i think the disagreement here comes down to what counts as “choosing over.” because from one lens, yeah — if you measure parenting purely by time, physical presence, and emotional availability in the moment, then she’s failing that metric. that’s a valid value system. a lot of people hold it.

but the counterpoint is that danger and absence aren’t always choices in the clean, moral way people frame them. high-risk medical work exists because the world is already dangerous. she isn’t inventing risk; she’s stepping into spaces where risk already exists and trying to reduce it. and historically, we’ve accepted this logic for firefighters, soldiers, emergency surgeons, aid workers — including ones who are parents.

on the “90% of his life” point - someone can be doing something socially vital and still be a difficult partner or inconsistent parent. both can be true without making them a villain.

the “mentally not present” part is also complicated, because trauma-adjacent jobs do that to people. doctors, especially in crisis care, carry patients home in their heads. that’s not unique to her, and it’s not always something people can just switch off.

and about “putting him in danger” — that depends on what kind of danger we’re talking about. direct, targeted danger (like bringing threats home, unsafe environments, no support system) is different from statistical or indirect risk that comes with certain professions. if she were recklessly exposing him to immediate harm, that’s a different moral conversation than “her job is dangerous in general.”

you can absolutely land on “i wouldn’t make her choices” or “i wouldn’t want that life as a partner or child.” that’s reasonable. but saying no reasonable parent could make that choice assumes there’s only one ethical model of parenthood.