"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Phil wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote
....................
What, I want to know, is so damned bad about suggesting that
people take responsibility?
==
Not at all--In fact we agree. She had the responsibility to not
have sex when she was ovulating
and had the responsibility to know when she is ovulating and the
responsibility to tell him when
she was ovulating. Apparently, she failed to do so. What we seem
to have (systemically, in our society)
is a failure to compel women to accept responsibility for their
actions and decisions and we them condemn
men for not anticipating her lack of responsibility.
I don't think that it is an either/or situation. Both parties bear a
responsibility. What I object to are the representations to the
effect that one party is solely responsible to the exclusion of the
other. Think about it: some men use sanctimonious statements such as
"her body, her choice, her responsibility" to evade their own
responsibilities. I know this because those men conspicuously evade
my statement, "his semen, his choice, his responsibility."

Failing to grasp that HER choice, whatever is may be, overrides his
choice and with it goes the sole responsibility for that choice.
The ONE making the decisions should accept the consequences of their
decision.

Those who contributed to the condition are both accountable.

But as you say in another post, men and women are different and have
different responsibilities due to their biological differences so take a
stand and stand by it already.


With pregnancy, men should be held equally liable to that of the
mother, which means they should have the option of raising the child
as they see fit every bit as much as the other but when the parents
are not involved in an intact relationship, BOTH parents should be
equal in custody, support (financial, emotional, spiritual and all
others) and every other facet of the child's life unless there is a
valid and just reason not to allow it.

That "valid and just" phrase speaks to equity, which is fine with me.
Not equality; equity.

No, equality, I didn't misspell it.


On the other hand, as long as women have the option to just walk away
from a living, breathing child, denying men the same right in the
same period is sexist and unequal treatment for similarly situated
people. As long as women have the option to decide whether to become
parents at all, men should have the same legal right during the same
period.

And there it is! The man seeks to evade responsibility for his
actions.


No, not at all. You need to learn to comprehend the written word. That
is NOT what I said. Perhaps if I typed r-e-a-l s-l-o-w...
I'm promoting equality. You see it as something else. Why, I'm not sure
but I suspect you are a gender-feminist and ashamed to admit it.

That's what it's always about.

Is that why women have the extra choices that are denied men, money?


What I'm trying to discuss is taking responsibility. What most are
trying to discuss is evading their own responsibility. And the
responsibility that most seem to be wanting to evade is financial
responsibility.

Don't forget that there is no law that says child $upport ...

And money. It's definitely always about money.

Snipping my message is not a way to win arguments. By doing so, you lose
because you show your fear of being ridiculed with your bombastic
claims.


I fail to see how there could even BE children that are not wanted.
[...]
I can think of only two reasons: family pressure or money.

You forgot religious pressures. That's a big one.

If she's pregnant and unmarried, it seems her religion is
cafeteria-style. Either way, your solution for men is the answer for
her, keep her pants on.
Phil #3