Hacker News Reader

Comment by newaccount74 | Hacker News Reader

I'm not a fan of fraudsters like Holmes, but I still think she has a right to have children even if she is convicted, and it's a cheap shot to call her out for that.

There's no reason to be concerned for the development of her kids without knowing more about the family situation. I'm going to assume her husband will be capable of raising them.

View on HN

It's not a cheap shot when, given all that we know about her endless pathological lying and manipulation, it's very plausible that getting pregnant twice during her trial is a ruse in an attempt to diminish her sentence by manipulating peoples emotions around mothers and children. She doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that you appear to be giving her, especially with this new data point that she was allegedly attempting to flee to Mexico.

But maybe there is no deception and she saw it as her last chance to have children before prison. That is possible too. But it still has the appearance of attempting to use her pregnancies to influence justice, regardless of if she intended it. I mean, what kind of heartless people would send a new mother to prison?

The biological clock is ticking. She won't be able to have children [safely] when she gets out of prison. It's pretty understandable that she tries now, IMHO. Prison is not supposed to take away all of your humanity even before it began. She stole some money. Let's not be that harsh.

You have provided a plausible explanation. Given her other behavior, a darker explanation is also plausible.

> She stole some money. Let's not be that harsh.

As far as I am aware, she also deployed medical tests which she knew did not work to retail users. That is pretty messed up.

She conspired to falsify medical tests for profit. That is far worse than stealing money.

You really should read Bad Blood. Theranos misdiagnosed cancer patients.

To me, having the right to have a child also means having the responsibility to raise it. How someone can be so selfish to want a child without the chance to actually raise it and be part of its live, is beyond my comprehension.

Assuming “there’s no reason to be concerned” about the unborn children of a high profile, convicted criminal is awfully naive. In the real world, good parents don’t abandon their kids at birth. They also don’t defend criminals who abandon their kids.

How selfish.

A lot of people grow up with a single parent. In this case, the other parent isn't even gone, they just can't be around all the time.

I just find it extremely disturbing how quick people are to judge people for having kids. It's an innate drive in most of us, and not being able to have kids can be a terrible thing.

If it's selfish to want to have kids, then it's even more selfish to tell other people that they shouldn't have kids.

Intentionally having another kid right before being jailed for 11 years is selfish. If that isn’t obvious, you’re welcome to ask. When the kids grow up, just ask them how they feel about the kind of abandonment that you and Elizabeth Holmes believe in.

Well, assuming the kids haven’t cut off contact with their failed parent.

Do you think poor people shouldn't have kids either? Or people who serve in the military? What about people who have a family history of cancer?

Of course it would be nice if every kid could have parents like in a Disney movie. The reality is that many people can't offer that to their children, for some reason or another. But that doesn't mean they can't still try to do their best. And with a supportive spouse and family, there's no reason to assume Holmes kids will have a worse childhood than the average rich kid with divorced parents.

Holmes punishment is jail time, not being banned from motherhood.

It is entirely reasonable to be concerned for the development of a child whose mother is on the verge of becoming a convict felon and serving a long prison sentence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com