Re: Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies: what should guys' responsibility
Both mothers and fathers ought to be responsible to their children, as I see it, whether born yet or unborn. And both parents' wants ought to be subordinated to their responsibilities to their children. That is an enormous commitment, yes. But one that both parties should consider before engaging in acts that could lead to children.
I say that as someone who is capable of getting pregnant. It is a tremendous responsibility, to carry, nourish, and guard over another life, one who cannot defend him/herself and relies on you to do that--and that is a trust I would not ever dare betray, regardless of whether my child is old enough to understand that trust and reliance. To believe that the life of a child I might carry comes ahead of my own life and desires does not mean any sort of subservience to men.
As far as a man's connection to his or her son or daughter--born or unborn--I agree that speaking in terms of nothing but a genetic legacy is a very, very bad idea. There is so much more to motherhood and fatherhood than mere genetics, when the relationship is as it should be. It's about love, responsibility, and care, and seeing the development of this new person who has something of you, something of your husband, and something that is wholly unique to him or her.
But I should point out that a man who is truly present for his or her child in the way that he ought to be bonds with him or her too. His bond is not a lesser or inferior bond--it arises differently but it is equally real and to be respected. I do think good men are capable of understanding and treasuring that bond despite the callous behavior of deadbeats who clearly do not. And I would rather see a child alive and cared for by a loving single father, or by an adoptive family, than never given a chance at life at all.
In regard to the question posed earlier in the thread--it should have been obvious how I feel about how children should be treated once they are born: they should be cared for. I think some people missed the forest for the trees, because I was mainly discussing explaining the how of it. But the general intent should have been obvious.
