 
2013-07-10 07:03:34 AM  
Yeah, but will you love me in December as you would have in May?
 
2013-07-10 07:11:02 AM  
You also need to avoid a November conception as the cut off for the school year is 1st September (in the UK). Children born in August are almost a year younger than their contemporaries and do less well educationally.

So it looks as if the best time to conceive is during those long cold winter months when it's nice and snug under the duvet.
 
2013-07-10 07:16:09 AM  

ladyfortuna: Either we're insanely more weighted in statistical probability, or this article is absolute horse shiat.


You can deduce anything statistically from a sample of 2.
 
2013-07-10 07:51:26 AM  
The article talks about the HUGE scientific mystery of why moms and babies who start pregnancy in the summer gain more weight than moms who start in the winter. Lets think a minute shall we? Moms who get knocked up in winter go into whale phase in the summer months; the opposite is true as well. When a woman is hugely pregnant, of course she's more likely to eat more and gain more weight in the winter months.

Perhaps I should apply for a grant so that I can run a multi-year study. We must get to the bottom of this mystery!
 
2013-07-10 07:52:27 AM  

Crinklepouch: Was conceived in June and my mother smoked, so here I am.


Conceived in July and my mother smoked with me as well.

On the plus side, I was born thin.


FTHL :  You should not conceive a child in May

Or June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March or April.
 
2013-07-10 07:55:57 AM  
www.blogcdn.com
 
2013-07-10 08:12:59 AM  

YoOjo: Children are reprehensible creatures regardless of which month your rancid spurts found their way up inside their mother.
And they smell bad. Don't say yours don't, you know they do. Go into your den, I guarantee that blindfolded you could find the area of carpet where your kid(s) play. Hint; it's the bit covered in fecal matter and milk-breath drool.
I'm not advocating that we don't breed per se, just that the planet would be a lot calmer and smell way better if we took everyone under the age of 25 and shot them at the moon.
And yes, 25 is still a kid these days.


Drinking at 4:50 in the morning again?
 
2013-07-10 08:32:20 AM  

Z-clipped: First article comment says it all:


NOT SO FAST, TIME MAGAZINE:

Title: "...Why You Shouldn't Conceive a Baby in May"

Concluding Sentence: "So is timing really everything? PERHAPS [capslock added]. At the very least, it's one of the many things worth considering if you're thinking of starting a family."

In other words, the author makes an assertion in her title, and then blatantly walks back that assertion in her concluding sentence.  She sounds more ambivalent than sure of herself.

Just a word to the wise at TIME Magazine:  If you continue to post these lovely pieces of drivel, you will continue to bleed revenues and readership, because (quite frankly) a high school student could write a better article than this one.


You said it best before I had a chancè to. This was obviously based on an observational study. 80% of observational studies are useless, worthless, and wrong. It's because they are not controlled, not double blind, subjective and based on assumptions and biases. correlation does not equal causation.

Silly drivel like this belongs in the national Enquirer.

Then again, I remember the very old quote about  Time/Life magazines.

"Time is for people who can't think and Life is for people who can't read."
 
2013-07-10 08:40:04 AM  
You should try to avoid conceiving in December/January/Feb. Due to the excellent standards in mental health diagnosis, being born in the month before school year cut-off dates raises your ADD "risk" by 50% compared to being born the month after.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933294/
 
2013-07-10 08:41:48 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: [www.blogcdn.com image 250x307]


Came for James, leaving satisfied.

Wait...

/Phrasing!
//Oh, c**k
 
2013-07-10 08:46:00 AM  

Target Builder: You should try to avoid conceiving in December/January/Feb. Due to the excellent standards in mental health diagnosis, being born in the month before school year cut-off dates raises your ADD "risk" by 50% compared to being born the month after.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933294/


Again, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The older kids in the class tend to pick on the younger ones. Is it really ADD or is it stress?
 
2013-07-10 08:51:00 AM  

Astorix: Target Builder: You should try to avoid conceiving in December/January/Feb. Due to the excellent standards in mental health diagnosis, being born in the month before school year cut-off dates raises your ADD "risk" by 50% compared to being born the month after.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933294/

Again, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The older kids in the class tend to pick on the younger ones. Is it really ADD or is it stress?


There was a heavy dose of sarcasm in my post. The kids don't have ADD, they're just younger than the rest of the class so when teachers compare them to the rest of the kids they see them as having shorter attention spans and being more difficult to control.
 
2013-07-10 09:02:40 AM  
You should not conceive a child in May

FTF Subby.
 
2013-07-10 09:17:15 AM  
May-born witches will marry muggles.
 
2013-07-10 09:40:59 AM  
I'm guessing it's because they'd have to share their birthday with Christmas, but then I'm bad at math.
 
2013-07-10 09:46:58 AM  

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: YoOjo: Children are reprehensible creatures regardless of which month your rancid spurts found their way up inside their mother.
And they smell bad. Don't say yours don't, you know they do. Go into your den, I guarantee that blindfolded you could find the area of carpet where your kid(s) play. Hint; it's the bit covered in fecal matter and milk-breath drool.
I'm not advocating that we don't breed per se, just that the planet would be a lot calmer and smell way better if we took everyone under the age of 25 and shot them at the moon.
And yes, 25 is still a kid these days.

Drinking at 4:50 in the morning again?


Five years sober in November.
 
2013-07-10 10:29:42 AM  
Why post this in July?

My oldest was concieved in May.  I greatly enjoyed the process.  It was the horniest my wife has ever been for a span of 3 days solid (reaching the level of what would have been considered mediocre sex when I was 19.)  And my son turned out fine, 2 weeks early but still 9 lbs.
 
2013-07-10 11:03:59 AM  

UsikFark: Z-clipped: First article comment says it all:


NOT SO FAST, TIME MAGAZINE:

Title: "...Why You Shouldn't Conceive a Baby in May"

Concluding Sentence: "So is timing really everything? PERHAPS [capslock added]. At the very least, it's one of the many things worth considering if you're thinking of starting a family."

In other words, the author makes an assertion in her title, and then blatantly walks back that assertion in her concluding sentence.  She sounds more ambivalent than sure of herself.

Just a word to the wise at TIME Magazine:  If you continue to post these lovely pieces of drivel, you will continue to bleed revenues and readership, because (quite frankly) a high school student could write a better article than this one.

Consider this: it is pretty damned popular to write an article that refutes its headline. Everyone but the most hardcore academic journals has "Can Y spell the end of X?" headlines, then you read the article and find out the author admits to speculation. Someone is picking on Time for what is a common journalism cliche.


Yeah, except this isn't the old "question in the headline" motif. This is like "Why I love bacon: meh, I have no strong feelings about bacon either way." The WHY takes the irrelevancy of the article to a whole new level.

And just because this nonsense has become common doesn't mean Time shouldn't be taken to task over it. Mocking the plummeting standards of journalism is Fark's raison d'etre.
 
2013-07-10 11:20:50 AM  
So Prom babies are born smaller?
 
2013-07-10 11:40:55 AM  
February babies represent!
 
2013-07-10 12:10:10 PM  
My daughter was conceived in January and born a month early in September.  I have nothing to add to this story, except that summertime pregnancy is miserable.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report