<BR>Its occaisionally worthwhile to review the use and ultimate irrelevance of a rhetorical tactic called <I>pathos</I>, or an emotional appeal devoid of factual relevance. In the present context, we have a person claiming to be a "child advocate," or someone who looks out for children. To the untrained, its quite easy to get drawn into the premise, and by extension, to unwittingly yield a moral authority to such an individual. And make no mistake, someone repeatedly saying "I am a child advocate" is also subtly arguing that "anyone who disagrees with me is out to hurt children."<P>Its a false bill of goods, of course. Were one to take an objective view of the situation, we can assess child outcomes under various parenting schemes. Nobody should be surprised that children of an intact marriage fare best, nor in my view should anyone be surprised that children of joint custody arrangements fare second best, with mother as sole custodian trailing a distant third. In this light, it certainly does lead one to wonder, "Why would someone who claims to be a child advocate defend women keeping children in the *worst* possible environment for children?"<P>I think the most rational course for society is to acknowlegde that our custody/CS laws are detrimental to children and have spawned an unintended consequence - namely, OWs that have children and use those children as chattel, as mere tools to extort excessive "child support" from another family. People who are genuinely concerned about children know that showing up on this board and trashing BSes is pointless, that the real progress will be in reforming custody laws to create a strong presumption of joint custody, and moving to a cost-shares model of CS (which will cut the average CS check in half). Once the incentives to use children as chattel are gone, once an OC isn't a meal ticket, we will see a lot fewer OCs being born in the first place. And we'll also see less divorce, all of which will lead to better outcomes for children. That I support custody/CS reform makes me a child advocate - but I don't use it as a debating point.<P>Bystander

Bystander,<BR>I have completely changed my mind about Congress. I think you should skip that and go straight to Presidency. <BR>cd

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Once the incentives to use children as chattel are gone, once an OC isn't a meal ticket, we will see a lot fewer OCs being born in the first place. And we'll also see less divorce, all of which will lead to better outcomes for children. That I support custody/CS reform makes me a child advocate - but I don't use it as a debating point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Bystander I have also been a "bystander" of sorts always reading your intricate posts. They are ALWAYS of great interest to me. Needless to say sometimes important to all of us.<P>Today your post hit me square between the eyes.<P>Our C hasn't been born yet, but your theory says so much. The point about fewer divorces. I know in my heart I have forgiven my H for the affair, it is the child and how he thinks he's going to parent it that blows me away. Without the C we would continue to be married but we clash on the parenting issue. I already have taken more than I can bear, the thought of him allowing us to dissolve our 27 years of marriage and to destroy my son and my lives OVER the need for him to parent C is a sophmoric way to think.<P>I've become autodidactic at a subject I never would have known existed if it didn't happen to me....and I hate this.<P>What a convoluted mess.<P>BTW, I agree w/cd....no wait...I still think you'd do the best work in congress!<P>Debi<BR><P>------------------<BR>Imagine....

gem,<BR>You sound like you are getting stronger and more sure of what you want, good for you you go girl. Now my question is what is a autodidactic is that a new word? Did you talk to lawyer today?. with love flowerseed<P>Bystander, Yes straight to Presidency that sounds good to me also. flowerseed<p>[This message has been edited by flowerseed (edited April 16, 2001).]

Bystander, I wasn't roped into her "child advocate" scheme. I could see right through her. Thanks for another of your most eloquent posts. You hit the nail right on the head.<BR>I have yet to figure out why she is here on a Marriage Builders board. I really wish people would ignore Ms. Lurking Woman. She really would go away. You can't talk to people like her...<P>Happy_girl

Bystander,<P>When you run for office, please reveal your real name so I will know which hole to punch on the ballot. As always you are straight forward and precise. Wait that would be something new for a candidate. Now if only those in Washington and our State government could hear those words.<P>babstr.

bystander,<P>Am I allowed to vote twice?<P>love<P>bw

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Now my question is what is a autodidactic is that a new word? Did you talk to lawyer today?. with love flowerseed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Dear Flowerseed,<BR>Autodidactic means self taught. You learn about something on your own.<BR>My lawyer called from his cell phone on the way to court. His office should be calling today w/appointment.<P>I DO know what I don't want...H to be so gung-ho on seeing C on a regular basis. His complete inertia about the situation is what's forcing me to choose divorce...something I never wanted from the beginning....but he's not helping me heal...expects me to just forget A and let him focus on C.....to me C = A . If he'd back off the issue maybe I'd change my mind...maybe not.<P>I told him I'd live w/a few visits a year but not share my life w/C forever, too much for him I guess. Funny how he didn't want her to have C but now it's like he wants to be "super-dad" out of guilt toward C. At least it's how I see it.<P>Willing to let his legal family disolve over what he wants.<P>You know what? He's never denied himself anything in our marriage including having intercourse w/another woman!<BR>For now I see him as plain selfish. Filling his needs at all costs. I refuse to put my needs on the back burner on this issue.<P> This saddens me so much...my heart is broken....I will however get along as I have no other choice for my peace of mind.<P>Debi<BR><P>------------------<BR>Imagine....

gemini1, I am with you. To me OC equals affair as well. I cannot separate it out. I frankly think my H's desire to have contact with Oc is another selfish demand, not a desire to do what should be right for child.What the H and OW have done has no good outcomes for anybody, so the question is whose rights supersedes who or who gets hurt less??the way I see it, me and my kids are truly the innocent parties here, and we deserve some priority now. I am not so much against OC as pro my family. For me, the two are mutually exclusive. I am with you,Debbie.

gem,<BR>I so wish things didnt have to be this way for you. I dont blame you one bit for the way you feel. I cant see any other way that you could feel then what you do. It is so selfish of h. Did you see the one reply from butterfly to you the other day. That is one lady that has got it together. with love flowerseed