Samantha Brick strikes again

kfallon

My God she gets more beautiful with every passing day, what man could resist her......

:pac:

wolfpawnat

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Fair enough, I'll admit I'm not aware of IVF stats. I've seen colleagues go through it and succeed, and I've seen the terrible toll it can take on someone when it fails.

However, it brings joy and completion to a lot of families- I hand on heart don't know if I'd do it if I found I couldn't get pregnant naturally, perhaps I would or perhaps I'd look at adoption instead.

But to wish it had never existed just because you didn't get your own way is ridiculous. Everyone who starts down that long road is aware that it may not happen for them.

I feel sorry that she was unable to conceive, but less so given her tantrum.

The day you make an appointment via your GP to a fertility clinic, you are told the general costs and the odds. No couple (or in some cases just woman) can deny they don't know the odds.

It is tragic for those who do not succeed, even the TV is full of pregnancy and parenting shows, so many where the mothers did not want a pregnancy at that times. You can understand any persons anger. But she really does feel like she is the only one to go through it. There is a Trying to Conceive forum on this site and the heartache you see there is gutwrenching, so yes anger and heartache are understandable. But why should something never have existed because it did not work for her.

That is like saying chemo should not exist because it gives false hope to so many who it does not help. A sick logic.

666irishguy

She is typical of many in the world these days. She can't get what she wants and just can't accept it isn't going happen. Therefore it's all terribly unfair and they have to 'speak out' (dribble nonsense) about it. IVF helps increase the chances of having a child. It's not a magic bullet. But I'd say what is eating her more about the situation is not IVF or the fact that she can't have children, but it is the fact that she has had to use IVF, which points out to her that she is to put it frankly getting older and is unable to keep up with everybody else and ape the celebrity mummy fad we have been seeing the last few years. Must be terrible for a shallow intellectual and a narcissist like her to realize that.

Ray Palmer

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Because the right to have your own children is beyond a basic right. It is something hardwired into the very fabric of every species. We as a species have developed a way to do it even when there should be no chance of it. There is no describing maternal instinct. It has no rational, somethings it becomes worse than any other obsessive disorder for women.

Because it is so irrational is probably why it should be legislated against. To spend that kind of money on conceiving in an over populated world is really strange. A western child will consume more resources than the planet has if everybody did.

Morally speaking it is worse than abortion if you think about it.

LordSutch

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Samantha Brick strikes again

Poor Matt Cooper having to tackle with 'Samantha' all over again

I wonder has he got the TH yet.

admiralofthefleet

cant believe nobody has mentioned that she has a face like a bag of spanners

biko

I don't know about you others but I'd give her one night of hot biko love.

Grayson

SB2013 wrote: »

University educated smart lady. That's how she likes to describe herself anyway.

Bet it was a Poly

speedboatchase

Stop, OP. She is basically a stunt journalist. Nobody takes her opinion seriously and her columns are only designed to go viral and gain hits for Daily Mail. Stop giving her attention!

Grayson

speedboatchase wrote: »

Stop, OP. She is basically a stcunt journalist. Nobody takes her opinion seriously and her columns are only designed to go viral and gain hits for Daily Mail. Stop giving her attention!

FYP

Grayson

Anyone else wondering who settled more, her or pascal?

wolfpawnat

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Because it is so irrational is probably why it should be legislated against. To spend that kind of money on conceiving in an over populated world is really strange. A western child will consume more resources than the planet has if everybody did.

Morally speaking it is worse than abortion if you think about it.

Then can you not argue the same for naturally able to conceive people? Yes the planet is being more and more populated and yes there are hundreds of millions of children in less than perfect homes, but how can you then dictate who can and cannot have kids. It is a basic human function. My 2 kids were accidental, preventative measures were taken but they failed (as you are informed they can sometimes do) but you cannot go to another person and say, "you cannot have kids" when biology may do otherwise.

Also, at the risk of sounding callous, why should a person who clearly is financially and what you'd imagine is emotionally able to have children be told they cannot because in other countries and indeed in other Irish homes, they cannot/will not raise their children. It is only worse than abortion if they go out of their way to have children they will not look after, as long as the child's needs are met, then the argument for the best part is invalid.

Lunni

She's a rotten person. How selfish. Just because it didn't work for her means it shouldn't have been invented? What about those 1 in 4 women who now have longed for children as a result of IVF?

movingsucks

I couldn't even read the article - WHAT is with the head on her in the picture? And the pose?
What is that? Defiance? Anger? Bravery?
What?

Ray Palmer

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Then can you not argue the same for naturally able to conceive people? Yes the planet is being more and more populated and yes there are hundreds of millions of children in less than perfect homes, but how can you then dictate who can and cannot have kids. It is a basic human function. My 2 kids were accidental, preventative measures were taken but they failed (as you are informed they can sometimes do) but you cannot go to another person and say, "you cannot have kids" when biology may do otherwise.

Also, at the risk of sounding callous, why should a person who clearly is financially and what you'd imagine is emotionally able to have children be told they cannot because in other countries and indeed in other Irish homes, they cannot/will not raise their children. It is only worse than abortion if they go out of their way to have children they will not look after, as long as the child's needs are met, then the argument for the best part is invalid.

IVF isn't a basic human function it actually could be introducing issues into the gene pool that nature is preventing. It also causes children to be born with issues that wouldn't otherwise exist.

No reason money buys emotional ability. It is morally worse than abortion because it is taking ones wants over all others. If you are arguing the ability to take care of a child means you should be allowed have kids then you are saying not having the ability to take care of the child means you should be prevented. That is the logical conclusion of the argument.

It isn't less than ideal homes it is children starving literally. WE actually don't need IVF it is just desire. I really feel IVF should not be allowed for single people. It would not interfere with the right or ability to have a child. It will never happen but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Fantastic how she can wind so many people up.

Pherekydes

HondaSami wrote: »

Don't judge her on her last story in the mail.

Are you sure it's her last story? People like her never STFU.

Da Shins Kelly

IVF is fantastic and it really is unbelievable selfishness to wish that it "had never been invented" just because it didn't work out for her. It has and continues to bring happiness to many couples. If she can't cope with the potential upset of the failure of IVF (something that comes with the territory), then maybe she shouldn't have opted for it at all in the first place. She got her own hopes up by choosing to go for treatment. It's not like she was egged on into it with the promise of a child. You choose to go the IVF route, you accept that it may not work. Simples.

HondaSami

Pherekydes wrote: »

Are you sure it's her last story? People like her never STFU.

Very good :P

The headline is to grab the audience and people fall for it every time, she is controversial, people will not actually read the article, what she is saying is what a lot of women feel at some time during IVF and when it fails.
People are reading it the way they want to for their own agenda and a need to slag her off, gaining her more media attention in the process.

Smart woman I'd say.:p

hatrickpatrick

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

http://www.dailymail

Stopped reading there.

aidan24326

Looking at that picture of her, it made me laugh thinking back to that classic piece she did about how women hate her because she's so amazingly attractive. Personally I would consider her plain and average at best.
Gotta hand it to her though if professional troll is her job description then she's pretty good at it.

But as regards IVF, every woman who goes down that road is made well aware of the risks, complications and also the chances of actually conceiving. My sister has twin boys now thanks to IVF, so for all the failures and disappointments there are success stories aswell.

PopePalpatine

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Stopped reading there.

Looks like you need KittenBlock.

seenitall

HondaSami wrote: »

The headline is to grab the audience and people fall for it every time, she is controversial, people will not actually read the article, what she is saying is what a lot of women feel at some time during IVF and when it fails.
People are reading it the way they want to for their own agenda and a need to slag her off, gaining her more media attention in the process.

Agree with this.

At the end of the day, her pieces are a kind of emotional vomiting, just spewing out unfiltered feelings onto the (Daily Mail) pages, and that is what they should be regarded as.

She's lucky that she has, by accident or design, tapped into people's irritable spots and is making some money on the back of it.

I feel sorry for her, truly sorry - she is obviously an unhappy person, for all her boasting about French country life and her big fridge and her husband's "village sex god" status (yes, really!:D) - this is an obviously deeply deluded individual, and in my eyes there is no worse fate than irredeemable delusion.

Larbre34

Funny how everyone derides the Daily Mail, yet their website is one of the most trafficked in its field. There are more people out there getting a guilty pleasure from salacious gossip and liberal bashing than would care to admit it.

Its hardly newsworthy that a Mail columnist has caused upset, why not just forget it and move on, the last thing they deserve is the publicity.

I Heart Internet

Larbre34 wrote: »

Funny how everyone derides the Daily Mail, yet their website is one of the most trafficked in its field. There are more people out there getting a guilty pleasure from salacious gossip and liberal bashing than would care to admit it.

Its hardly newsworthy that a Mail columnist has caused upset, why not just forget it and move on, the last thing they deserve is the publicity.

The Daily Mail website is a riot of colour, photos and silly stories. It's no wonder that it's so popular. It's perfect chewing-gum internet.

The overall political/social slant of the Daily Mail and, in particular it's print version, is beside the point.

Doctor Strange

I'm not surprised her and her husband can't conceive naturally. I mean, I hardly blame the fella for not wanting to go within 10 foot of her.