Can you think of a rationale whereby an argument could be made that it is wrong for you to want to leave?

Suppose a poster replies, "Yes, Rayne, it is wrong for you to leave?" Are you earnestly willing to entertain that?

If you knew someone who was in your situation, could you think of some good reasons to encourage them to stay on?

We live in an era of changing ideas about right and wrong. Some things that were once considered wrong are no longer considered wrong. I applaud a good many of those changes. I'm glad that most parents no longer feel they have to be ashamed of a daughter who gets pregnant out of wedlock, or a son who falls in love with someone else's son. The judgementalism that those scenarios used to evoke didn't do anyone any good. So we are living at a time when we are seeing life for everyone improved by people letting go of some old notions about what need or needn't be condemned. In attempting to be on board the spirit of that new zeitgeist, people are sometimes losing confidence that they have any right to think anything is wrong? Like, shouldn't everyone's choices be respected? I think that can be taken too far.

We find a woman saying, "I'm thinking of leaving my husband because he beats me black and blue and broke my jaw last month. Am I wrong to feel that way?" (We've got threads like that.) It's like we have come to attach some virtue in going around open to everythng and accepting of anything. In contrast to being a society where we used to be quick to criticize, the new ideal seems to be that no one's choices should be critiqued. This woman you work for made a choice she had a legal right to make. There's no law against a woman having children via the services of a sperm bank. It's not particularly my business how anyone's child came into being, and I'm not looking to try and make it so. However, I do believe there is a price for everything in life. For a woman to decide to have children without enlisting the services of a loving and devoted father is, in my opinion, risky business. She thought it would work out okay, and it hasn't. I'm sorry for her . . . and for the kid.

Sometimes it does work out. Shouldn't anyone who wants children have a right to them? I'm not sure there is such a right, morally. It's become politically correct to defend that as a right, though we've never really had a national discussion and debate about the morality of it. It might not matter if we did because people are going to do what they're going to do. We've pretty much decided that controlling people's reproductive choices is not consistent with our ideals of personal freedom . . . and I agree with that. In any case, this is not the place for me to introduce that topic.

However, if you're going to more or less rebuke my post as being close-minded, intolerant and inappropriately insulting of this mother, then I have a question: What did you want this thread to be about? I don't think a five year old chooses to be a little monster. Even if this kid literally killed someone, he would not be charged with murder because the law does not hold five year olds responsible. So is it appropriate for us to just chime in with: "Wow, what a right little devil this kid is?" You seem to not mind that. Is this thread about you needing help to work your way through a quandary? Are you confused about whether or not you you should object to being chewed and punched and having your blouse ripped away?

I guess I'm confused. Something needs to be done. I don't hold the kid responsible for solving this mess. And it is a mess of a situation. I'm not saying the mother isn't earnestly doing the best she knows how to do. I strongly suspect she is. I suspect that you've done a job as nanny that's as good as that mother is going to get from anyone she hires. So does that mean that the mom and you should just carry on doing as you've been doing? The mom seems to think so. She's implored you not to "quit." Where do you think that's going to lead to?

It is because I think the mom has done the best she knows how that I say she is in over her head. She got into the business of child rearing thinking that a heart full of love is basically enough. It's not. She was brave and she took a risk. A dad in the home correlates with better outcomes for kids, especially male children. As you say, it's not a guarantee. And some wonderful men have been raised by women without partners. All of that is moot, now, because the kids are here, and their father agreed to provide sperm and nothing more. Too late to get him involved.

I've lived long enough to be able to read between lines. This kid didn't wake up this way the other morning. This is just the latest escalation. The mother needs to come up with a better game plan than asking you to please not give up on her and Junior, inducing your guilt, summoning up your pity for her plight - which is pitiable. She needs to face reality and not even want to put you at risk. She needs help . . . way beyond what you can provide.

Yes, this kid "set out to hurt, intentionally." This behavior was not a product of autism. This kid is failing to develop the rudimentary moral compass that even five year olds who are developmentally delayed typically do manage to have in place. This is an issue of transmitting moral values to a developing child. Even nice people can fail at that. An argument can be made that the kid is just a bad seed . . . that he'ld be a little monster no matter what kind of a home he were born into. I don't believe that - which is simply my opinion and anyone can reject it.