I don't think I'm trying to argue the father has no responsibilities in these circumstances.
"Au contraire" - he must pay his dues or child support (- my father would have a more down to earth term for it) - I said he must pay his dues in my earlier post didn't I?
Either party could have taken "precautions" if they didn't want to produce a child obviously, although sometimes women do deceive their partners don't they, saying they are on the pill when they are not for example.
A man can walk away from a partner when she's pregnant or when the child they helped produce comes along and the relationship with the mother flounders. I totally agree its irresponsible behaviour on behalf of both parents if they don't love the other parent and at least expect to be there for the child together. You have to think like that surely otherwise why have such an institution as marriage where supposedly the rights of the parties are protected to some extent.
I'm not arguing for a free for all, just because I choose to criticise someone who appears to think fathers can somehow be turned into responsible parents if they were never inclined to do that or showed any indications they wanted the child in the first place.
Both are "equally to blame" - if you need to assign or proportion blame, but don't you agree we get so many women crying "I can't get the father to have anything to do with the child" when they should have known what was coming.
There has just been a case in the UK where a man (actually a guy from the US) committed bigamy numerous times, with all these supposedly sensible women getting taken in by his cock and bull stories. He kept telling them he was a secret agent so needed to keep changing his name, and having "safe houses" for himself, complete with another family/identity. His false life eventually came out, after the fifth or sixth "marriage" and about ten children were created in these relationships.
Anyway, he's now got six years jail for his crimes, when obviously he won't be working to keep these children will he. Would you be arguing for "his children's rights to see their father", or whatever, or do you think its time to say to these women you've been damned stupid and now might as well get on with raising these children accepting you're not likely to get much support from the father? Blame him all you like but if people don't examine the characters of their partners closely enough you won't stop this kind of thing happening will you.
Finally I think you are being a bit quick calling the father Mason'sMom is referring to "a loser". I don't like that kind of thing, especially when you haven't heard his side of the story (albeit that he may be just that - which makes her decision to have a child with him all the worse doesn't it?). In any event is it good for the child produced to "know" their father is a loser or called a loser?
Graham