As before, let's get right to the nub of it:

Phil wrote:

When speaking of custody or child $upport, "responsibility" is the same
as money. Primarily, fathers have a "responsibility" for child $upport
but the mother does not have an equal "responsibility". As a matter of
course, fathers pay money to the mothers but mothers do not have to
spend it on the children as long as they are minimally cared for (using
the fact that nearly all custodial parents are mothers). IOW, she has
less "responsibility" to the same children while his sole
"responsibility" is $$$.

There you go again. To you, it's all about the money.

"responsibility ... : moral, legal, or mental accountability"

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...responsibility

Still, you have helped to make my point that, at the end of the day,
this is all about money. Not moral accountability. Not informed
consent. Not the welfare of the child. Money. And specifically evading
the payment of money when one is both morally and legally accountable
to do so.

Legally, yes. Morally, hell no.

So after all this, you do agree that it's all about the money, to the
point that you will evade your moral accountability for contributing to
the pregnancy, and even your moral accountability to the child who
carries your DNA.

That's disgusting.