Comments on: Why Is This News?

By: mkilby

mkilby — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:19:07 +0000

Just as a random coincidence, last night on a German edition of a “funniest home video” show, I happened to see a clip of a wedding ceremony where the bride went into contractions at the altar. It’s amazing what people will do for a token royalties payment and 15 seconds of fame. The bride appeared to be surprised, but not panic stricken, so I assume that she must have been nearly full-term (hard to tell because of the very strategic dress she was wearing).

By: mitch4

mitch4 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:35:26 +0000

I too thought the at-sign was odd, until I related it to Twitter syntax.

By: paperboy

paperboy — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:05:10 +0000

furrykef #20- “isn’t it odd how we say things like “Derek #8″ here?”. No, it makes it easier to see who and where one is replying to; that’s why I took the initiative in creating this usage.( What I found odd was that use of the “@” sign.)

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:19:40 +0000

But whether the parents are married (to each other), they’re still the parents of the newborn, so I’m not sure what the law has to do with it.

By: mkilby

mkilby — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:01:34 +0000

The concept of “legitimacy” is heinous prejudice. The legal implications have become virtually insignificant in most jurisdictions, and the financial effects are generally significant only if and when the marriage is later dissolved, rendering the original argument for the advantages of “legitimacy” moot. Anyone who is not willing to stand by their own offspring (or a potential grandchild) because of their own perception of the baby’s “illegitimacy” is not worthy to be a parent and/or grandparent.

By: Powers

Powers — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:11:13 +0000

It’s not stupid; the baby doesn’t get a birth certificate, which makes the parentage “official”, until birth.

By: furrykef

furrykef — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:53:34 +0000

If that’s true, then I guess the law is stupid. But it wouldn’t be the first time.

By: Lola

Lola — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:42:59 +0000

Getting married before the birth does serve to “legitimizes” the child. There are all kinds of legal reasons for doing this, so it could very reasonably be called the right thing.

By: bAT L.

bAT L. — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:33:33 +0000

furrykef #20 - I think that may have been where the thought of “doing the right thing” started, but today it seems that it’s much more of a commitment thing. My previous girlfriend got married in a hurry when she got pregnant, but the husband wanted to do this to force them together so she wouldn’t be alone raising a baby. I mean, she still pretty much was, but the thought was … almost there.

By: furrykef

furrykef — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:48:17 +0000

Would it be too cynical for me to say the news-worthy part is that the couple “wanted to do the right thing”?

Derek #8 already touched on this — isn’t it odd how we say things like “Derek #8″ here? Makes it sound like we have eight Dereks — but I’ll expand upon the point a bit:

I don’t see how it’s the “right thing” at all. It’s arbitrary. Having the wedding before the baby, after the baby, it’s just an arbitrary line in the sand, wherever it is. It’s a symbolic gesture at most, but it has no meaning beyond being a symbol.

Now if we were talking about having the wedding before gettin’ jiggy wit’ it in the first place, I can understand that (though I see no particular virtue in chastity, myself, but I can respect other opinions)…

- Kef