TX twins have different dads
ABC13 News in Dallas reported yesterday on the surprising and rare case of Mia Washington, a woman who gave birth to twins with different fathers:
A paternity test showed her 11-month-old twins, Jordan and Justin, were fathered by two different men. Authorities say it’s so rare there have been only 10 other known cases worldwide….
According to doctors, if a woman has more than one sexual partner while she is ovulating, there is a chance that different sperm cells can fertilize two separate eggs. It’s called “heteropaternal superfecundation.” Experts say it’s more common in animals. The first recorded human case was in 1810.
Scientists say superfecundation most commonly happens within hours or days of the first instance of fertilization….
The UK‘s Daily Mail continued:
The truth came out when Mia visited Clear Diagnostics DNA Lab after noticing the twins have different facial features.
A paternity test confirmed her fears – it showed there was only a 0.001 chance that Justin and Jordan have the same father….
Mia added: ‘When they opened the envelope and delivered the news they told me there was zero chance that James [Mia’s fiance] was Justin’s father, my jaw dropped open. It was the weirdest thing to think that two little babies could have grown in my stomach together and been born 7 minutes apart but yet have different fathers. I had never heard of it happening anywhere else in the world and literally had thought it would have been impossible.
James said he would stay because he loved me and raise both of the twins as his own. I felt very wary at first….
When they are old enough to know the truth about their different fathers I will tell them. Right now they are so young they don’t know anything and they don’t need to know.
As far as I’m concerned, James is the father of both boys because he’s the one there every morning when they get up and every night when they go to sleep. Some people may not agree with what I’ve done in the past but I have accepted my mistake and taken responsibility for it.
The couple is expecting another child, and this time there appears to be no question of paternity. Mom was and is married to neither father. Part of “accepting responsibility” would be to marry James and legalize their growing household.
[Photo attribution: Fox 4 News via Huffington Post; Video: SkyNews]
Lesson to the ladies, don’t sleep around.
Lovely – the Virgin (anything but) Train ad was playing when I went to play the video segment.
Why is this article coming in via an English company as opposed to American media?
Ummmm. Having a child out of wedlock is not illegal. I am defnitely in agreement that some truths are absolute – like the inviolability of human life – but as to whether you are doing something “illegal” by having a child out of wedlock, is very subjective. You might say that her family structure does not comport with your moral values. But suggesting that their family is need of being “legalized.” Well, that’s just holier than though. I think she’s on the right track and can do without the attitude and judgment.
Nora:
Yes, moral relativism reels it’s ugly head once again. What, those who know right from wrong are never to speak against it? Ridiculous! You are infected with modern day biblical illiteracy and fail to understand what “salt and light” means.
However, I am glad she admits her mistake and did not kill her children.
Sorry, that I can’t say the same for Hal.
Good morning to you too, HisMan.
hmmm…must’ve been educated by the great and powerful Sex Ed program by the gov’t and PP.
I read about this, its fascinating. She chose to keep the kids and they certainly are adorable! I wonder if they’ll still have the same “twin bond?”
With a divorce rate of almost half of the marriage rate as well as a falling marriage rate, Texans don’t see the need for marriage. A license is almost $60, depending on the county, unless you go through a government-approved “program” dealing with various issues.
There’s no benefits that marriage provides that a good lawyer doesn’t also provide.
Posted by: Nora Doherty at May 21, 2009 11:54 AM
“There’s no benefits that marriage provides that a good lawyer doesn’t also provide. ”
——————————————–
Really?? A good lawyer can provide a stable and loving family environment, a good, moral upbringing, a balanced view of life….take note I’m talking about a good heterosexual marriage…not the ones that pass of LIKE it..
WOW! I never knew that could happen. I’m glad she fessed up and got married! Cute boys!
“A license is almost $60”
Oh my GOSH, it’s a wonder ANYONE gets married. LOL!
“There’s no benefits that marriage provides that a good lawyer doesn’t also provide.”
LOL, again. I can think of plenty.
As far as the “twin bond”, it would probably be no different than any other twin situation.
There’s no benefits that marriage provides that a good lawyer doesn’t also provide.
Posted by: Human Abstract at May 21, 2009 12:24 PM
I admit, I see nothing particularly special about marriage. Chris, I enjoyed reading your post: instead of saying anything meaningful, you insulted lawyers. Very played out.
A stable and loving home can be provided depending on the parents, and happens regardless of marriage. No where on the marriage certificate are couples forced to agree to provide any sort of “stable and loving home.” Marriage doesn’t necessarily correlate with any sort of happiness.
You can’t go throwing “moral relativism” at everybody who acts other than according to your morals. I think it’s a good argument when discussing abortion, but you should leave room in your judgmental perspective for the possibility that she is NOT doing her family a disservice by remaining unmarried. You know nothing about her, the dynamics in her relationship, or whether the father even WANTS to marry her. You don’t know if they are getting counseling and trying to make it work. You just know that they are having sex out of wedlock and that they are not aborting their children.
And – no – you don’t have to follow every letter of the bible to be a good person or to raise healthy, moral kids. Indeed, the bible says a lot of crazy things that you yourself don’t even follow, I’m sure. And did Jesus’s primarily preach against fornication? Why don’t we just go back to polygamy as in the old testament since you are advocating biblical living . . .
Typical, just typical. Jill does a story about a woman who does the right thing and carries her children to term and instead of giving her the credit she deserves for not giving into constant and overwhelming abortion propaganda she finds some reason to look down on her.
This woman deserves our prayers, not our criticism.
The fact that her fiance stayed with her after she cheated on him is admirable. Not every man or woman stays with their significant other after infidelity.
RSD and Janet make good points about marriage.
“Marriage doesn’t necessarily correlate with any sort of happiness.
Posted by: Human Abstract at May 21, 2009 12:51 PM”
============================================
Is that what you really think about marriage??
IF so, then you are sadly, sadly mistaken on what a true marriage is or is not.
Marriage is a legal and social construct used to bind two people together legally, similar to a contract. That’s it.
Otherwise, marriage is what you make it. I have such negative feelings about it as it currently is, because it is currently used as such a tool of bigotry and oppression. That, and for centuries, it encouraged the oppression of women.
Not for me, thank you.
Marriage is, yes, ideal, but this is such an unusual circumstance, and not every child grows up in a two-parent home. I didn’t. My friend Katie has a mother, father, and step-mother. Family is anyone who guides you, looks after you, who protects you, and who you are willing to share love and life with. Marriage is ideal, again, but does not necessarily provide a family. I think that what this woman is doing and has done is courageous.
Yes Hal:
And His mercies are new every morning.
You should seek them out before you destroy your family.
Nora:
I don’t. Only at moral relativists like you who throw the “you’re judging others” BS around.
On the surface it sounds real good like most Liberal comments but, when exposed to reflection and study and actual exercise of one’s mind it fails the logic test.
We CAN judge others’ actions so we can lead them to life. Otherwise, NOTHING could ever be deemed wrong and society would fall apart as it now is. However, we are not to judge others and their eternal destiny. There’s a big, big, difference. Having multiple partners is wrong, plain and simple irregardless of the how she was raised, etc., etc., etc.
Remember this, Jesus said this to the woman caught in adultery, “nor do I condemn you (i.e., as to hell), but, go and sin no more”. He calle what she did sin for goodness sake but He did not judge her, He did judge her sin nor did he excuse her sin.
You didn’t even the read my previous comment because you have no desire to learn truth.
“marriage is what you make it. I have such negative feelings about it as it currently is, because it is currently used as such a tool of bigotry and oppression. That, and for centuries, it encouraged the oppression of women”
—————————————–
Human abstract,
..as I said..you are sadly, sadly mistaken on what a true marriage is or is not.
I’m not sure I followed the last two paragraphs. She says she thinks that James is the father of both because he’s there when they go to bed, etc. He was referred to as her fiancee in one of the story’s paragraphs.
The final paragraph says that she’s not married to either of those guys, but a third man.
To whom is she really married? And if it is a third man, then that means she’s not learned anything because all three of those kids will have a different father.
I’m not sure I followed the last two paragraphs. She says she thinks that James is the father of both because he’s there when they go to bed, etc. He was referred to as her fiancee in one of the story’s paragraphs.
The final paragraph says that she’s not married to either of those guys, but a third man.
To whom is she really married? And if it is a third man, then that means she’s not learned anything because all three of those kids will have a different father.
OK, I reviewed the paragraph again. My goof. She and the fiancee have apparently not gotten married, but are having another child.
The best way to show responsibility and stability is to marry the fiancee, settle down and provide a genuine, stable, complete home for those children based on understanding legal, ethical and moral principles.
Really?? A good lawyer can provide a stable and loving family environment, a good, moral upbringing, a balanced view of life….take note I’m talking about a good heterosexual marriage…not the ones that pass of LIKE it..
Posted by: RSD at May 21, 2009 12:30 PM
I don’t know…I have to disagree. My daughter (and now son) isn’t/aren’t being raised any differently now that their father and I are married than they were the year we all lived together before we were married. And being married hasn’t made my mother and father any happier together than my children’s father and I were before we were married, either. I’m glad that my chidlren’s father and I are married, I think it can be a powerful symbol of love under the right circumstances, but procreating with someone isn’t justification enough to rush through the required paperwork and pay the required fees in order to get married to someone else. It just cheapens the act of marriage for everyone, and makes a reluctant spouse resent a child that they might feel put them in a situation they might not otherwise be in.
I think it’s important for kids to have married parents, but there’s nothing illegal about having kids when you’re not married. I never quite get what’s with unmarried people who have a kid, stay together as a couple, plan to get married at some point, but haven’t gotten married. It’s like, what are you waiting for, your kid to be old enough to be a flower girl?
Anyway, I give James credit for raising a kid who’s not even his.
Human Abstract: It’s kind of interesting that you bring up marriage being a contract, because I recently read the book “Love and Economics”, where the author has a whole chapter of what makes marriage different from a traditional contract.
I wonder if they’ll still have the same “twin bond?”
Does the twin bond come from sperm magic?
Hahaha, reality, I have no idea. I don’t even know if such a bond exists, hence the quotation marks. Lots of twins talk about it, and I’m curious.
Also, thank you, Vannah! This woman seems to be a great mother. I saw the video snippet when it was being played on my local channel, and she seems to be taking great care of the kids. No marriage required.
Marriage is, perhaps, a unique legal proceeding, but the it remains a legal proceeding.
The best way to show responsibility and stability is to marry the fiancee, settle down and provide a genuine, stable, complete home for those children based on understanding legal, ethical and moral principles.
Posted by: Michael at May 21, 2009 2:20 PM
absolutely.
Human Abstract, marriage viewed and undertaken seriously offers much more stability than simply living together.
Marriage is a legal and social construct used to bind two people together legally, similar to a contract. That’s it.
But marriage is a lot more than just this to many people. It is a sacrament which mirrors the unity we will share with God in heaven. It is seen as the means to help another person, whom we dearly love get to heaven and to sanctify ourselves.
Just because it means nothing to you doesn’t make it so!
Angel, I fully understand that others see marriage differently. More power to them! Marriage can certainly be a religious and spiritual event. It isn’t for me, however, so I see marriage as essentially useless. Personally, I would love to see marriage seperated religiously and legally: i.e., the government would simply have a contract that any two people could sign that would be a “marriage,” then they could do whatever religious thing they wanted.
60 bucks? Texas is a bargain… AZ is 75.
I think that they should get married if for no other reason than for the father who is actually performing the role to be able to step-parent adopt the child not his by DNA and provide that child with a legal father who is also caring for him.
I read this to Steve and he started chuckling and said, “Busy night, huh?” Sorry… it really is an odd case…
HA:
That’s exactly how I feel about marriage. You’ve summed it up for me very nicely.
to those of you who dislike the notion of marriage: fine.
But don’t go changing things for those of us who believe that marriage is an important good for society and for the protection of women and children.
You liberals just love to talk about how tolerant you all are but are quite unwilling to accomodate those of us who don’t agree with your “definitions”.
But don’t go changing things for those of us who believe that marriage is an important good for society and for the protection of women and children.
You liberals just love to talk about how tolerant you all are but are quite unwilling to accomodate those of us who don’t agree with your “definitions”.
It seemed pretty clear to me that, in the interest of NOT changing what marriage means to you, HA expressed a desire to instead see a separate and entirely civil/legal agreement that carries all the weight of the contractual benefits of marriage, without holding any of the spiritual connotations.
Alexandra: by accepting and recognizing co-habitation and same-sex “marriages” this does change what marriage is. At the crux of the matter is that these arrangements are seen on par with marriage. They are not. They will never be so.
By making them equal and acceptable, the importance of marriage has been greatly diminished to the detriment of society and has caused great harm to women and children. Since divorce was legalized and the stigma attached to co-habitation removed, we have seen more children born outside of marriage (up to 40%), more family violence and more poverty since marraige is the primary vehicle for financial stability.
The children in the “relationship” discussed in Jill’s post have a very slim chance of growing up in a permanent, stable family. True they are together now but only because of the incredible generosity of the man. I wonder what will happen when his goodwill runs out?
Alexandra: by accepting and recognizing co-habitation and same-sex “marriages” this does change what marriage is. At the crux of the matter is that these arrangements are seen on par with marriage. They are not. They will never be so.
No, they don’t change what marriage is. They do, or at least they can, change the importance placed on marriage. I actually think that NOT allowing any non-marriage unions changes what marriage is more, because then secular society changes marriage to suit its own needs — divorce, etc.
Alexandra, I don’t support co-habitation, same sex “marriages” poly lifestyles or any other arrangement you can think of outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
I simply believe that co-habitating couples of all mixtures should not be recognized at all. No benefits, no tax breaks, nothing. nada.
The state should not subsidize this in any way because this is not good for the children, it’s not good for the “participants” and it’s not good for society. There are tons of studies to prove the negative affects of co-habitation on women, children, men and society in general. Co-habitation undermines society and works towards the breakdown of morals and cohesion. I think this post Jill has made is a prime example of the former.
As for same-sex couplings. No recognition and no legal status. Wanna live together. fine. but society as a whole should not support these arrangements in any way – financially, emotionally, socially.
The only arrangement that should be recognized is a married couple – man and woman who either have a religious ceremony or are married civilly with witnesses.
Alexandra, I don’t support co-habitation, same sex “marriages” poly lifestyles or any other arrangement you can think of outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Go for it, I honestly don’t care — but that’s not the same as claiming that people who prefer cohabitation etc are trying to change marriage, as you accused HA or maybe xalisae of doing.
every person who has co-habitated has helped destroy marriage as a unique and special institution in society.
every person who has co-habitated has made the case that marriage is not special and should be afforded special protection.
So yes, I believe that these people who accept this and live this lifestyle have either implicitly or explicitly tried to change what marriage is, whether they recognize it or you recognize it.
They have only changed it by choosing not to do it, and thus changed it from the assumed default for adults into an option. Do you think they should not be free to make that choice?
HA not getting married has no effect whatsoever on the marriages of people who choose to be part of that institution.
They have only changed it by choosing not to do it, and thus changed it from the assumed default for adults into an option. Do you think they should not be free to make that choice?
If they had simply chose to live that choice with the resultant repercussions such a lifestyle offered that may have been fine and there would be fewer couples today who would be co-habitating.
But what really has led to the dramatic increase in couples co-habitating is the tremendous tax breaks these couples have lobbied for and eventually received, the acceptance of contraception and it’s evil twin abortion.
Considering the tax incentives, in some countries it is actually more beneficial economically to co-habitate than marry. This factor alone has considerably weakened the case for marriage. I doubt as many people would have viewed co-habitation as a viable option if it were not for this economic factor. In the 1970’s some couples lived together for a period of time but ended up marrying as there at least was some economic value, if not ultimately some ethical and moral value to being married.
Also co-habitating couples tended to marry when a child came along. However, with the ready availability of contraception and abortion things changed drastically.
After all a non-contracepting woman was not likely to live with a man in a sexual relationship unless he were already open to the possibility of children and future marriage. Or maybe, I should say a man would be less likely to move in with a woman knowing she could get pregnant at any time and thus he would be “responsible” for a child. Contraception changed all that.
Abortion too changed all that. These couples can now dispose of the child and continue on as though nothing happened. We read all the time of women who sought an abortion because their live-in partner did not want a child. Of course what the woman wanted was the man to marry her and be a father to her baby. In the end she gets neither and moves on to the next man.
Alexandra: I think we like to pretend that our actions have no consequences or at least consequences of little import. We also like to believe that laws don’t really have any effect on how people live their lives. (Hence the concept that you can’t outlaw abortion because it won’t lower the number of abortions argument)
But in choosing to support a lifestyle that is not stable we have by our laws, our actions shown that as a society we don’t value marriage. What have shown is that we value self-fulfillment, sexual license and personal autonomy.
In the same way, by legalizing abortion , we have said that there are some human beings who have lesser value than other human beings.
Those of you who don’t believe in the benefits of marriage need to look at the research. Excellent books “The Case for Marriage-Why Married People are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially” by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher published by Broadway Books with 15 page bibliography (research project through Rutgers, Univ. of Chicago and Univ. of Texas)and “Why Marriage Matters” by Glenn T. Stanton with 26 pages of Works Cited. Even those who set out to disprove marriage found out it is best for men, women and children. The negative consequences of “shacking up” are well documented and the benefits of marriage are extensive and far-reaching.
angel, what tremendous tax breaks do cohabiting couples receive?
You are all getting away from the original argument. The article said that the woman’s family is in need of being “legalized.” Several of you argue that marriage is the most ideal framework within which to rear children. As such, it seems to me that while the mother’s situation can be said to be “less than ideal” it should NOT be judged as “illegal.”
You marriage-lovers can go live in your utopia. Many unmarried mothers lament the fact that they are not married. So – maybe they weren’t as skilled as you or as morally well-formed as you or as lucky as you. No matter! They are doing the best they can given their own circumstances. The woman in the article, in particular, seems to be going in the right direction. What would Jesus do? I think he would meet her where she is instead of hurling insults at her.
Sure it would be handy if society were laid out in such a way that heterosexual marriages were the norm and babies were never aborted. But if society did look like that, you’d just find something new to complain about. You’d bemoan use of alcohol or decry that everybody should go to church every day just because you do it. There will always be some way in which you will want and expect people to comport with your own special moral codes, which you have deemed to be superior. Your superior attitude doesn’t make you so likeable.
Nora,
Would you rather use the word “legitimized” than “legalized”?
WWJD?
He’d meet this woman where she is and then tell her to get married before God.
Jesus did not tell us we must be likeable, in fact he said we would be hated by many.
What do you have against marriage, anyways?
I love the phrase you used “legalize” the growing household. You act like a woman is a criminal for having the kids. How is that pro-life? Seriously, your blood curdling contempt for the woman and her children is so typical of the rich white american woman. Your choice of language is a par-excellance case in point of how shallow the depth of concern for humanity is amongst the supposedly compassionate anti-choice movement.
People talk about Obama’s supposed suspicious connections. Are you sure you’re not a member of the John Birch Society?
Ms. Republican,
I am a liberal, but traditional when it comes to marriage. Was it a mistake when you said you shouldn’t support cohabitation between the same gender emotionally? I understand financially or socially, but everyone needs some form of support.
I have nothing against marriage. I think its peachy, and dreamy, and idillic and all the rest. But sometimes, people make mistakes and have to deal with the hand they are delt. In that circumstance, we can’t scoff and a woman and say that her family is illegal.
And I think it is extremely presumptuous to think that marriage should be a foregone conclusion for her situation: we know almost nothing about the interpersonal challenges that might be going on within the context of their relationship and their young family. Why in the world would you all assume that her boyfriend/fiance is worth marrying? He might be abusive, he might be mooching off of her, he might also have issues with multi-partnered tendancies and they might be having a heck of a time “making it work.”
I have nothing against marriage, but I certainly understand that the choice is not as simple as “to marry or not to marry.” She’s going to do the best she can for her kids. Does it occur to you that this might NOT include marrying the guy? In which case I AGREE – she should stop having premarital sex, etc. etc. But that’s a very counter-cultural thing to do these days and even practicing Christians have great difficulty making that lifestyle choice. Most would not even consider such option.