"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
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.

You need to learn a bit about family law and how fathers are treated, by
and large. It IS only about the money.
You obviously don't know jack about it.


"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.

No, all I will agree to is you are trying to put words into others
mouths as well as mine. Debate what is said, not what you WISH was said.
You ARE disgusting but expected from the likes of those who excuse women
and try to pin them on the nearest man.
Let me know when you want to discuss what I DID say instead of what you
wanted to hear.
Phil #3