"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"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.


Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice
the
mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the
ultimate
and
unilateral decision is the mothers only.

So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad,
Phil.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.

Yes, you do seem to be pretty miserable, Chris.

Apparently, I failed to communicate my message.




I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for.

Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for
years,
he
can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be
held
responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income.

Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away
because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in
families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier
children, even though they did not bear those children themselves?

That depends on how the contract is written.

Of course, for you, Chris, the **only** answer is that the WOMAN should
bear
the full brunt of the responsibility. That is obvious from reading what
you
write.

And you'd be correct. Full choice = FULL responsibility. I always believed
that four quarters have equal value to a dollar; but your argument is
starting to make me second guess.
===================
And you want it no other way. You WANT women to have full choice so you
will NEVER have to accept responsibility.
========================




The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to
women
and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at
all,
is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?

YES, it is!

For you, of course that seems the answer. Then you can impregnate at
will
and never have to worry about it. All hail the mighty man, Chris.

It is PRECISELY the thought process demonstrated in the above statements
that runs the "child support" industry.
=======================
That's right, Chris!!! That is what I have been saying all along. Your
mentality is ***exactly*** like theirs, but in your way of doing things, MEN
will be the ones with no responsibility, and only WOMEN will have to pay.
EXACTLY the same thinking, Chris!! You have finally seen where your thought
process has led you.
===================