Family Matters

And yet, to venture into treacherous territory, I have misgivings about the hierarchy of values embedded in the decision to remain in the race.

There can be no questioning Edwards's fierce love for her children. When her son Wade died at 16 in an auto accident, she visited his grave every day for two years, often reading aloud the books he would have been assigned in school. Afterward, she underwent fertility treatments to have Emma Claire, now 8, and Jack, 6.

I have a hard time reconciling that devotion with the decision to forge ahead with the presidential campaign. If he loses, was racing to the next fundraiser really worth it? If he wins -- well, if she is gravely ill, or worse, is having a father occupied with being president really in the best interest of their children?

The Edwardses have had more reason than most of us can imagine to contemplate life's fragility; their choice about how to proceed now was obviously shaped by that sad experience. Yet their reluctance to consider a middle ground -- continue the work they've been doing, but step back from the rigors of a presidential campaign -- is mystifying. After all, becoming a parent is all about relinquishing some freedom of action for the joy -- and the responsibility -- of raising a family.

In explaining her decision, Elizabeth Edwards has been saying that parents' most important role is to help their children develop wings. "You're not going to always be able to bring food to the nest," she told Katie Couric. "Sometime, they're going to have to be able to fly by themselves."

Yes -- sooner, perhaps, than any mother would wish. And that is why I can't help but wonder: Don't children who've just been told that "Mommy's cancer is back" need more time enveloped in a comforting nest, and less of a push into the terrifying open air?

marcusr@washpost.com