Hacker News Reader

Comment by kkielhofner | Hacker News Reader

You know what REALLY bothers me about this?

She (possibly) gets pregnant during the first trial to garner sympathy. Even if you have a charitable interpretation of this only the worst of the worst narcissistic sociopaths decide to "start a family" when they're potentially facing 15 years in Federal Prison. She's currently pregnant with her second child.

Now those kids get to grown up without a mother and live the rest of their lives with the knowledge or at least suspicion they're in this world because their con-artist mother was trying to manipulate the justice system.

Even IF you take the approach that she thought big and failed, doing no real wrong the situation with her pregnancies (in my mind) isn't up for debate. On this issue alone I find her completely reprehensible.

View on HN

Or she's 38 and her fertility window is closing. I'll hold many things against her, she deserves prison time, but I won't hold having a child against her or judge her for it. She may be doing it for the reasons you mentioned, but so many women go to prison with far fewer resources to care for their children while they're in. I doubt she thought any seasoned judge would take it into consideration.

I know a lot of things go into such decisions as significant as starting a family but if she had children at any point in the 20 years before being indicted I would have a completely different perspective on this and nothing but sympathy for her in terms of the family situation.

In terms of fertility window - too bad. This is one of the many things she should have been thinking of while conducting her fraud over the past decades. Not everyone should be a parent. She also has the resources to do things like freeze eggs, etc. I know that's not a guarantee but plenty of men have children at 50 and it doesn't seem terrible for the kids.

While the children will be better off than parents with fewer resources this is an almost guaranteed "years of therapy" situation for these poor kids.

Judges don't convict people - juries do and I think it's been demonstrated she's very calculating and conniving. If there was even a remote chance she could skate free based on one juror holding out on a conviction based on her family situation she would take it (and did). It just didn't work and the kids will be the ones paying for it.

All fair points - in this case though, the judge determined the sentence right and the jury only the guilt?

Yes, the judge determines the sentencing. I'm not a lawyer and it's complicated but from my understanding there are a lot of quirks (for lack of a better term) when it comes to the sentencing phase. For example, prosecutors asking for sentencing are essentially given cart blanche in terms of making arguments and presenting evidence to the judge to impact sentencing that can't be challenged by the defense and usually can't be introduced during the trial itself. Basically when it comes to sentencing both sides get to take the gloves off.

And she will be out before she's 50 and be able to have some relationship with her kids. I agree with you (and not the grandparent comment) -- I can't hold this against her.

She could have frozen eggs and done surrogate birth at 50. Or adopt (likely private as she is now a convicted felon). Average life expectancy for women in the US is 79 years and much longer for wealthy people. That's long enough to not only be there for your children in their important development years but also (likely) attend their wedding, be a grandparent, etc. This has the added benefit of the kids not having the psychological damage that comes from the whole "did my mom have me just to try to stay out of prison?" aspect.

She's very intelligent and calculating and had to have considered these substantially better options for starting a family given her situation. Instead, I'm convinced these pregnancies were timed to solely benefit her with likely no consideration for what it meant for these poor kids.

Frozen the eggs? It doesn’t work that way. Viability drops off a cliff after 5 years and ivf is not a simple process. It’s hell on a woman. No one is going to want to go through it multiple times if they don’t have to or risk having quintuplets.

I was conceived via anonymous donor sperm and IVF but I wasn't aware of the viability timeline issue. Sorry for that. Yet still there's adoption.

As I just elaborated further on in another comment I didn't have parents for the first 10 years of my life either and it was damaging to say the least. Also kind of ironic because of the lengths my parents went to have me only to disappear for a decade.

I'm passionate about this and have tremendous sympathy for these kids because in a way I am these kids. I have such a strong dislike for her because I know this. I've lived it.

Can confirm it’s hell, and I was just the male partner and our benefits paid for it. We were fortunate and it took 4 rounds. Also, I don’t think the multiple birth is done any more, that’s just if you use fertility drugs. With IVF, they only implant one embryo that’s made it to day 6 at a time.

Ooooohhhhh the fertility window. Don't commit crimes then

When she was still a hot ticket part of her public image was the assertion that she was too driven about changing the world to have a boyfriend, which sent a lot of impressionable men absolutely ga-ga for her.

https://www.inc.com/magazine/201510/kimberly-weisul/the-long...

She is not going to be a mother to those children. She is not going to care for them. She will not be a part of their development. They will be entering their tween years when she gets out. Her children will not know her and will not particularly want to have a relationship with her.

Her reasons for getting pregnant are solely and exclusively selfish.

She's too old to have kids once she's out though. It's now or never for her.

That's exactly it - "for her". What about the kids?

They will be happy to exist in the first place. They will also have a millionaire father. I think you are projecting.

There’s no point in getting into the philosophical debate that is your first point - with the most obvious response being if they weren’t here they wouldn’t know the difference. There is no “they”.

It’s really disheartening to see this come up again and again on this thread.

If anyone would really trade the first 10 years of their life with their mother for any amount of money I truly feel sorry for them. Yes they have a dad. But they also have a mom - but not really because she’s in prison.

This tendency here on HN to presume this situation won’t be of significant negative impact to these kids is shocking to me.

If you really think a kid who lives the first ten years of their life never seeing their mom outside of a prison will be just fine because they have a “millionaire father” I’m not sure what to say.

There are worse situations. Is she selfish because she wants kids before she goes to prison? Is it better to not have kids, instead of having kids while you are in prison? Is it better to not be alive, than to have to overcome a difficult situation? If you don't want to get philosophical, then don't dispense your moraline.

It's ok to feel for the kids. To feel for them so much to tell them you shouldn't exist, is a bit much.

> They will be happy to exist in the first place.

Projecting much?

Probably not the best idea to commit crimes that carry prison sentences if you want to start a family. I agree with OP. This is truly horrifying narcissism.

It is terrible if that was the reason, but as for the kids, plenty of kids grow up with one parent or raised by grandparents, aunts/uncles, or adoptive parents.

Even if it wasn't the reason I don't think it's a stretch to say the seed of doubt that this situation plants in the minds of these children will likely cause a lot of completely unnecessary psychological damage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com