Epigenetic changes might be one possibility, they are sometimes passed down to children and are responses to environmental adjustments. We don't know most of the rules around them however nor what can be passed down and to what extent but potentially in the future we should know more.
If I understand correctly, the current outcome is that the twin remains on the birth certificate but his legal rights granted by paternity have been suspended?
I understand the reasoning that the inability to prove a positive does not suffice to prove a negative but clearly his presence on the birth certificate is a positive claim that has been ruled invalid - shouldn't it then be removed, at least temporarily?
"they should be examining their life choices." based on your world view though. We became a very boring race only optimizing our lives for work. No alien race would look at us and think we are smart spending so much time doing things which do not add value to our society just because we can't organize ourselves better.
Just because we conditioned ourselves like this, doesn't mean its right or wrong.
And this article doesn't give us enough insight to even judge.
Birth control is not perfect. 99% is very little in comparision to the amount of sex happening in a population of 8 billion people.
Consenting adults can have sex with each other. There's zero shame in that.
And though having these two partners was unwise for this reason, it's not really a matter of shame so much as one where we should just find a practical solution that doesnt mess with the kid.
No birth control is 100%. We live on a planet were very rare situations are getting published as 'news'. So the fact that you read this news, doesn't tell you anything shameful at all. You are just biased and don't even realise it.
And no you are not allowed to shame other people for their decisions if its not clear that there is a kid getting abused in any way. People are adults and not yours to criticsize if it doesn't affect you or a 3th entity which can't protect itself.
Its your personal opionion you can easily and should keep yourself.
Nope our viewpoints are not the same like a coin with two similiar sides.
I let people do what they want to do without projecting something onto them based of my values. So my viewpoint is openness.
Yours is the complete opposite. You project your values onto them. You are forcing something which doesn't affect you onto others. You want to control them.
Its like people who have a religion/believe say you also have to believe while i say i'm not allowed to push you into something like this.
And in my eyes this is not bad behavior at least not from the information i have. I would be concerned if and only if the kid would grow up without any parent.
Interesting bias to blame the woman. How do you know that the second twin wasn't taking advantage of their identical looks to convince the woman it was the same man she had slept with the first time? She may not even have been aware that he had an identical sibling.
When I first read the headline, I thought it's about a woman who had sex with her own identical twin (and somehow that means their father cannot be identified).
So I was almost disappointed when I read it properly.
There is an interesting question - how can we prove paternity or other DNA based questions with identical twins (full sequencing looking for mutations?) and if we can't, how do we handle legal responsibilities in this sort of case?
no there isn't but i appreciate your amusing stupidity. this is a good example of the state of exception that most people with common sense intuitively understand.
Considering outcomes of children that grow up in a single parent scenario are well-known to be much better when it is the father rather than the mother, in the interest of the child, I would propose splitting custody between the two fathers, leaving the mother out.
> Considering outcomes of children that grow up in a single parent scenario are well-known to be much better when it is the father rather than the mother
I've never heard this and would be very interested in a source.
Not the same person, but here's something. Just to note, the income portion mention might be lacking additional investigation as child support is typically not accounted for in income numbers.
The buried lede in that link is that mothers who don't have custody of their children are more likely to remain in close emotional contact with their children than fathers are when in the same position. So children living with dad still benefit from having both parents involved in their upbringing. Which undermines OP's assertion that this child would be better off without their mother around.
Yes, involvement from both parents seems to be the major factor regardless of sex. There is likely additional research needed on why fathers disengage more when the mother has primary custody. With a majority of single parent households being headed by mothers, it seems another area ripe for research is how unlikely it is that the majority of fathers are disengaged to create such a large effect on the whole single mother cohort. Likewise, with the way custody tends to be grated in court, you would expect single father households to have a higher percentage of unengaged mothers due if it was determined that the mothers were the lesser choice for child welfare. I would guess looking at outcomes where one parent died would mostly control for that support mechanism.
What the fuck? Leave the mother out of her own child's life? Because statistically there is a marginal difference, which may not even apply here, because population wide numbers aren't a good indicator for specific cases?
Yeah probably because our patrichary is shit and woman earn a lot less money than man do which makes it easier for the man to pay for baby sitter, nanny, education etc.
Perhaps we fixup our society instead of blaming it to a woman?
63 comments
What is the current state of the art in this type of testing? Why is a definitive result too far off but also too expensive?
I'm not sure how future advancements can overcome that issue.
I understand the reasoning that the inability to prove a positive does not suffice to prove a negative but clearly his presence on the birth certificate is a positive claim that has been ruled invalid - shouldn't it then be removed, at least temporarily?
>>A woman who had sex with identical twins separately "within four days of each other"
Amazing.
And why do we evaluate this on something like hn?
Are you shaming a person for having sex or?
And yes, I think when a person finds themselves in a situation like this they should be examining their life choices.
I don't know why it's on hn though.
Just because we conditioned ourselves like this, doesn't mean its right or wrong.
And this article doesn't give us enough insight to even judge.
Birth control is not perfect. 99% is very little in comparision to the amount of sex happening in a population of 8 billion people.
Sex has consequences like these people are seeing.
Consenting people can still make mistakes and ruin relationships where if they had exercised better judgment they wouldn't have had problems.
A significant portion of the population have zero of one or both groups known.
The child will likely be just fine.
But the part where this woman cannot identify the father is definitely worth shaming.
And though having these two partners was unwise for this reason, it's not really a matter of shame so much as one where we should just find a practical solution that doesnt mess with the kid.
And no you are not allowed to shame other people for their decisions if its not clear that there is a kid getting abused in any way. People are adults and not yours to criticsize if it doesn't affect you or a 3th entity which can't protect itself.
Its your personal opionion you can easily and should keep yourself.
And your opinion is just as worthy of being kept to yourself.
It's not that you're against shame you just don't want your bad behaviors shamed.
I let people do what they want to do without projecting something onto them based of my values. So my viewpoint is openness.
Yours is the complete opposite. You project your values onto them. You are forcing something which doesn't affect you onto others. You want to control them.
Its like people who have a religion/believe say you also have to believe while i say i'm not allowed to push you into something like this.
And in my eyes this is not bad behavior at least not from the information i have. I would be concerned if and only if the kid would grow up without any parent.
If one brother was pretending to be the other I blame him more.
So I was almost disappointed when I read it properly.
There's a lot of good material to discuss here.
> Considering outcomes of children that grow up in a single parent scenario are well-known to be much better when it is the father rather than the mother
I've never heard this and would be very interested in a source.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-single-father-households-...
Better outcomes all around when the father is the only parent as opposed to when the mother is the only parent.
Because they are curious (consistent with the culture of this site). They would also be more likely to trust their own sources, I assume.
Your approach is inhumane.
Perhaps we fixup our society instead of blaming it to a woman?