--
[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
...

.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
snip
All that would do is flip over the same coin that is causing so much
pain
today. We need a **different** solution--not the same solution in
reverse.

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must
have
equal
(or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all
choices
to
women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses
otherwise)
and there are still some women demanding more options and less
responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is
NOT
going
to fix that.

Do you even bother to examine what you're saying? If ALL
responsibility
is
removed from men, then, by definition, it IS fixed.
============================

What on earth are you talking about?

The same thing YOU are talking about; responsibility without choice.

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


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?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility.
She
can
escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after
birth
by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no
choices
beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is
and
to
the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are
raising
the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot
hark
back
to the "birth choice" forever.

Fine. Then you can't go back to the rights either.
===========================
What rights are you referring to?

Well let's see: When someone chooses to bear a child, they also acquire
rights, no?

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

I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent
does not have, Chris!

Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me.

But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into
a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care
for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child
simply because he does not have a uterus.

Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him!