[Bush2000]

Which is horrible. This country has gone mad. This is the liberal view foisted on on in the last thirty years and so many here are going along with it. They think we are animals, so blood, tribe, ethnicity etc... are all important.

On the one hand, you're saying that the father of record (not the genetic father) has responsibility to raise the child. And, on the other, you're saying that the genetic father shouldn't have any rights. I can't agree with either sentiment. Asserting the right of parenthood by virtue of genetic relation isn't a new or a liberal notion. It's more true to our tradition than what you propose -- which would essentially restructure parenthood based solely on feewings.

[tallhappy]

I'll tell you. Genetic father is a meaningless term.

The father is the man who takes responsibility for and raises a child.

Where one half of the child's complement of chromosomes came from is beside the point.

Progenitor is the better term you are looking for. Or in another scenario, adoptive father.

Genetic father is redundent except in cases where it is qualified, such as adoptive father.

Progenitors are not fathers, so the term is misleading.