"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
...


--
[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!

Sure, Chris--but only as long as he wants to be responsible. And I
find
that deplorable.

One time, I chose to take a friend's child to the park; thus accepting
responsibility for their welfare. Pretty deplorable, I might say.

You, Chris, wish to put into place a system as evil as the one you hate
so
passionately. You are no better than the people you despise.

Describe such evil system, and then explain WHY it's evil.

Look at the system you hate so much, replace those who cater to women with
those who cater to men and--voila--there is the system you espouse.