Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82...

Fred wrote:

Gini wrote:


"teachrmama" wrote
............................


And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities!
I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on what
MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their
responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman does
after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man left
his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why
don't you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are
after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue.

==
A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.)



I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme
of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence."

It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post
conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with
the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences
that follow from those choices should also be hers.



So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to
let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is
pregnancy.

But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm
around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even
if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that
to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the
birth of a child...

And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any
responsibility for or to the child?
Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as
well?


Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and from
those choices will spring consequences in turn.

Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER
choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from
HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that,
most likely unconstitutional...

So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not
undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves
the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child?

When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his
responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward
the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child
he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the
bankroll.

So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent,
the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the
parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights?

Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same
rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50
is the key.

Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad
wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants
80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on
her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses.


"No rights to walk away".

How do you propose stopping someone from doing so?

How do we do it now ? What he means is that if you were in a
relationship where having children was an agreed upon objective or
wherein you had agreed to the commitment of having and supporting
children, you don't get to *LEGALLY* walk away just because you might
want to. (Note, this relationship doesn't necessarily have to be a
marriage, it could be co-habitation, if could even be separate
habitation but you've told the pregnant women that you agree to support
the child...which influences her decision to have the child...you don't
get to arbitrarily walk away if you've freely made a commitment...

"they pay for their own expenses"

So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other
parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either.
They both insist it's the other's expense.

The courts sort it out...like now...

So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required to
provide health insurance? (or any other expense that both parents insist
isn't their expense, it's the *other* parent's expense)

The courts sort it out...just like now.

....Ken