"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
...

snip for length

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.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the
options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should
come
an
equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility
and
options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea
that
a
man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20
years
and
their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did
not
give
birth to them.

Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held
LEGALLY
responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL 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.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment
for
12
years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to
continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Irrelevant.

My husband and I chose to
have our children. **Both** of us made the choice.

Impossible.

Why would his choice to
have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice
to
do
so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I
didn't.
So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and
have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?

SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple.


This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the
birth
of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to
continue
to support them because that is what the children were accustomed
to,
not
that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.

Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to raise
them
together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing!

No it's not. Your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning

Enlighten me. What makes them different in principle?

You don't want to be enlightened, Chris. You want to change the current
darkness that you hate for darkness more to your liking.