Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

>>"She shouldn't have had a child with the wrong guy," says Murray, and Maharidge seems to just accept this. The proper response would have been to dig deeper. Should she have made sure that she couldn't have children first before having sex? Should she have not had sex? How could she verify that that guy was the right guy?

I agree with the rest of your post, but I have mixed feelings about the above.

Within my relatively small circle of friends, two unmarried couples recently announced that they were expecting babies. Neither couple has announced plans for a wedding.

I just don't get it. I mean, my mind bends, but cannot fully wrap around the concept of willingly having kids out of wedlock. I definitely hope things turn out well for the aforementioned couples and their children, but statistically speaking the odds are not in their favor.

View on HN

Eh, babies happen. My friend and I both had unplanned babies in law school. She and her boyfriend are still together, but unmarried, while my now-wife and I got married (but not because we felt we had to--we were already planning on it). Still, it circles back to a point someone made in a sibling comment: stuff that's life-ruining for people with little means is much less of a big deal for wealthier people. All four of us have well-paying jobs and could take care of a baby by ourselves if our relationships didn't work out. Three of the four of us have parents who have the financial resources and the time flexibility (by virtue of being professionals instead of people who have to punch a clock) to help out in numerous different ways. The accidents are, between us, a joke about how difficult it is to use birth control because we haven't really had to face any consequences as a result (aside from the whole not sleeping because of night feedings thing).

Meanwhile, my wife's parents had to drop out of college when they got accidentally pregnant with her, because their parents didn't have the resources to support them.

I don't like it when people overemphasize the impact of "choices." Choices don't have the same meaning for all of us. Life is a different kind of easy when fucking up doesn't mean derailing all of your plans.

>I don't like it when people overemphasize the impact of "choices." Choices don't have the same meaning for all of us. Life is a different kind of easy when fucking up doesn't mean derailing all of your plans.

I'm okay with that. What would be the point of being wealthy if it didn't make your life easier?

Well, a couple of things.

One, considering the national divorce rate, wedlock doesn't mean quite as much as it used to: had both of your couples married, statistically, we'd expect one pair to divorce anyways. Two, they may have opted for a private wedding sans name change you weren't invited to. Not likely.. but possible. Three, sometimes the other person dies. They might enlist; they might get gunned down in a drive-by; they might develop cancer; etc. Is it the "wrong guy" if you have kids with someone who happened to be working in the WTC on 9/11?

Single parenthood just isn't hard to come by, especially in our hyper-individualized age where the notion of children being raised by a village is regarded as a hippie thing. In the grand scheme, wedlock is a relatively flimsy shelter against the storm of reality... but I agree that it's definitely a shelter.

Just incase it interests anyone, New Zealand has competed its census. >>A total of 8785 married couples divorced - about 10.1 divorces for every 1000 estimated existing marriages - and just over one-third (35 per cent) of couples who married in 1987 had divorced before their silver wedding anniversary.<<

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=...

There's more data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography Though their New Zealand data is outdated.

> I just don't get it. I mean, my mind bends, but cannot fully wrap around the concept of willingly having kids out of wedlock.

I suspect one reason is, many atheists and agnostics associate weddings with religion.

Since they are quite happy to live without a religion, they would also get by without the need for religious ceremonies like weddings.

I'd agree with this. I can't judge a couple that has kids out of wedlock any more than I can the married couple. The wedding is irrelevant compared to the decision to have or keep the child.

My partner and I have twins, and are not married. We both have been married previously, and it really doesn't make a big difference to us. We have a better bond than either of us did with our former spouses, and have been together longer than we were with the people we married. It's cool.

I feel like you're much to attached to a rather outdated tradition. Given the divorce rate in the country, I don't see how having the legal document makes you more or less likely to be able to successfully raise a child together.

What a bizarre misinterpretation of statistics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com