Why John Edwards behavior is so repulsive

[Rubystreak]

@Jodi

Apparently not, because I don’t know of one parent who had a second child who would say that the SOLE reason they had the second child was to keep the first one company, must less to replace a dead child, or in case the first one dies, the last two being things that absolutely no one in this thread has said anything about.

I know of people who say that they had the second child to keep the first one company. I’ve heard the story from one of my best friends, as she talked to me about why her parents stayed together in a miserable marriage as long as they did, circa 5 years. Her mother told her she stayed with her father until she had a second child, to give my friend someone to keep her company. There’s also a character on the TV show In Treatment who, when his older brother died, was told by his parents, “That’s why we had you.” So while you my never have heard of such a thing, the sentiment definitely exists.

So I guess I’ll cop to “utter humorlessness” at the same time that you cop to grossly oversimplifying a fairly non-controversial point, apparently only to pick a fight over it.

I didn’t engage you, you engaged me in what I would characterize as a combative manner when I was merely musing over why people would find being only child such a negative fate that they would go to heroic lengths to have a second one, like Mrs. Edwards and my friend’s mother. So you can and should cop to utter humorlessness, but I will not agree that I was trying to pick a fight. I was hoping to get some perspective on why people think being an only child is so bad. It’s you who wants to fight. If you actually don’t, then stop.

[Jodi]

@Rubystreak

I didn’t engage you, you engaged me in what I would characterize as a combative manner when I was merely musing over why people would find being only child such a negative fate that they would go to heroic lengths to have a second one, like Mrs. Edwards and my friend’s mother. So you can and should cop to utter humorlessness, but I will not agree that I was trying to pick a fight. I was hoping to get some perspective on why people think being an only child is so bad. It’s you who wants to fight. If you actually don’t, then stop.

Oh, I see: I was “combative” while you were “merely musing.” Just another way in that our mileage varies subsitantially. What makes me “combative” about this is that you “muse” in a way that involves asking apparently direct questions but simultaneously grossly distorting the point made by the person you are querying: Having an only child is a “horror”; it’s “baaaaaadd” to have one child; the second must be an “Auxilary Back-up Child”; people have second children to replace dead first children, or in case the first child dies. I sure as hell never said any lof that, so why use my post as a jumping off place for your own argument with yourself? And I say “your own argument with yourself” based on the importation of such “reasons” as replacing one child with another – you’re clearly bringing both sides of that argument to the table yourself, so why drag me into it? Just set up your own strawmen and then knock them down, and leave me out of it.

[Rubystreak]

@Jodi

And I say “your own argument with yourself” based on the importation of such “reasons” as replacing one child with another – you’re clearly bringing both sides of that argument to the table yourself, so why drag me into it? Just set up your own strawmen and then knock them down, and leave me out of it.

Why reply to me then? If you feel so dragged into it, drag yourself on out, unless you’re enjoying this pointless bitch fight for reasons of your own.

[elucidator]

Hopping mad, spitting tacks mad, Yosemite Sam blazing six guns mad…

I supported this guy early on, would have preferred Obama, but was convinced he couldn’t win it. Didn’t like Hillary, but that wasn’t so important as her standing on the “triangulated”, “business-friendly”, Republican Lite wing of the Party. Pretty Johnny had the right stuff for a candidate, even though I thought Obama had the better stuff for a President. Number One with a bullet was win this one, win it big, win it decisively, or God Help Us All.

And he put that at risk. There is no way he could believe that he was so totally superior that he was taking a justifiable risk, he couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to think he was going to keep it under wraps all the way through. Hannity, Limbaugh and Co would have run a non-stop telethon about it, they would only shut up about it long enough to pass the microphone to the next guy before they pass out.

His personal life is his own business, but his political life is my damn business, and damned serious business it is, too!

[Jodi]

@Rubystreak

Why reply to me then? If you feel so dragged into it, drag yourself on out, unless you’re enjoying this pointless bitch fight for reasons of your own.

Because I don’t appreciate you addressing me and simultaneously distorting what I’ve said, thereby obviously requiring me to either respond and point out the distortion or leave your misrepresentation unchallenged. As I believe I’ve already said, though I note you’ve completely ignored the substance of my last post. Though if all you’ve got at this point is “why are you talking to me?” I think we’re probably through. But rest assured, that’s a decision I’ll make, so don’t trouble yourself to try to make it for me.

[Jackmannii]

@Zoe

My dad was the youngest of thirteen in a blended family.

Ach, so while no one was actually eating infants, they were being blended and not a peep from anyone.

Hell in a handbag, etc.

[Rubystreak]

@Jodi

Because I don’t appreciate you addressing me

Well, I’m less than fucking thrilled to be addressed by you at this point. I wasn’t trying to start shit with you when I asked my question, I actually do not get what’s so bad about having an only child. I had no intention of having an argument with anyone. I posted my original question before this moved to the Pit, unfortunately, giving you free rein to get bitchy with me.

and simultaneously distorting what I’ve said, thereby obviously requiring me to either respond and point out the distortion or leave your misrepresentation unchallenged.

What distortion is that? That you were being combative? That’s my opinion. That it’s bad to have an only child? Maybe that’s not your view, but you did present is as Mrs. Edwards’ reason for having her last child.

As I believe I’ve already said, though I note you’ve completely ignored the substance of my last post.

Because I don’t want to get into it with you, because you’re bound and determined to turn this into a fight. That was not what I wanted, your characterizations of me notwithstanding. Want to have a civil discussion? Fine. Want to bitchfight? No thanks.

Though if all you’ve got at this point is “why are you talking to me?” I think we’re probably through. But rest assured, that’s a decision I’ll make, so don’t trouble yourself to try to make it for me.

What is it that we were talking about again? Who was starting a fight with whom? Not going to agree on that. Do people have kids just to replace dead kids? It seems like it’s certainly possible. And I think you’re wrong in your unilateral statement that no one has ever had a kid to keep another kid company. Other posters in this thread have said:

@choie

If he hadn’t died, my parents would probably not have had any more kids.

@Boyo Jim

imagine for the vey same reason a lot of people have two cats or two dogs. They can keep each other company, and occupied, and in some ways lower the burden on the owners – er, I mean parents.

So, are you going to take issue with them too? Or is it some personal thing for you with me?

[Jodi]

@Rubystreak

Well, I’m less than fucking thrilled to be addressed by you at this point. I wasn’t trying to start shit with you when I asked my question, I actually do not get what’s so bad about having an only child. I had no intention of having an argument with anyone. I posted my original question before this moved to the Pit, unfortunately, giving you free rein to get bitchy with me.

I wasn’t thrilled to be addressed by you at THAT point. You asked a question, I answered it honestly – and completely civilly – and YOU got bitchy with ME. AFTER distorting what I said. And every post since then by you has just gotten bitchier. And that’s MY opinion.

What distortion is that? That you were being combative? That’s my opinion. That it’s bad to have an only child? Maybe that’s not your view, but you did present is as Mrs. Edwards’ reason for having her last child.

And everything that I’ve posted is MY opinion. I speculated that Mrs. Edwards might have chosen to have two children to avoid raising an only child. You construed that as meaning that having a single child is “a horror” – a distortion if there ever was one. I didn’t even ever say it was “bad” to have an only child, only that some people prefer for children to have siblings, if possible. Honestly, it’s not like that’s a controversial statement. You can only make it controversial by saying that it means that having a single child is “a horror,” “baaaaaaaad,” and akin to having one child to replace another. I never said anything like that. The only person in the whole thread who did was YOU. And if you want to argue the reasonableness of that, fine; just own that it’s your OWN argument and leave me out of it. Geez, am I repeating myself?

Because I don’t want to get into it with you, because you’re bound and determined to turn this into a fight.

It takes two to fight. If that’s what you’re under the impression this is, you can blame it on my humorlessness, and I’ll blame it on your mischaracterization of what I said.

That was not what I wanted, your characterizations of me notwithstanding. Want to have a civil discussion? Fine. Want to bitchfight? No thanks.

You know, the irony of you repeatedly construing this as a “bitchfight” or “bitchfest” you won’t engage in, and then coming back for more, is thick enough to choke a horse. “No thanks” to what, exactly? You’re still “fighting.”

But I will leave the last word with you, which I know you’ll be delighted to hear. I have to work early tomorrow and I’m repeating myself anyway. Who knows, maybe some one else will take you up on the offer to discuss the defensibility of replacement children. Toodles.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@runner pat

Because the politicians present themselves as having such high morals, integrity and honor.

And a great many of your fellow Americans are stupid enough to let that be important, as opposed to concentrating on intelligence, competence and vision.

[Rubystreak]

@Jodi

I wasn’t thrilled to be addressed by you at THAT point. You asked a question, I answered it honestly – and completely civilly – and YOU got bitchy with ME. AFTER distorting what I said. And every post since then by you has just gotten bitchier. And that’s MY opinion.

Shrug. Obviously we’re not going to agree on any of that. I’m OK with that.

And everything that I’ve posted is MY opinion. I speculated that Mrs. Edwards might have chosen to have two children to avoid raising an only child. You construed that as meaning that having a single child is “a horror” – a distortion if there ever was one.

You’re choosing to see it as some kind of malicious, deliberate distortion to start a fight. Use of the word “horror” was obvious hyperbole, which you choose to take literally later in the conversation to feed your ire. I sincerely wanted to know what was so bad about having an only child that a person at her age, with her health, would go to such heroic lengths to avoid it. People answered with the “replacement child” and “keep the other kid company” rationales, which are fine for what they are but don’t make a lot of sense to me. OK. No need to argue. You took issue with my joking “Auxiliary Child #2” comment, which again, you construe as a distortion but I saw as poking fun at the reasoning-- not YOUR reasoning, mind you, though you’re defending yourself as if I’m attacking you. That’s where it got bitchy IMO.

I didn’t even ever say it was “bad” to have an only child, only that some people prefer for children to have siblings, if possible. Honestly, it’s not like that’s a controversial statement. You can only make it controversial by saying that it means that having a single child is “a horror,” “baaaaaaaad,” and akin to having one child to replace another.

Obviously some people do think it’s bad. Quite a few. Ask around. I’ve had this very conversation with numerous people, considering that my child will be an only. Many people seem shocked and dismayed that I would choose this for my child. No kidding, they try to talk me out of it, as if it’s some sort of terrible decision to make. And some people do quite literally have one child to replace another; Mrs. Edwards is a perfect example, and choie provided another. I’m not trying to create controversy; this is the way it is. I was wondering someone could explain to me why to so many people only child-hood is such a negative. Perhaps there is some concrete, scientifically based reason why people feel this way. You’re the one who seems up in arms about my word choice and sentiment.

Geez, am I repeating myself?

Oh, probably.

It takes two to fight. If that’s what you’re under the impression this is, you can blame it on my humorlessness, and I’ll blame it on your mischaracterization of what I said.

You keep saying that. It’s not all about what you said. It’s a general question about the idea that having an only child is a condition very much to be avoided. I really didn’t have a problem with your original answer, either. It seemed reasonable until you got uptight about my “auxiliary child” comment, and this idea that I’m distorting what you said when really, it’s not about anything you said, until you decided to take personal issue with it.

You know, the irony of you repeatedly construing this as a “bitchfight” or “bitchfest” you won’t engage in, and then coming back for more, is thick enough to choke a horse. “No thanks” to what, exactly? You’re still “fighting.”

I tried to walk away, but no, you wouldn’t have it. You taunted me with “well, if THAT’S all you’ve got” bullshit, so yeah, it’s you who wants to fight, and I’m willing to oblige you rather than have YOU mischaracterize ME. And I would make a wager that you’re not going to give me the last word either, but would be thrilled if you did, since wow, this is not where I thought this conversation was going to go, at all.

[choie]

Not that I have any hope of calming Jodi or Rubystreak – I notice when two of my cats are fighting, the only thing that’ll separate them is a squrit of cold water, and none is handy over the internet – but FWIW, I think you both are being oddly intractable and blowing things out of proportion. It’s possible that you both have emnity that predates this argy-bargy, in which case, have at it.

Jodi does seem to be taking Rubystreak’s comments awfully seriously, infering the absolute worst connotation to their possible meanings. This may be a subject very close to you, in which case, I think you are wise to stop reading. I just don’t think her comments rate all the anger. Though again, if y’all have some kinda Hatfield/McCoy thing going on here at the Dope, that would explain your thinking the worst of her comments. Could well be layers here I just don’t see.

Rubystreak, I do think you are putting the worst light on the scenario by stating that the parents think it would be “a horror” or a fate worse than death for their kid to be an only child. That pretty much damns all parents who actively try to have more than one child, which I’m sure you don’t intend to do. People who love their own siblings and who want their kids to have the same peer-to-peer experience don’t necessarily think it’s horrific to be an only child. But they may think it’s maybe more fun for the kid to have a sister or brother.

I will say that in my own family’s case, there was some fairly unexamined thinking on my parents’ part as far as why they had the second course of kids after my brother died. I wouldn’t be surprised if, considering the not-very-psychologically-aware folks in my family, people around them said having a child would help my mother recover after the loss. Unfortunately I don’t know the whole story, as both my parents are gone and it was never spoken about much. (I didn’t even know of my brother’s existence until I was ten.) Mom did look on my older sister (the one born a year after the accident) as ‘a savior’, which … well, is putting a lot of pressure on a kid. And they told her that I was born to give her someone for company. Heh. Sure puts me in my place, huh?

But they neither of them meant for this to be hurtful. They thought they were doing the right thing for all of us: for themeselves, certainly, because we reminded them of the joy that life can hold for parents; but also for my oldest sister (the survivor of the accident), who now had a pair of little sisters to play with; and obviously, for us, because we wouldn’t exist if not for this tragic circumstance and our parents’ decision to move forward and choose to believe in a future.

So for all of John/Elizabeth’s faults (obviously he has more than she does), I don’t in the least understand why anyone would question their decision to have a couple of kids. For Elizabeth in particular, she may have thought of these children as something hopeful in a life that has already been filled with far too much tragedy. And if your wife, who’s lost a child and had cancer, expresses interest in having more kids, is it really that odd for a husband not to deny her something that might make her – and him, too – very happy?

[j666]

@acsenray

I believe that public figures have absolutely no obligation to be honest about their sex lives in public. If we ask, we deserve to be lied to. And I believe that their sexual peccadilloes have zero to do with their fitness for office, except to the extent that they themselves make sexual behavior a public issue.

I completely agree with that. I do not care who does what with whom, as long as everyone is a consenting adult.

As for it effecting someone’s ability to serve, well, it won’t if we all kept our noses out of everyone else’s bedroom, wouldn’t it?

However.

For some reason I really do find Edward morally repulsive. I don’t know why but of all the sexual scandals that have come and gone in politics during my life, this one is the most disturbing to me.

(Gary Hart angered me, but he didn’t repulse me like this.)

[Rubystreak]

@choie

Rubystreak, I do think you are putting the worst light on the scenario by stating that the parents think it would be “a horror” or a fate worse than death for their kid to be an only child. That pretty much damns all parents who actively try to have more than one child, which I’m sure you don’t intend to do. People who love their own siblings and who want their kids to have the same peer-to-peer experience don’t necessarily think it’s horrific to be an only child. But they may think it’s maybe more fun for the kid to have a sister or brother.

I was being hyperbolic, I think because of all the unsolicited comments I’ve gotten recently about my child being an only. When you tell people you’re having a baby, they ask how many you’re planning to have. When I’ve said, “Just this one,” I’ve been surprised and taken aback by how many people, from family members to medical professionals to work colleagues to veritable strangers, have criticized our decision and tried to talk me out of it, as if they could. Very presumptuous, and with the definite implication that I’m making a big mistake. So maybe I’ve been projecting my consternation at this widely expressed sentiment onto this conversation.

Obviously I do not mean to imply that anyone who decides to have more than one kid is “damned” (which I’m assuming his hyperbole on your part, since I don’t think anything I’ve said is meant to damn anyone). But there is definitely a feeling out there that being an only child, or choosing to have only one kid, is negative You never hear the reverse, a criticism of someone’s choice to have more than one. And when someone does offer said criticism, well, you can see what happens.

I will say this: I think a lot of people, as you said yourself, have children for dubious and poorly thought out reasons. You think the Edwards’ reasons are beyond reproach. I do not, though I’m in no position to judge and it’s none of my business. My purpose in entering this benighted discussion was to suss out the reasons why people think having an only is so bad. I should probably have opened another thread, after this one got sent to the Pit, so I could get some reasonable answers without hijacking the shit out of this one.

[choie]

@Rubystreak

I was being hyperbolic, I think because of all the unsolicited comments I’ve gotten recently about my child being an only. When you tell people you’re having a baby, they ask how many you’re planning to have. When I’ve said, “Just this one,” I’ve been surprised and taken aback by how many people, from family members to medical professionals to work colleagues to veritable strangers, have criticized our decision and tried to talk me out of it, as if they could. Very presumptuous, and with the definite implication that I’m making a big mistake. So maybe I’ve been projecting my consternation at this widely expressed sentiment onto this conversation.

In other words, they’re being judgmental about a decision about how many kids you choose to have, and your reasons therefor, despite it being none of their beeswax? That is sucky and indeed something I don’t blame you for distressed by. If you just want one kid, it’s none of their damn business why, and you’re perfectly entitled to – and you may certainly be absolutely correct. My sister has one child and that kid is very, very happy and well-adjusted. (Bizarrely so, considering our screwed-up family! :D)

I just think you’re doing the same thing to others who decide that siblings are their preferred option. But you’re probably doing so out of a bit of resentment considering the stupid if well-intentioned comments that people are flinging at you, and honestly, that’s pretty understandable.

Obviously I do not mean to imply that anyone who decides to have more than one kid is “damned” (which I’m assuming his hyperbole on your part, since I don’t think anything I’ve said is meant to damn anyone). But there is definitely a feeling out there that being an only child, or choosing to have only one kid, is negative You never hear the reverse, a criticism of someone’s choice to have more than one.

You must have been fortunate enough not to have opened any of the Octomom or “welfare queen” threads. Smart gal!

I will say this: I think a lot of people, as you said yourself, have children for dubious and poorly thought out reasons. You think the Edwards’ reasons are beyond reproach. I do not, though I’m in no position to judge and it’s none of my business. My purpose in entering this benighted discussion was to suss out the reasons why people think having an only is so bad. I should probably have opened another thread, after this one got sent to the Pit, so I could get some reasonable answers without hijacking the shit out of this one.

Well, if this is a topic that really hits home for you, maybe so. I do think that you’re once again using hyperbole or reducing people’s arguments to the most simplistic of meanings – maybe that’s something you don’t realize could be escalating the misunderstandings here. F’rex, I never said the Edwards’s motives were “beyond reproach.” I just think that their reasons are their own, and possibly justified by their tragic circumstances, and I don’t think the decision to have two kids later in life in these particular circumstances is an act of “craziness,” as someone said earlier in this thread. Is all. It may not be the ideal situation, but honestly, sometimes the reasons parents have for having a kid at all aren’t ideal. Even good parents may have some behind-the-scenes, subconscious motives – like, “my mom sucked and I’m gonna be a better mom than she is!” – that aren’t utterly without issues as well. But they still have kids and on the whole, they just want a happy family and they’re doing their best.

Anyway it’s dumb for me to lope into a Pit thread acting all sappy and understanding and shit, so ignore my ramblings.

[Rubystreak]

@choie

I just think you’re doing the same thing to others who decide that siblings are their preferred option. But you’re probably doing so out of a bit of resentment considering the stupid if well-intentioned comments that people are flinging at you, and honestly, that’s pretty understandable.

I have NO PROBLEM with people who want to have more than one kid. I have a sibling and I’m glad I do, even though he can be a pain in the ass. If your reason is that you want to have two kids, that’s your ideal family size, and you can afford it, that’s great. What I question is having another kid for less ideal reasons, like a replacement or back up kid, or some belief that an only child could not be as happy and well-adjusted.

F’rex, I never said the Edwards’s motives were “beyond reproach.” I just think that their reasons are their own, and possibly justified by their tragic circumstances, and I don’t think the decision to have two kids later in life in these particular circumstances is an act of “craziness,” as someone said earlier in this thread. Is all.

What you said was “I don’t in the least understand why anyone would question their decision to have a couple of kids.” “No reason in the least to question” is not a far leap from “beyond reproach.” I think there are reasons why someone would question them, and can easily understand why someone would. No one has the right to tell them what to do, since they obviously can support and care for more kids, and Elizabeth was able to bear them without harming herself or them. But I can understand why one would question the decision, at least theoretically, and then to have two because one died and the new kid shouldn’t have to be an only. Certainly you can see the implication there is what I’ve been saying: some people, the Edwardses included, seem to think that having an only is a negative condition to be avoided at some pain. I question that.

Anyway it’s dumb for me to lope into a Pit thread acting all sappy and understanding and shit, so ignore my ramblings.

I think it’s pretty awesome of you, actually.

[Hello_Again]

I don’t understand the energy that’s being spent on John Edwards – can anyone BE more irrelevant? God, who CARES!?

Hey, I hate Caspar Weinberger! Jerk AND criminal! Evil arms trader! Abuser of executive authority! He got a presidential pardon and that sucks!
… See how silly that sounds? And yet, even in death, Caspar Weinberger is about 100 times more relevant to the modern political landscape than Edwards ever was in life.

[Sailboat]

@Jodi

. . . . And is completely irrelevant to this thread. The question is whether the behavior he has engaged in is, or is not, contemptible. What other people have or haven’t done, or what other things he personally might or might not do (but hasn’t done), have no relevance to that question.

I’m just struck by how often on the Boards the answer to “Was Person wrong to do ?” is “At least he hasn’t done [Y]!” He also hasn’t done A through W, or Z: so what?

It’s not completely irrelevant to this thread. This thread is basically “John Edwards is the worst scum imaginable.” I mean, you guys are really pouring it on. And that’s fine.

I’m pointing out that he’s not even the worst scum many of us support politically. In fact, he’s probably not in the bottom half – despite being completely despicable.

Be as outraged as you like, but be honest: torture and murder are vastly more serious crimes against both individual victims and the United States, so you should probably hold some of the extremes of criticism of this tawdry little man in reserve for even more desering targets.

(I also suspect some of you are piling it thickly on Edwards because, thank God, he’s not from your side for once. Acknowledging my point about torture is a great way to prove me wrong in this assumption.)

[choie]

@Rubystreak

I have NO PROBLEM with people who want to have more than one kid. I have a sibling and I’m glad I do, even though he can be a pain in the ass. If your reason is that you want to have two kids, that’s your ideal family size, and you can afford it, that’s great. What I question is having another kid for less ideal reasons, like a replacement or back up kid, or some belief that an only child could not be as happy and well-adjusted.

That makes sense. I don’t think I’ve heard the “back-up kid” as a rationale – that seems kinda scary. Just what are they doing to these kids, or expecting to happen to them? Dayum.

What you said was “I don’t in the least understand why anyone would question their decision to have a couple of kids.” “No reason in the least to question” is not a far leap from “beyond reproach.”

Y’know, you’re right. I think I was doing the hyperbole thing myself there. So it does make sense that you’d get the ‘beyond reproach’ idea. Sorry about that.

Certainly you can see the implication there is what I’ve been saying: some people, the Edwardses included, seem to think that having an only is a negative condition to be avoided at some pain. I question that.

I understand that. I guess I’m so happy to have my sister(s), especially having lost my mom fairly early, that I think it was worth the pain (though that’s easy for me to say, especially on mother’s day!), and I can completely understand someone thinking that for their situation, it would be worth the pain. Not that they are really avoiding having an only child, but that they’re seeking to have more than one. It’s a slightly different way of thinking of things, and maybe it ends up with the same result – siblings – the latter mindset isn’t really a judgment on having solo kids.

Maybe that’s the disconnect here? That you’re seeing the decision to have multiple kids (in this scenario) as being equal to “avoiding having an only child.” Whereas for some parents, hopefully including my own and possibly the Edwardses, having more than one kid is just equal to “wanting to have multiples.”

Am I making any sense? Is it possible to separate the results from the rationales?

I think it’s pretty awesome of you, actually.

Wow that’s very kind of you. Don’t get all {{{huggles}}} on me, not here!

[Hello_Again]

@Hello_Again

I don’t understand the energy that’s being spent on John Edwards – can anyone BE more irrelevant? God, who CARES!?

Hey, I hate Caspar Weinberger! Jerk AND criminal! Evil arms trader! Abuser of executive authority! He got a presidential pardon and that sucks!
… See how silly that sounds? And yet, even in death, Caspar Weinberger is about 100 times more relevant to the modern political landscape than Edwards ever was in life.

Gary Hart! Was banging some model! On a boat called the “Monkey Business!” Dared the press to follow him! So they did! Made his wife kinda sad! Totally F-ed up the entire presidential race! SRSLY WTF!? God I hate Gary Hart he is made of PUUURE ULTIMATE EVIIIIL.

[Rubystreak]

@choie

Maybe that’s the disconnect here? That you’re seeing the decision to have multiple kids (in this scenario) as being equal to “avoiding having an only child.” Whereas for some parents, hopefully including my own and possibly the Edwardses, having more than one kid is just equal to “wanting to have multiples.”

But they had multiples: the older kid who didn’t die, and the new kid. But they had to have the third so the second wouldn’t be raised alone. That’s what makes me go :dubious:.

Am I making any sense? Is it possible to separate the results from the rationales?

You are making sense. I think I was bringing in my own baggage from comments made about my decision into this conversation. I really did not mean to get into it with Jodi about this, or make it sound like I oppose people having more than one kid. I really, truly don’t. And while I question their rationale, I don’t think the Edwardses did something wrong. Well, John Edwards did, but that’s not really my business either.

Wow that’s very kind of you. Don’t get all {{{huggles}}} on me, not here!

Screw that!

Also, I agree with Hello Again in spirit if not in degree: Gary Hart was a big old douche bag. The main difference between him and John Edwards is that I never thought Edwards really had a shot at the nomination, but Hart? Coulda been president if he hadn’t been such a fucking moron.