--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
snip
.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be
able
to
walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation
toward
those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system
currently
in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more
than
the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined
such
an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong
as
what
is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on
the
part of either gender.

Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only
ones
with
any authority after conception, then what follows is that
mothers
should be the only ones forced to accept the results of their
unilateral decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a
newborn
(age
varies by state) and walk away with no questions asked.
Certainly
she
has the choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near
guarantee
of custody and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her
choice.
Either fathers deserve the same or similar rights as women or
neither
do.

I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the
same
ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the
same
newborn drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea
that
a
man, because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10
year
marriage which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY
WHATSOEVER
toward those children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole
right
to
bring conception to birth" argument to negate a decade of
parenting.


I actually disagree with it all. Abortion, legal abandonment and
using
children as pawns in the physical control or mind games of
adults
is
atrocious behavior to me.
That said, as long as the system views fathers as disposable in
all
but
fiscal matters, he does have a point.
Responsibility should be matched by, and equal to, the authority
over
the situation (choice).

But saying that a married man who decides to run away with his
secretary
can abandon his family with impunity does *not* fix that
situation.
When
fathers start seeing themselves as disposable, and convincing
other
fathers that they, too, are disposable, then we've lost. There
is
not
fixing a situation when both sides agree that there is nothing to
fix.
It won't change the fact that fathers will have money forcefully
taken
from them to support the children--it will just make it that much
easier,
because the fathers themselves will agree that they are not
necessary
as
parents.

I've typed, erased and retyped this repeatedly trying to convey my
thoughts.... I'll just say this:
A mother allows one child to cut the slices of cake for themselves
and
a
sibling, then allows the other to choose their piece. There is a
great
probability that both will get an even-sized slice.
Chris pointed out that women are making the decisions on whether a
child
will be born then strapping the men with the responsibility, which
in
the
cake scenario would be letting one brother slice the cake and also
decide
which slice they wanted. He just expounded the extension of this
right
to
men, which exposes the problem of treating men and women
differently
because of their sex.

I don't disagree with that if we are talking about unmarried
couples--I
think it is outrageous that a woman can choose to bear a child and
expect
the man to support her and the child. That absolutely needs to be
remedied.
But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children
with
his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and
years--then
suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants
to
use
the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your
responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the
woman
could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in
play
at
that point.****

Well of course! Because after 15 years, the responsibility for one's
sole
choice (at least for mothers) suddenly ............... DISAPPEARS!
How
nice.

The two of them choosing to keep and raise those children is a choice
that
both of them made. The mother cannot take a 15 year old to a safe
haven
and
walk away with no questions asked, as she can when the child is just a
few
days old. Neither should the father be able to make that choice. It
went
from *sole choice* to *their choice* when they chose to raise the child
together.

What, exactly, became THEIR choice?

Raising the child together, Chris.

Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember?

THEY made the choice and commitment to
do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because
the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of
a
parent than the mother!

Nor did I claim so.






The law is that women can choose to abort or not and if not, the
law
also
allows her to force the father (usually) to a responsibility from
which
she is immune.
If women knew they had to be responsible for their unilateral
decisions,
would they be so laissez-faire?
'What's good for the goose...' and all that.

See above. I am not talking about *all* situations--just the one
mentioned.

Apparently, you believe that the government document of marriage
equates
to
the legal shift of responsibility for a woman's sole choice onto the
man.
Isn't that special.

Nope--onto **them** Not just her, not just him **Them**

Nice play on semantics. The responsibility that gets shifted onto him is
no
longer on her; hence it is NOT "them". Remember, she is the shifter and
he
is the shiftee.

Something you
don't seeem to believe in. You are as bad as the CS folks, Chris.

Thank you for your opinion; but my claim remains true.

Not even close.

What, specifically, is false about my claim? And please don't say "all of
it" or "all of them", as I have made many claims. Be specific.