I did not read all of the letter, so I'll appologize in the event someone already brought up the following issue.

D'Souza is probably right about fundamentalist muslims hating gays, gay marriages, prostitution, and a bunch of other things; which seems not that much different from the hatred spewed by christian evangelicals and their ilk here at home. However, if those values were the main reason for OBL to attack America, why did OBL not attack Holland, Belgium, Canada and other European countries where gays actually have the right to get married, and where prostitution is regulated, and many other, equally liberal values are respected?

Seems to me that D'Souza down deep actually wanted OBL to do his, and other fundamental religious conservatives' dirty work by attacking America. They couldn't have wished for a better strawman. Christian conservatives want to use liberal freedoms to impose their view of the world. I wonder why none of them have actually moved to any of those fundamentalist countries, instead of wishing all progressives here in America to disappear?

According to the logic used by the administration defenders who keep pointing out that Clinton did it too, but worse, I was pondering the following:

If Bush or any senior administration official were to be caught with their pants around their ankles with an intern or worse and underage person, would they also say that what Clinton and Monica Lewinski did was worse?

The other day I saw some numbers on how many democrats have been investigaged during the Bush presidency compared to Republicans. It apparently was about a ratio of 5 to 1 (Sorry I don't have the reference) Keeping that in mind, and then you look at the results of how many Republicans are actually in trouble compared to Democrats; makes you wonder who many Republicans would be in trouble if they were to be investigated at the same rate as Democrats have been so far.

but then again... isn't that business as usual in today's world.

It seems to be that everybody is assuming that the father will start taking care of his daughter, once he's reminded to do so. From reading the story I'd think that he hasn't shown any real interest in being involved with his daughter. What makes people think that all of a sudden, by the mere mention that he 'should' be taking care of his daughter and getting involved in her life he'll see the light and instantly change his ways.

The advice given sounds good, about the woman having to make a decision to back out of the relationship, if she's unwilling to take care of the daughter. I'm a little worried that the boyfriend/father to Anna will rebound to another woman to fill the void in his life, and the story will start all over again.

I agree with the commenter who says that you can not fake love for someone else's child Personally I'm happily married, and also have a 16-year old step-daughter, whom I consider no different that if she was my very own daughter. As a matter of fact, I don't even use the 'step'part when introducing her to people; she's my daughter. Anybody who knows me is aware that I love her very much and that I'm very proud of her.

It would take a lot of counseling for the writer to shed herself of all the resentment built up over the last 4 years, observing Anna growing up. The writer, being 29, seems to have a very short memory; already having forgotten about being a teenager herself. I have to say that the writer's mother did a pretty good job raising her; after all she raised her in such a way that the writer takes credit for everything she knows, not realizing that her mother was the teacher. As it has been pointed out, Anna did not have that benefit, and I fault the father for not having stepped into that role, and instead having 'shipped' her off to a nanny.

It's a sad story, but my advice would be to have Anna evaluated by a child psychologist. It is not too late to intervene. With proper guidance Anna may very well still turn out to be a well-adjusted adult - just a little later than expected.

I posted earlier and wanted to add something the LW should definitely be asking herself, since she's considering marriage...

Would you want the man, you claim to love, be the father of your future children? You already know that he does not care about his current child. That will not change 'just' because you'll be the mother. Are you willing to gamble that he 'might' improve?

Or, are you considering to remain childless yourself? Which would make sense from your impatience expressed in your letter.

Raising any child - regardless of (dis)ability - is time consuming and takes a lot of patience. A lot of the things you describe and take for granted as 'common sense', need modeling and consistency. Anna has had none, and you haven't been willing to be the role model.