"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
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
snip

What, exactly, became THEIR choice?

Raising the child together, Chris.

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

Now we weren't. This is what I said

"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.****

That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about
men
being
able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a
decade
or
more later-- because he did not give birth to them.

You commented on the mother's freedom to choose abortion (which
includes
the
choice to give birth) being long past thus no longer in play. I
responded
in
agreement stating that the responsibility for her choice
vanishes.
Not
sure
how or why, but somehow POOF, it's gone. And just what choice do
you
think
I
was referring to?

Who knows, Chris. You like to twist things around to avoid the
point.

You stated: " The fact that the woman
could have chosen to abort..." which implies the choice to give
birth.

I responded: "... the responsibility for one's sole
choice (at least for mothers)..." concerning the choice that is "no
longer
in play".

Since the choice of abortion is irrelevant to this forum, the only
choice
left is the woman's choice to give birth. No twisting on MY part.

Nonstop twisting on your part, Chris. The point has always been that,
depspite the woman's right to abort or drop infant off at safe haven,
once
the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further
right
to
opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out.

Did you even bother to read the quotes? Nowhere does it mention him
choosing
to raise a child. CLEARLY, I spelled out to you, in quotes, the
dialogue.
And still you deny the issue. Explain, please, just exactly how I
twisted
ANYTHING. Feel free to use quotes just as I have done.



And
the point is: In no way is it right to say that, because a woman
CAN
choose
to abort a child, a man will never have any responsibility toward
that
child
because he CANNOT choose to abort.

But wait a minute, I thought the topic was about men walking away
from
children, not her choice regarding abortion? Make up your mind.

chuckle You do like to tapdance, Chris.

"That is not a discussion about birth". Ring a bell? The only
tapdancing
being done is by YOU.

I repeat: once the man chooses
to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out.
Just
like mom has no further right to opt out.

And I repeat, the only choice left is the woman's SOLE choice to give
birth.
===========================
No, Chris.

Yes it is.

That choice was made years before. It is a done deal. The
choice to raise the children with mom came *after* the birth, *after* the
safe haven option.

Uhuh, but it was still made. Or do we just forget about it?

Absolutely!! It is no longer in play. A choice has been made **following**
the choice to give birth. Are you saying that a father's choice to raise
his children counts for nothing because he did not, personally, give birth?

===================================



How does a woman having the choice to
abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child, Chris?

No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of
making;
a
concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike.

Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise that
child
has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman.

Because?

A man cannot say,
15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give birth to
these
childre, so I have no responsibility toward them."

But no problem with her saying I am done with him being a dad so "OFF
with
his relationship with my children. And I will take his money too!".
========================
And that is the problem with the system in place today. But making it so
men can walk away with no responsibility whatsoever thoward their
children
will **not** fix that problem.
========================

Sure it will. She would no longer be able to rip him off.

Are you saying that all women whose husbands are raising their communal
children are ripping off the men?






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.

But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he
should
be
entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to.

Correction: That is what the GOVERNMENT people say by inference.

And YOU choose to take it and run with it and say that no man
should
ever
have any responsibility toward a child.

Not even close. If a man chooses to accept such responsibility, more
power
to him.

Ah, but you also say that he can choose to walk away at any time.
THAT
is
where I deiagree with you, Chris.

Straw man. That is not what I said, EVER! But I like your twist.
I can faithfully make your house payments for sixteen years. But guess
what,
I have no obligation to pay on the seventeenth year. Unless, of course,
I
have made some sort of a contract. Performing an act today does not, in
and
of itself, obligate one to perform it again tomorrow. But apparently
you
disagree.
===================================
That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for
individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't
count, does it?