Fred wrote:
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.

No more "disgusting" Fredrica, than a woman who CHOOSES to just get rid
of her "little problem"...and, you know, I don't think abortion is
disgusting at all...I've been actively pro-choice for over 27 years
now...the difference is that *I* (and a lot of other pro-choice people I
might add) think "choice" is a valid expectation for BOTH men and
women. You see Fredrica, it's all about accountability. Who is
responsible for what. In a consensual situation, the man and a woman,
together, are responsible for the pregnancy, however, THAT is as far as
the man's responsible extends BECAUSE the direct casual link between
pregnancy and child birth is severed by the woman's SOLE and SOVEREIGN
right to CHOSE whether she will allow the pregnancy to continue OR NOT.
Some call this a "burden", it's not, it's a choice AND a remedy that is
extended to women. As, Karen DeCrow, the President of the National
Organization of Women said in 1979:

"If women have the right to choose if they become parents, men [should]
have that right too.
There is a connection between legalizing abortion for women and ending
of paternity suits for men.
Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women. It would
only eliminate their expectation of having those choices financed by men."

and:

"Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision
to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and
cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of
support.
Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent Decisions
about their lives should not expect men to finance their choices."

This was about the time *I* became involved with pro-choice because I
"though" I was working for a worthwhile, egalitarian cause.
Radical feminists (who, BTW, DO NOT conform to the definition you
posted yesterday) have turned feminism and organizations like NOW around
180 degree, away form working for equality and pursuing egalitarian
goals, into organizations that seeks special rights and privileges for
women and seeks to demonize, discredit and disadvantage men, legally,
financially and in their own families as a primary method of obtaining
those special rights and privileges.

....Ken