"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"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.

Maybe "he" is really a "she" who is not getting the amount she feels
she is entitled to. OR maybe his mother didn't get enough child
support form any of the men she let knock her up so she wouldn't have
to work. He (or she) sounds bitter, angry, and absolutely foolsih.
(and maybe related to MoonShyne--you can tell by the tap dancing)

Any of the above is possible and one or more is even likely. We've all
seen this type come on, stay a while and then disappear. They actually
do a service; they prove what many here have been saying that there are
some people (men included) who just have a phobia in relation to men. It
could be brain damage, psychological problems or any one of a bunch of
other conditions whereby they are unable to make logical sense.
The one thing they all have it common is the inability to post for more
than three threads without showing themselves to be prejudiced which is
often observed plainly on post number 1. When this is combined with none
of their ideas being thought out, they come off like total asses who are
completely unaware of their surroundings and what's going on in the real
world around them.
One of the most common identifiers is name-calling as argument; another
is the inability to refrain from cutting another's post's to change the
sense, tense or meaning of the sentence or part thereof and argue
against something not said.
Phil#3