There are some things you don’t have a right to ask for. You don’t have a right to ask somebody to commit murder, for instance, and you don’t have a right to ask them to abandon a child.
It is reasonable for her to decide she does not want to raise the child and leave. It is not reasonable for her to ask her partner not to raise her own child.
Both children are innocent of the crimes and sins of their parents and should not suffer for it.
Extreme and unrealistic examples aside… :rolleyes: (Someone needs murder to be happy in their relationship? Really?)
She can ask. He can say no. (Which can even, shockingly enough, be applied to the unrealistic “Hey murder that guy for me” scenario.) It may not be easy, but it is fairly simple.
Hell, she could also choose not to ask, and just leave. He’s an adult and he knew one of the potential consequences of cheating might be that he loses his wife. His chickens came home to roost – how he deals with that is up to him.
Carol has made it clear that she needs a partner with no significant family-strength ties to another woman. That partner may not be Bob, at this point.
Bah, missed the edit:
Bob has every right to choose to be with his child. The consequence of that choice is that he loses his wife. He’s just going to need to decide which one is more important to him. Sucks, but life isn’t fair and isn’t all hearts and kittens, and well, as previously mentioned, he knew he might lose her if he cheated on her. He chose to cheat anyway. Carol’s not obligated to give him a mulligan on the choice he made to cheat.
“There are some things you don’t have a right to ask for.”
I guess for me the sticking point is what is being ‘asked for’ and what is simply stating the choices that are available, whether any of the actual parties involved vocalises them or not?
Otara
And the OP asks whether it’s reasonable for her to even ask that, after everything else.
Peeta stated my position pretty succinctly:
I don’t think anybody here is arguing that it’s unreasonable for Carol to decide that she can’t handle living with an unfaithful husband and a child that isn’t hers. Nobody would fault her for leaving Bob. We just think it’s unreasonable for her to supposedly commit to rebuilding the relationship, but only on the condition that Bob abandon his child.
Back when I was single and dating around, after learning a couple of hard lessons, I came to the conclusion that I didn’t want to date single mothers. Because of that decision, I passed on a couple of opportunities to date a few ladies who would have otherwise had a lot of potential.
I don’t think anybody would give me any shit for not dating single mothers in the first place, but how would you feel if I’d demanded that they put their kids up for adoption or something before I would do them the favor of dating them?
Not that they would, obviously. But to even ask would have been pretty douchey on my part.
Abandoning a child is not a choice on the table (at least not an ethical one). It does not even merit discussion. The only choice is whether the Cuckolded partner wants to be with a person who is a parent. If they want to be with a cheater, then they need to accept the reality of what that means and be with the whole person. That person is now a parent. Accept it or leave. Expecting them to stop being a parent is asinine and irrationally self-absorbed.
I think the cuckolded partner should leave, by the way. Not stay. I also think that asking someone to throw away their child is worse than cheating on them and I despise cheaters.
Its a legal option and therefore is an available option. It may not be a choice we would personally make but cant be thrown out of discussion so easily.
My view is the person cheated on really can only choose whether to be with that person based on the options the cheater comes to them with.
Which comes down to two options - the cheater comes to them with the child or they come to them without the child, and then they get to decide whether to be with them or not. The cheater is the one who is really in complete control of which of those two scenarios occurs, regardless of what she asks for or what she thinks she can demand.
The argument seems to be that the person is ‘not allowed’ to make the choice to stay with the person even if they come to them without the child unasked, presumably because that makes them somehow responsible for his actions. In my view it does not, and the only issue is whether they want to be with someone who would do that - she could say yes, and her only responsibility would be to herself for making such a silly decision.
So thats why Im wondering how it changes things so drastically if she makes these choices explicit rather than implicit. All it really does is say she would be willing to be with someone who would do that, the decision and responsibility for that child still lies solely on the people who created the situation in my view.
Otara
There is no ethical option ever to ask a parent to throw away their child for you (and legality is irrelevant. We aren’t talking about what is legal, we’re talking about what is reasonable). That the person is now a parent is engraved in stone. The kid is more important than the partner. The partner needs to grow up and understand that. Then they can choose whether they think it’s worth it to them to accept a life of being second place, or move on to something else. If they’re going to stay with a cheater, though, they can’t have it both ways. Cheating has consequences. Anyone who doesn’t want to live with the consequences of being with a cheater should not be with a cheater.
Meh, I just can’t get worked up over Carol being honest about what she needs from a relationship. Bob put himself in a position of having to make a very difficult choice – his wife or his child. The fact that Carol was the first to verbalize the reality of their situation doesn’t make her responsible for the choices Bob has made, or will make. That’s all on him.
Bob has no choice to make. Only Carol does.
Bob has no ethical choice to make, but may make an unethical one.
Carol has to decide what to do if Bob makes an unethical decision or considers doing so in the hope it will allow for a relationship with her.
Its not as simple as you’re trying to make it.
Otara
It’s simple for Bob. There is only one ethical option for Bob, and it’s not ethical for Carol to ask him to do anything else.
If Bob abandons his child, then he’s doing something incredibly assholish. If you demand that someone do something assholish, and they do, well congratulations, you’re married to an asshole. Now, why would you want to be married to an asshole?
That’s why it would be wrong for Carol to ask Bob to abandon his child as a condition of continuing the marriage. If you don’t want to be married to a parent, then feel free to leave. But if he abandons little Hansel and Gretel (turns out the skank he knocked up had twins btw) in the forest on the orders of his wife, then he’s scum. I don’t see how you could stay with your spouse if they were proven to be scum, even if the results of their scummery benefited you.
He’s already ‘unethical’ by having an affair, so the argument ‘you cant stay with someone who does a bad thing’ is inherent to the whole discussion. Some people wouldnt stay with someone who has an affair. Some people wouldnt stay with someone who has disowned a child. Some would be willing to do both, and the only issue is whether its unethical to do so.
The only thing that is different between these unethical actions is whether Carol is responsible for either action actually occurring if she explicitly points them out rather than stays silent. In my view she isnt, or at least I havent seen a convincing argument why she is yet.
But Im just going to get a one line response that doesnt really try to understand what Im saying so I guess its time to drop it.
Otara
Yeah, having an affair is unethical, and abandoning a child is unethical. Just like punching someone in the face is unethical, and shooting someone in the face is unethical.
Adultery isn’t in the same league of scumbaggery as abandoning a child.
Dumping them doesn’t mean not forgiving them. I’m sure i could forgive someone who cheated on me eventually, i could never stay with them though. Of course their demands are unreasonable, but they have every right to make them. It is still the other persons choice as to what they do but i understand the need to ask the unfaithful partner to make an incredible sacrifice.
Abandoning a child is far worse. Those things aren’t equivalent. More importantly, “Carol” did not ask him to cheat. She can choose to forgive the cheating if she wants, but if she’s going to do that, she needs to keep her mouth shut about the consequences of it. Choosing to forgive the cheater is choosing to accept the child. It is one and the same act
There’s nothing for her to point out. Everyone is aware of everything they need to be aware of. Her partner being a parent is a fixed condition, not changable. His not being a parent is not an option, and not something she can ethically suggest. It’s something that needs to be factored into her decision about staying with a cheater in the first place. If she doesn’t like it, her only option is to leave.
You are arguing for a categorical difference where none really exists. There is no ‘scumbaggery cutoff point’ where you’re not allowed to be in a relationship with someone, its a subjective one that each of us will decide at different levels. For some that will be at an affair, for some at disowning, for some even worse, for some even less.
But thats not the same as it being unethical, or if it is, Ive yet to see an actual argument for it.
Edit: So if instead Bob comes to Carol and says ‘Ive disowned the child, you didnt ask me to do it, I just decided it would make it easier’ - does Carol still have to leave?
Otara