"make evil all men who choose to end their first marriages"

Well, yeah. And women who do that, too. Did you miss the "TILL DEATH DO YOU PART" section of the vows?

Let's say, hypothetically: You DECIDE to get pregnant. You're 6 months pregnant, the ultrasounds been taken, the baby clothes bought, the shower held. "Stop. I don't want to go through with this." What would you call a person who said that, and then proceeded to have an abortion or give away the baby. Remarkably mature? I don't think that description would spring to mind. The baby might be better off without her, but few would admire someone who changed her mind at such a late date. And what if it was the father who changed his mind, and disappeared from the baby's life, with or without child support?

Your hypothetical man made not one, but A LOT, of decisions, before he ever got to marriage, such as transferring to a different college. Most of these decisions were revocable, but at some point, and definitely no later than the moment you say "I do," your decisions become permanent.

Wry - thank you so much for your post. I too am glad to have your thoughtful words to read and chew on - they give me much food for thought. "I am wondering at what point do you just shut down trying to be understood and heard? At what point does stonewalling become characteristic of the relationship? At what point, in the face of constant defensiveness and contempt, do you stop trying to communicate?" I think this will be my "meal" for the evening. :-)

So this has me thinking . . .

My husband's parents married because MIL became pregnant. FIL has told DH many times he would have done "greater" things with his life had that not happened. To this day they are still together, and one of the most miserable couples I know. Their kids and families spend little time with them because even the grandkids don't like their constant battles.

DH and his ex got married because she became pregnant after a post college relationship "meeting of the minds." DH felt that was the only option because that is what his parents did. 2 years later what was never really much of a relationship to begin with had come to a very ugly end, and ten years later the ugly continues.

So my question is, what is the correct way to handle an "accidental" pregnancy? Marry and stay together like the IL's and be obviously unhappy? Try marriage and divorce because the fighting was effecting your child? Never marry at all and get a good attorney to figure out a parenting plan? What is really better for the child?

And TOS, I would find a mother who determined 6 months into a pregnancy that they were truly unable to care for a child and gave it up for adoption very admirable. I would much prefer to see that than a child neglected, abused or unloved but with their birth mom just because she had "decided" to have a baby. I never believe choices like marriage or parenting should be entered into lightly or without commitment, but I do believe there could come a point for some people when they realize this person (child or spouse) would truly be better off without them. Who are we to say if they are right or wrong?

You really would admire someone who planned to have a child and then changed her mind six months into the pregnancy?????? You wouldn't think she was even just a little flaky? And I suppose it would be ok for a father to have second thoughts and then leave his child and never see him or her again as long as he paid child support? What if both parents decided when the child was 3, or 11, or 15 that they had made a mistake and they just didn't want to deal with having a child anymore? You would admire them? You would marry someone who could do that?

As to accidental pregnancies - I do not think you should have sex with someone unless you would be willing to spend the rest of your life with them.

You don't have to be miserable with your spouse. The quality of your marriage is largely a product of the effort you put into it.

"My husband's parents married because MIL became pregnant. FIL has told DH many times he would have done "greater" things with his life had that not happened."

If the pregnancy hadn't come along, I wonder if he'd be in a different place at all, or if he'd blame some other factor for his lack of achievement.

Wry,

With all due respect, people on both sides here think the other side is unreasonable and not listening. And your scholarly analysis is very well written, but in the end, I don't think the "you missed the point" is any more than the teenage refrain of "You just don't get it". Sometimes people have to agree to disagree. And yes, I have seen incredible disrepect for moms here by SMs. I understand they are angry, but that is not going to solve their problems.

As to complaints by SMs married to CPs, that is a very small percentage of SMs. As to others, I suggest you tell Dad he has to be with stephcildren during visitation (not exclusively all the time), but if you are with them exclusively, then visitation needs to be adjusted to hours when he can be home.

One of the stepmoms here complained that the problem is that moms are resentful, becuase the child is now part of a new family. I dont agree with that, certainly in my situation. But I would say that it is just as likely that SM is resentful that she wants Dad and stepchildren to be part of her picture of perfect family (Mom, Dad and children), and when that doesnt happen, she is not happy.

Interesting post about Gottman's Four Horsemen theory -- And it certainly fits my life experiences. My Ex was defensive and contemptuous, and I found myself stonewalling on occasion because the only other option was being steamrolled AGAIN and I was sick of being 0 for 50 and counting... With DH, neither one of us allows ourselves to criticize the other or become defensive; contempt has never entered the picture because we see how destructive it is; and there's no need for stonewalling when the other person genuinely wants to understand your viewpoint. So we have complete confidence in our marriage and are totally committed to each other and our family.

As to changing your mind on those big decisions -- It happens. And sometimes it's better to admit that the original decision was a mistake and to step up and stop it, rather than to go through with the bad decision because you made it. IMO, it does take courage to stop the wedding preparations, and had I listened to my doubts the first time around and stopped the wedding train, I would have been spared a lot of misery. I know my parents would have supported my decision, but I'd have felt flakey for letting things get so far. Instead, I married the S.O.B. and had a child with him and had a miserable marriage that 'endured' for ten years.

As to changing your mind mid-pregnancy -- Well, that's a pretty extreme example -- the most extreme you could ever posit. Would I admire a woman for making that decision or think she's a flake? Both. Deciding to have a baby is the biggest decision a woman will make in her life, and she owes it to herself and her unborn children to make that decision wisely. BUT - If she concludes she won't be able to care for her child, I do believe it is a better outcome for her to find that child a good home with loving and responsible parents mid-pregnancy than it is for her to keep the baby just because she 'made a decision' that she now realizes was a bad one. Better to 'flake out' as a pregnant woman than as a mother.

With regard to your analogy of the pregnancy...I think an analogy that might be a better fit for the point I have been trying to make would be this: "what happens if a young girl has undressed in a moment of passion, preparing to have sex...as her lover approaches, she changes her mind and decides she does not want to go through with the act. Should she be expected to finish something she started? Because her lover has anticipated this moment, should she be obligated to follow through? Afterall, he bought dinner and drinks; he paid for the room...I suppose the young woman should be compelled to follow through with something she now believes to be a mistake in judgment on her part?

"You really would admire someone who planned to have a child and then changed her mind six months into the pregnancy?????? You wouldn't think she was even just a little flaky?"
Never said I didn't find them "flaky." But consider this scenario: Woman has drug problem. Woman tries to kick drug problem, settle down and have a family - decides to get pregnant. Her efforts fail, and months into the pregnancy she realizes she can't kick the habit and raise this child, so she gives it up. Do I applaud her for that? Hell yes! I think that makes her 100 times better a mother than the woman who has the baby and neglects or abuses it.

"What if both parents decided when the child was 3, or 11, or 15 that they had made a mistake and they just didn't want to deal with having a child anymore? You would admire them? You would marry someone who could do that?"
Did I say that, TOS? You asked a question and I answered it. Quit putting words in my mouth.

"As to accidental pregnancies - I do not think you should have sex with someone unless you would be willing to spend the rest of your life with them."
This is great belief, but it's a pipe dream and I think you know it. There are far too few girls raised with that belief.

"As to accidental pregnancies - I do not think you should have sex with someone unless you would be willing to spend the rest of your life with them.
This is great belief, but it's a pipe dream and I think you know it. There are far too few girls raised with that belief."

It is NOT a pipe dream, and I am virtually certain that all my children, of both sexes, would agree.

"Because her lover has anticipated this moment, should she be obligated to follow through?"

I do not think that is a good analogy. If she doesn't follow through, no one suffers any harm - at worst some mild discomfort.

justnotmartha,

I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I just want to understand what your position is. At what point does reneging on your promise/vow/decision make you, if not evil, and least an undesirable person with whom to associate?

My position is that once you are married, you do not get to revoke that decision. If you do, then you are not a good person. If you have children and you decide you made a mistake (about the marriage and/or the children) and walk out, you move beyond "not a good person" into immoral.

Ten years reading of infidelity on another board.

That is such a long time to suffer so --- with no end in sight. I hope for the healing of your heart and the alleviation of your anger.

No one should have to bear such anguish.

There are others who have been there even longer - lots of old timers with (mostly) good advice. After awhile the similarities in the stories are striking, so you can tell within the first paragraph of the first post that the poster is having an affair, or that their spouse is.

When I was reading and posting there more regularly, I got to know a lot of the posters. Some of the posters even get together IRL. I don't think suffering has anything to do with it. It is a good support board.

"At what point does reneging on your promise/vow/decision make you, if not evil, and least an undesirable person with whom to associate?"

I did not say I wanted to make these people my best friends. I said I respected the decision they made in this hypothetical situation by putting their children first. There are many variables that have been entered into this discussion, but I was talking of one specific only - a mother who gives up her child at birth so that it may have a life better then they know they are capable of giving it. That choice I respect.

I would like to say that marriage should be forever, but I have a more realistic view. I have seen the damage first hand that can happen to a child with parents who stay together, are abusive toward each other and make their kid's lives miserable - many of those scars do not fade even as an adult. Are they bad people because they realize that their "togetherness" is hurting their children and end it? I like to think no - they are trying to do the best they can in a situation with no good answers. Yes, marriage is work, but there are some problems no amount of work can fix, and some situations when all parties involved are not willing to work.
Does this analysis apply to men/women who leave their families because they got an itch? No. I am talking very specifically, so please take my words in that context only.

Their "togetherness" is not harming the children - their abusiveness is. The obvious solution is to eliminate the abusiveness, not the marriage. If both parties are not willing to work, then what does that say about them? People can make their marriage a happy one if both of them want to. And if only one does, the other one falls into the immoral category.

yes, but now that we have determined how horrible thee people are, what do we do to SOLVE the problem, not place the blame?
What if one won't work to eliminate the abusiveness so the other leaves so the child is not caught the middle? Who is wrong then?

People have a tendency to throw around accusations of abusiveness when they are really just referring to incidences of rudeness or inconsideration. However, if we are talking about real abusiveness, such as physical assault, obviously the aggressor is in the wrong, and he or she should be in jail/have a restraining order against him.

As I read in some book (I think Frank Pittman's), in marriages where there is actually verbal conflict before the divorce, the children go from having two parents screaming at each other in the kitchen to two parents screaming at each other on the phone. The kid is still stuck in the middle, and now there are even more things to argue about.

"mother who gives up her child at birth so that it may have a life better then they know they are capable of giving it"

There are rarely just two choices in life. The choices are not limited to adoption or rotten life. The mother could also decide to do what she needed to do to give the child a decent life. The husband can decide to commit to his marriage and not agonize over whether he might not love his wife enough or whether he would be happier without her.