Hacker News Reader

Comment by voisin | Hacker News Reader

Given her age and the possibility (at the time, obviously known now) of a lengthy prison sentence, it was also likely the last chance for her biologically.

I think people should stop assuming malice where other, equally probable, rationales could apply. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt.

View on HN

Stop assuming malice of someone who willfully misled investors, her own employees, and even consumers who thought they were getting medical analysis? I'm all for second chances, but she expunged all of hers during her time at Theranos.

Malice in a greed-driven business context just might not equate to malice in growing another person inside your body, right? You see how those might be different and one doesn’t necessarily lead to the other?

> Given her age and the possibility (at the time, obviously known now) of a lengthy prison sentence, it was also likely the last chance for her biologically.

To be honest, this comment makes my blood boil. Her "last change biologically"? This is not some career/investment/whatever cold calculation. This is not about her, it's about the kids. Having kids is not a right, it is instead a possibility that comes with serious responsibility.

> I think people should stop assuming malice where other, equally probable, rationales could apply. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder if the same "benefit of the doubt" would be so readily applied to a poor person. I can picture the scenario: some poor woman that is likely going to face a long prison sentence decides to have two kids meanwhile. I can very well imagine what people would say in this case.

I agree with your first paragraph response to me completely, or at least I agree that this type of thinking isn’t acceptable, but would you agree that it is a huge part of the social discourse on women of a certain ages “running out of time” and “hearing their biological clock ticking” etc etc etc? It isn’t inconceivable that she had these thoughts and figured she would have kids while she still could?

Not giving the benefit of the doubt to a person who one said: "They Don’t Put Pretty People Like Me in Jail"

[1] https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/elizabeth-holmes-sentencing...

She's lying again here... twice!

I would rather not give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has shown no remorse over blatant fraud and corruption, that quite possibly led to someone committing suicide.

What's your take on Bush Jr?

Honestly, who cares?

Why should I care about this convicted criminal over all the others?

I have no sympathy for this white collar criminal, she doesn't affect my life in any way, she's completely irrelevant to my day to day life.

Why should I give the benefit of the doubt to her over say, someone from Enron or a convicted rapist?

I agree. I don’t have any sympathy, but I think it is a logical fallacy to just assume she had kids to try to get out of jail. There are other perfectly reasonable explanations.

She lost the privilege of not being attributed malice when she pulled a scam of a decade.

She can afford to freeze her eggs. She knew there was a good chance these kids would grow up without her, and she chose to gamble.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com