Ladies, here’s the problem with "letting her be"—she’s not letting us be. Whether on Oprah, the Today Show, Larry King, etc., she is the one exposing her private life to scrutiny to promote her book.  As a result I think we are entitled to evaluate what we learn of her.

Really, I don’t give a hoot whether Elizabeth stays with John.   The only person I care about here is the one year-old child who is entitled to have her father in her life as an active parent.  Financial support would be a start but is not enough.  She deserves to know who her father is and have a relationship with him.  That is every child’s right, and the needs of innocent children must trump any adult’s feelings of wanting to deny the situation.

 Think about it—if a man cheats on his wife and a child results from his dalliance, is it really morally acceptable for the father to not be financially and emotionally involved with the child because it would upset his wife?  Isn’t that pretty reprehensible?  I’m glad that the courts do not think this way, or there would be no child support laws.

Elizabeth herself said that women should have respect for each other.  I would take that further and say that we should have even more respect and concern for the wellbeing of children.  As women, we have a moral imperative to refuse to be in a relationship with any man who is a deadbeat father, whether financially, emotionally, or both.  Elizabeth should absolutely not go around proclaiming what a wonderful man John is and being an active wife while paternity is in question and this child is unparented.  And yes, I make this case based on the assumption that she is John’s child, considering that he himself is "not sure" whether she is and she looks just like him.   I also highly doubt he’d be sneaking into hotel room after midnight to see the baby if she were not his child.  

What a wonderful legacy Elizabeth would leave to her children by showing compassion for this innocent child, very likely the sister of her own children, rather than referring to her as "it", continuing to make dismissive comments, and supporting a man who is not fulfilling his parental obligations. 

I’m confused.  I don’t care if they stay together, but how can you say it shows a "tremendous amount of underlying strength" for her to say in regards to Rielle Hunter’s baby likely being her husband’s daughter, "That has nothing to do with me or my life, that’s his problem."  It’s strong and moral to ignore and dismiss an innocent baby?

How can a woman who paints herself as an advocate for children and families say this about a child who deserves to have a father and his financial and emotional support?  Does anyone give a fig about the right of this child to have her father in her life, acknowledging and caring for her?

 I would consider a real show of strength Elizabeth saying "I don’t know if this child is my husband’s, but I am going to insist that he has a paternity test.  If the child is his, I will ensure that he does his duty by her, both financially and emotionally.  This child should not be hurt by the misdeeds of adults."

Now THAT would be what a mature, strong woman does and would be worthy of admiration and respect.  You married a worm, Elizabeth, and if you choose to stay with him someone of such low character you cannot aid and abet him turning his back on his own child.

Amen, amen Ruth!  I’m amazed that everyone focuses on Elizabeth Edwards’ pain, but not the pain of an innocent child that is being made to grow up without a father.  It’s morally repugnant that Elizabeth and John are ignoring this baby, which looks exactly like John.  If she were not his child they could have easily cleared that up in the interview; the fact that they won’t indicates to me that they’re sure she is but they just don’t care to deal with it.  How is that okay?

 I don’t give a hoot whether the Edwards stay together but they must do the right thing by this innocent baby.  I cannot feel sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards until she loses her dismissive attitude toward this child, who is almost certainly the half-sister of her own children. 

 Why is no one in the media bringing this up?  It is a moral outrage that this child is uncared for by her father, and Elizabeth is basically approving his abandonment, which I find appalling.  I can’t have sympathy for Elizabeth until she has sympathy for little Frances Hunter, the innocent victim in all of this.