Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

But life had other plans

danlebrero.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–247 of 247 posts

Re: But life had other plans

#241

Post by trelane »

froh wrote: post #163
samhw wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it really matter whose child it is? You seem to be writing this as if she might give birth to a goblin or something like that. I can't see what's "speaking practically" and "putting the morality aside" here, because there's not really any practical difference.

Yes! Especially several years later. Stupid shit happens, to all of us. And if the kid has 'adopted' the father, then for many years it will be outright traumatic to cut the relationship and trust if that kid just because if some test. Oh, not my DNA, then I don't love you? How narcissistic of a father would that be? Joseph of Nazareth would like to have a word, too... No, there should be very good and compelling rea…

> Joseph of Nazareth would like to have a word, too...

Joseph was going to "divorce her quietly"[1] until an angel intervened.[2] He was kind (was not going to cause her more trouble than necessary) but he also wasn't going to raise another man's child brought about by his almost-wife's (at the time, he thought) infidelity. I think many of us would also reconsider when directed to raise the scion of a deity by a literal angel.

[1] https://biblehub.com/matthew/1-19.htm

[2] https://biblehub.com/matthew/1-24.htm (the interaction was the the verses prior.)

Re: But life had other plans

#242

Post by Johanx64 »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #230
Johanx64 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how else are you going to get evidence? Doing a paternity test is the act of gathering data which could further be used as evidence of faithfulness of your partner. Or else it's just blind trust without any firm footing in reality. If you can't be arsed to do the test for a ONCE or TWICE in a lifetime kind of event with long term consequences because you somehow feel hurt that your partner isn't a fool who builds…

This is a trauma response style logic where the bad/harmful thing is the default and the healthy thing needs to be proven. The fact of the matter is that cheating to the point of clandestinely having children is abnormal and unusual. It isn’t blind faith that your partner is faithful; your partner will show you their faithfulness just by the act of being your partner. It’s not staying out without explanation. It’s em…

There's no trauma response, data suggests that cheating is common. Thereon following through with the baseless assumption that this totally won't happen to you is downright foolish.

All this wishy washy pretense about "emotional engagement" comes off as super dishonest, just to weasel your way out of doing a test (which should be a standard procedure anyway).

That's one of those times where the faithfulness has to be put to test.

Trying to weasel your way out of doing it via emotional manipulations is more of a red flag than anything.

Re: But life had other plans

#243

Post by [deleted] »

yonatron wrote: post #131

Something to consider (or if you're dead set against this idea, don't): Sounds to me like God wacking you over the head with a 2X4 and saying "Hey! Hello?! I'm here. (Yes, for both what you humans call "good" and "bad" ) So be in touch, and stop calling Me "Life"!! "

[deleted]

Re: But life had other plans

#244

Post by [deleted] »

yonatron wrote: post #131

Something to consider (or if you're dead set against this idea, don't): Sounds to me like God wacking you over the head with a 2X4 and saying "Hey! Hello?! I'm here. (Yes, for both what you humans call "good" and "bad" ) So be in touch, and stop calling Me "Life"!! "

[deleted]

Re: But life had other plans

#246

Post by JohannesH »

Life, while being fragile and vulnerable, can also be extremely resilient.

My cousin and his girlfriend became pregnant a few years ago but the fetus were stuck outside the uterus, so the decision was made to have an abortion followed by a surgical cleansing (a scrape) to make sure nothing was left. The procedure was successful.

After the failed pregnancy my cousin's girlfriend started getting her period again but it was not as regular as it used to be. The doctors attributed it to the recent pregnancy/abortion which could cause irregularities in her hormonal balance etc.

So a while after all this happened, the girlfriend one night had what she believed to be gallstone pain in her stomach. She were familiar with gallstone attacks so that was the most logical explanation. Yet, she was sent to the hospital to have a checkup just to be safe.

You might have guessed it. The nurse at the hospital quickly figured out the cause of pain... She was pregnant and very much in labor. Of course this was 9 months after the abortion so it seemed impossible to her.

So apparently the abortion wasn't successful after all, as they overlooked a second fetus inside the uterus and also missed it while scarping the uterus lining.

So the girlfriend had to call up my cousin at work and tell him he was about to be a dad and that he had to come to hospital immediately. 4 hours later their daughter was born.

Re: But life had other plans

#247

Post by nautilius »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #225
nautilius wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only see two options, bad faith or childishly naive, so I suggested the more flattering option. In either case it's tiring to argue this 'gotcha' strawman - no one here on HN believes that things just materialize. But I do think it's bad faith, because I doubt burrows picks the same kind of pointless argument about semantics when someone offers him a free sample at Costco, or a free beer, or is confused when readin…

Yes, but there is a long history of thinking about the various definitions for "free". This alone warrants the discussion. Surely they see what you mean, but it does sound like you both default to different definitions of the word. I agree with you, but I maintain that you are being much to certain about the naivety of the objection. Because we're on HN: There's 'free' as in beer ... And there's 'free' as in 'freedom…

All that is true, but burrows conveniently switches back and forth between definitions just to keep a 'controversy' alive. Hence bad faith.

[edit] Also, I cannot really see how anyone, not even burrows, would confuse 'free' treatment with 'free as in speech'.

Post reply on HN