It doesn't waver - it is about both. If the personal relationship exists, then money is a component of the relationship. It's not either-or, and I don't know what makes so many Freepers consistently reduce it to such a simple dynamic.
If a man is biologically the father of a child, he should be responsible for financially supporting that child. If the man self-identified as the father, but not the biodad, in some circumstances he should be responsible too.
Your unusually narrow reading of the word 'harm' to justify comments others made about starvation is silly and immature. Certainly my use of the word harm doesn't mean to convey any kind of harm a child may bear.
I'm very pleased that the kind of thinking I have seen on the thread isn't the way the courts handle it. It's not perfect, but the behavior I have seen here shouldn't be encouraged and I am glad it isn't. Men who are unduly fearful should just never get married, or get married with a complex prenup and not have children, and avoid these traps entirely. Of course, such fearful men have to find a good woman first, and women have a habit of rejecting fearful men. That's to their credit, of course, as difficult as it is for many in the FR 'women suck' continent to swallow.
You said, in part: Men who are unduly fearful should just never get married, or get married with a complex prenup and not have children, and avoid these traps entirely.
***
No, that would not avoid the kind of liability you have asserted in prior posts. If a man establishes a bond with a child who thinks of him as his/her father, irrespective of marriage, biological parenthood or even love for the biological mother, and loves that child as much as if he/she were his own, you would seem to impose financial liability for support. I hope I am wrong in your position.