Wikipedia supports mpreg
My dad likes to end our weekly calls with readings from the funny notes at the end of the New Scientist magazine, mostly examples of dumb 'science' sent in by sharp-eyed readers. This is often actually funny, and only occasionally uncomfortable. Pretty sure dad's mind didn't go where mine did on reading this one out though:
"The wikipedia entry for Ejaculatory duct obstruction notes that treatment is not without its complications:
A method to treat ejaculatory duct obstruction is transurethral resection of the ejaculatory ducts (TURED).[6] This operative procedure is relatively invasive, has some severe complications and led to natural pregnancies in approx. 20% of affected men.[7] "
That's, erm, some complication. Yes indeed.
My brain, obviously, said - hey, snickfic would love this...
(I love, incidentally, that New Scientist has been out for a week or so and the wikipedia entry is still unamended.)
Now, someone has blown the bugle of Penguin Spuffy. I must away to some other part of wikipedia to get inspiration.
"The wikipedia entry for Ejaculatory duct obstruction notes that treatment is not without its complications:
A method to treat ejaculatory duct obstruction is transurethral resection of the ejaculatory ducts (TURED).[6] This operative procedure is relatively invasive, has some severe complications and led to natural pregnancies in approx. 20% of affected men.[7] "
That's, erm, some complication. Yes indeed.
My brain, obviously, said - hey, snickfic would love this...
(I love, incidentally, that New Scientist has been out for a week or so and the wikipedia entry is still unamended.)
Now, someone has blown the bugle of Penguin Spuffy. I must away to some other part of wikipedia to get inspiration.