[HelloMcFly]

I don't like Holmes and am pleased she's getting some comeuppance, but I can play Devil's Advocate in this one space: maybe she always wanted kids, focused on her career (lol), then this all happened, XYZ. Holmes is 39 years old. If she really, truly wanted biological children then now was the time to make sure it happened. She's a villain, but she's also a complex human being that probably has multiple priorities, goals, ambitions, etc.

Devil's advocating myself: she could freeze eggs too, yes. Can't speculate on the pros and cons of different decisions.

[wpietri]

I never said she didn't want children. She may well have. So what?

She wanted investors' money, too. Having wants does not justify harm to others.

[s1artibartfast]

It is a tougher one than you'd think.

The harm is no greater than any other person that decides to have a child as a single parent.

The children will have a father, and a mother to visit until they are in their teens.

That is more family than a single woman who goes to the sperm bank to have children.

[wpietri]

That is definitely not true. There's no particular reason to think being a single parent is, ceteris paribus, harmful.

But having a parent in prison growing up? That's extremely hard on kids.

And more than that, part of having kids is an obligation to protect and care for them. An obligation she knew that there was good odds she would not be in a position to fulfill. That's horrific to me.

[AbrahamParangi]

I think it’s morally fraught to argue “this child should not exist”.

[wpietri]

I think that's a pretty bizarre way to take "this person should not have had children". Once they do it, we can't talk about it? Do I have to stop saying "let's work to end teen pregnancy" because of all the kids out there who whose mothers were teens?

[AbrahamParangi]

The typical argument against teen pregnancy is that it limits the life options for the mother, whereas you're arguing that the having these children represents harm towards the children.

People usually don't make the argument that teen pregnancy harms the children of teen pregnancy because you're implicitly arguing that non-existence is preferable for the children.

[wpietri]

Sorry, but at least with respect to typicality, this is wrong:

> The typical argument against teen pregnancy is that it limits the life options for the mother, whereas you're arguing that the having these children represents harm towards the children.

I just googled "why is teen pregnancy bad" and every one of the relevant pages mentioned harms to children. And it seems pretty weird to me that you are so eager to sweep aside the harms to them. Those same teens could have children later and everybody would be better off.

> You're implicitly arguing that non-existence is preferable for the children.

I am not, and that is an absolutely wild think to take from it. It's akin to the kooky arguments of anti-contraception types and frustrated would-be grandparents that not having a child is basically equivalent to murder.

[pas]

she, as most sociopaths, was overly ambitious, that got her into trouble after all.

probably has the same mindset now regarding "having kids" or "family"

[HelloMcFly]

Sure, maybe. I guess I'm just saying there is more than one plausible explanation for the decisions she made regarding motherhood. I may detest what she did, she doesn't need any defending. It's easy to be overly reductive about people, but most people have complex, unrelated, and sometimes contradictive motivations.

[wpietri]

Again, so what?

People who do bad things often have complex motivations. That doesn't make what they did not bad. Whatever Holmes's internal state, she chose to have children that she knew she was very likely to have to abandon. I'm sure there are things in her character and history that might explain this, some more sympathetic than others. But are you claiming there's something that could justify that level of disregard for the wellbeing of children?

[HelloMcFly]

> So what?

Because my original response that this conversation in a part of was to the comment:

> I cannot imagine the kind of person who has kids knowing there were good odds they'd have to abandon them for much of their childhood.

I think that's highly unimaginative and can reduces someone to caricature.

> But are you claiming there's something that could justify that level of disregard for the wellbeing of children?

First: Justify to whom? Who sets the criteria for what is a good enough justification? Your language on this rankles a bit. Especially because...

Second: Holmes children have a father of means, they have much higher odds of being well cared and achieving good life outcomes than most American children. And they'll have an opportunity for at least some relationship with their mother. You act like having a mother in jail is some sort of damnable curse that has been placed on this children.

[wpietri]

> unimaginative

You caught me; I was being hyperbolic for effect. Perhaps you've heard of it? Anyhow, I can imagine sociopaths.

> Justify to whom?

To society, which has a duty of care toward all children? To her children once they are adults? And normally I'd say, "to herself", but see the previous bit about sociopaths.

> have much higher odds

Oh? You have statistics on this? Where a certain amount of money makes up for a parent in prison? A parent who was a notorious criminal who had the kids knowing she was likely to abandon them? I look forward to seeing that. There must have been some very detailed studies.