Post: #51

(04-11-2017 01:34 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  I'm struggling to think of a worse one. Murdoch's wasn't this bad. Man... I cannot think of anyone.

Not in strict dollar amount, but in how the guy got affected personally, I think John Cleese wins the booby prize:

"John Cleese's divorce leaves his ex richer than him"

The man was retired but had to go back to work after this divorce rape.

Post: #52

(05-05-2016 11:53 AM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Shall we look at retardation?



This is a horrible example, and the fact that she is a pop star will magnify her choice to other women.

She is probably got pregnant via IVF. The per-implementation genetic screenings are comprehensive (all chromosomes checked) and affordable (under $2k). The screening isn't 100% as there is a possibility that the one cell from the blastocyst that was tested was the "good" whilst the others were bad... this however is really rare.

After that you have several blood screening where the fetus's blood is separated from the mother's and the chromosomes are checked again. This is a screening, not a diagnostic test and only gives you the % possibility that something is wrong. If the blood tests show a possibility of an issue, then you do an Amniocentesis test (needle into the womb, collecting cells). This is a diagnostic test and is 99%+ accurate in detecting any issues with chromosomes 13, 18, 21, and 23 (issues with the other chromosomes will cause the mother to self abort).

On top of the genetic testing, ultrasound is used to detect potential issues (i.e. fluid build-up in the neck of the fetus during the 1st trimester is a sign of Down's).

Basically, in the USA, having a chromosome abnormal kid is very, very low (assuming the pregnancy is terminated), especially with IVF. Though IVF is expensive as hell.