"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.