wrote:
Chris wrote:
"Nikki" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will
respond, with all due respect, to your post below.

"alath" wrote in message
ups.com...

If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her "marriage
hanging by a thread" husband, her daughter will win, and rightly so.

To understand you correctly, are you saying that a woman's commitment
to her daughter ought to trump her commitment to her husband?

Can't speak for Alath but I would pick my children over my husband, who is
their actual bio father. I'm not saying her decision to support her
daughter by giving her a place to live is right or wrong but that many
parents would pick their children over anyone else. I suspect my husband
would pick the kids over me if an issue arose where he felt he had to
pick.
I hope he would.

Not me. My comittment is to my wife FIRST and foremost!

As it should be.

That depends.

Ideally, the parents of the child put everyone in the family's
wellbeing at a premium, and recognise that for parents to care well for
kids, they themselves must be well taken care of.

And her commitment to you should be above the
children. The order that should follow is:

1. God or some moral belief. For example, if your spouse told you to
kill another human, you should not do so.

2. Your spouse. You put the needs of your spouse before the needs of
your children. Your children will grow and start their own lives, but
in the end, it's just the two of you.

So, lemme get this straight: if you're short on food, the spouse gets
food, but the kids don't? What if there's a fire, or a capsized boat,
and only one person can be saved? Kid or parent? I hope my spouse
chooses kid - I certainly would. And if you think this argument is
spurious, consider that most families in the world do have to consider
the food issue, and most parents throughout history have gone without
in order that their children might have the best chance at survival.

You're the one with the psych 101 understanding of natural selection,
agsf, surely you recognise that adult animals strive to ensure the
survival of their young, so that they too might procreate?

Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children
have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the
end. In the end, most likely one of you has outlived the other, and has
medical and physical needs which your children are more likely to take
care of than the state is, so you'd better be sure you fostered a good
relationship with them and helped them to be successful as best you
could when you had the chance, because they are going to either be
caring for you, or choosing the facility that does it in their stead.


3. Your children. Your children's birthdays and/or sporting events or
any other needs surpass those of family and friends.

Ohhhh. Birthday parties and sporting events are the "needs" of which we
speak. I see.

Not, you know, the reproductive autonomy of a sexually mature young
woman who lives with her mother and stepfather, and the wellbeing of
her unborn child. My mistake.


4. Family and Friends.

So does my wife make the "unilateral pronouncements" on family
decisions, or am I living in a democracy where the votes of my wife
and her child outnumber mine?

It seems that you are the one wanting to make the unilateral
pronouncement.
The person you are not considering is the baby.

That's correct. Depending on which court you choose, legally no baby exists;
and she will be a legal adult before such baby exists.

Also, his step-daughter is not taking the baby into consideration. Why
should he and his wife be burdened by the lack of responsibility of his
step-child?

For someone who believes in a moral code, you got no notion of
compassion, have you?

It's like you're channelling Dr. Laura.

99