"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

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

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.

What a bunch of crap! If you believe in free will any parent can
define
their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial
rights and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by
court
order are only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer
with their free will to be a parent.


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!

I say this right is more than voluntary. Fathers have every right to
reach out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless
of
what any court says. The children get it in the long run. And having
parental rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you
want
the rights, you accept the responsibilities.

I think, Bob, that Chris resents having the responsibilities that ore
thrust upon him. Since he seeks no rights, he feels that he should have
no
responsibilities--that it should all be his choice.

"Choice" is something which you know nothing about; except when it comes
to
a woman's choice to bear a child.

I vehemently disagree
with his idea that a man should be entitled to walk away from a child at
any
time with no responsibilities because the man did not give birth.

That's because you incorporate the idea of being burdened with
responsibility for a choice which one is incapable of making.

IMO you are mixing up parental responsibilities with parental obligations.
They are not the same thing so lumping them together is totally illogical.
And it is even more illogical to claim either of those concepts are tied to
childbirth decisions.