Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility 
for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby?

Are women responsible for anything that they do?

Isn't it incredible that when it comes to having a baby, the feminist propaganda machine always tries to make us believe that the man is responsible for such an event, when, in fact, he has very little to do with it?

How many times do we hear the politically-correct complaining about young boys who go around impregnating girls and then abandoning them, as if, somehow, the boys have any control over what the girls' biological outcomes will be?

It is females who are in control of their pregnancies. And they have total control.

Females have ready access to all forms of contraception. They can take the contraceptive pill. They can take the morning-after pill. They can don the diaphragm. They can insist on condoms. They can use spermicide. They can have abortions. And they can refrain from having sex.

To prevent an unwanted baby being born, women can do something before sex, during sex and after sex.

To prevent an unwanted baby being born, women can do something before sex, during sex and after sex.

They are also in control of all areas to do with giving birth - physically, chemically, biologically, psychologically, socially, legally and medically.

In the west today, no man can force a woman to have a baby. It is entirely her choice. So why do our politicians and the media continue to blame men (and with such vitriol) for unwanted or undesirable pregnancies? The answer is, of course, very simple. It is the vindictive, prejudicial rhetoric of feminism which always blocks any attempts to make women responsible for anything. 

Unfortunately, promoting this politically-correct nonsense takes away responsibility from the very group of people - women - who have the wherewithal to prevent these unwanted events. It allows them to say, 'It's not my fault'.

I don't know how many times I have seen chat shows wherein, for example, women with seven or eight children (from two, three or four different men) complain about how badly the state looks after them. And the audience is invariably directed to shift the blame for this situation on to the 'reckless' men who have impregnated them. 

It never seems to dawn on this feminist-indoctrinated society that such women have total responsibility for having children. No-one can force them to have children.

women never need to consider their own responsibility

No wonder, therefore, that such women never need to consider their own responsibility and are quite happy for everyone else to pay for their children, and for the problems that, statistically speaking, these children are likely to cause, for decades to come.

Until we remove the deceptions and the deceits of feminist doctrine from our society, and start to make women responsible for their actions, we do not really have much hope of solving anything.

If a woman becomes pregnant then there is nothing that the man can do to alter the future course of events. This future is entirely up to her.

And this continual stirring up of hatred towards men by the media by blaming them for events over which they have no control whatsoever is outrageous.

Trisha, one of the trashiest chat programmes on TV, consistently draws its viewers by verbally spanking working-class boys and blaming them for the ills of all of society. 

 'He Got Four Of Us Pregnant'

For example, a recent edition of the programme had the heading, 'He Got Four Of Us Pregnant'.

Jason, apparently, has managed to impregnate four, and possibly five, women. Two babies have already been born and two are on the way.

Jason protests that he is only doing what comes naturally by screwing around, but the mostly female audience rages into him. "He should keep his zipper closed," says one. "I've got two bricks in my garden," says the other with venom in her voice.

It does not cross the minds of these feckless women that any of Jason's 'victims' (because this is how they are portrayed) had anything to do with it at all! They bear no responsibility at all.

And this is what we do. We remove all responsibility from women and then provide them with free apartments to aid them in the process of single-motherhood and the production of hordes of ill-disciplined children.

My hostility goes out not to them, however. The problems arise from the way that these women have been brought up thanks to feminist ideology and political-correctness. After all, who can blame these women? Why should they opt for hours every day in poorly paid jobs when they can have children and homes provided completely free of charge? 

How can anyone be surprised that the numbers keep growing when feminists and trashy programmes keep endorsing their lifestyles?

It must be obvious even to the most vacuous of TV personalities that these programmes bring about numerous social problems.

Jason will shortly have four children on this planet, with four single women raising them on their own.

You will pay for all of this; their education, their health, their homes, and all the trouble that the children will probably cause in the future.

Women are responsible for nothing. 'He did it.'

'He Got Four Of Us Pregnant', says it all, doesn't it? Women are responsible for nothing. 'He did it.'

What is infuriating is that the programme-makers get fat on the advertising proceeds of this trash. And I am sure that Trisha herself makes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of them. 

The boys of single mothers do not get to smash her windows or to intimidate her if she goes out in the evening.

But it isn't just trash like the Trisha programme that spreads this ridiculous politically-correct ideology throughout the nation. We see this happening even on programmes like BBC's Question Time.

Some of you might recall a recent incident where a seventeen year old girl had a baby by a thirteen year old boy. Of course, this is an illegal act and would have been classed as something akin to rape had their ages been reversed. But only boys are responsible for anything, remember that. 

This girl, apparently, bore no responsibility, and so she was not punished in any way. If the ages had been reversed, he would have been in serious trouble.

Here is how the political editor of the Spectator, Bruce Anderson, started his response to this matter. "The fact that this boy got this seventeen year old pregnant ..."

Do you see? It's embedded in the language.

Do you see? It's embedded in the language.

This boy, this child in fact, 'got' her pregnant. She is seen as having no responsibility at all, even though he is a child. But it is his fault. He is a male and, therefore, he is responsible.

Indeed, politicians would also make this boy financially responsible for the child (e.g. see MPs would hold 12 year old boys financially responsible for pregnancies.)

Feminism is a hateful and vindictive ideology that has no valid concepts of equality or justice.

Women are in total control of their pregnancies. Forty years ago this was not the case. A woman had little choice. If she became pregnant then it was right that the man shouldered 50% of the responsibility. And in other parts of the world the same is true today. But western women nowadays have 100% control over their pregnancies. 

Women should therefore shoulder 100% of the responsibility.

 the woman should have total responsibility for any baby that she, alone, chooses to have.

None of the above applies, of course, if a man and a woman agree to a pregnancy. In this case, both are responsible for it. But when a man and a woman have intercourse for the sake of sex, rather than for anything else, then the woman should have total responsibility for any baby that she, alone, chooses to have.

A typical ploy by women to absolve their gender from responsibility is to claim that when a man has sex with a woman then it is his own fault if she ends up having a baby.

western women do not 'end up' having babies. They choose to have them

But, firstly, western women do not 'end up' having babies. They choose to have them. These are not 'accidents'.

Secondly, they would not apply the same twisted kind of 'logic' to any other circumstance.

For example, if a man was to take a woman out for a drive in his car, and he decided to crash the car into a wall deliberately, I doubt that many women would blame the female passenger for her resulting injuries. For example, I doubt that women would say, "Oh well, if she gets into a car with a man then any deliberate damage to her well-being caused by the man is her fault."

But this is exactly what western women do when it comes to pregnancies.

The woman has TOTAL control of her pregnancy - throughout the whole of its period - but the man is blamed for the outcome!

Indeed, a woman who argues that a man is just as responsible as she is for the production of a child - following sex - will surely soon be arguing that a man is just as responsible for the programs that she runs (or the words that she writes) on her computer because he helped her to plug it into the socket!

Another ploy used by women to make men responsible for pregnancies is to argue that the resulting children are the men's children.

"He has 'fathered' a child."

"It is 'his' child."

But this is just fooling around with deceptive words.

 in what sense is the child 'his'?

For example, in what sense is the child 'his'?

He can be removed from 'his' child at the whim of the woman. The law allows her to leave the country with the child. The law allows the woman to displace him and to replace him with another man. The woman can even flush 'his' child down the toilet in the early stages of pregnancy.

So, in what sense, exactly, does this child actually 'belong to him'?

Well, the truth is that it is not 'his' child at all.

Yes. He is related genetically to the child; but he is also related genetically to many other people, but, surely, this does not mean that he must be held 'responsible' for them simply because of this.

Legally, the child is 'his' - but only in the sense that the law burdens him with financial responsibility for it.

But this is merely a legal ploy, not a moral one.

Another ploy used by women and the state to burden men unfairly in this matter is to parrot the totally bogus "best interests of the child" mantra - an emotive mantra that is almost invariably used to cover up the fact that women or the state are seeking some unfair advantage over men.

One typical argument is as follows. 

the "best interests of the child" must take priority, and so the 'father' must pay up.

Regardless of the details of a particular case, once a child is born then the "best interests of the child" must take priority, and so the 'father' must pay up.

But, hold on! If the question is about money, then there is no reason why this money should come from one particular man. Why, for example, should it not come from her new boyfriend? Or, perhaps, from the state? Why should one particular man be penalised simply because this woman once had sex with him?

Would a woman passenger in a car that was deliberately crashed by the driver be expected to pay the costs of repairing the driver's car? - simply because she had chosen to go for the ride?

The very idea would be outrageous.

But when it comes to hurting men, or to treating them unfairly, it does not seem to matter how outrageous matters might get; as evidenced, for example, by the fact that in many western jurisdictions men are forced to pay child support for children who are not even theirs! - e.g. see Paternity Fraud

Western men (mostly) have provided their women with numerous technologies with which to control their pregnancies, and I think that it is about time that women were made to take proper responsibility in this area and not be allowed to foist the blame on to others for the consequences of their own fecklessness, greed, selfishness and/or dishonesty.

As such, my view is that a woman who chooses to get pregnant and to remain pregnant should, at the very least, be required to obtain a signed document from the prospective father testifying as to whether or not he is willing to be legally identified as the father of the child should a birth take place. If not, then I would argue that the 'father' has no legal liability for any birth.

And I also believe that all children should be genetically tested at birth so that false assignments of paternity are properly prevented.

Notice how the women bear no responsibility ...

Unemployed Father Of 10 Children Is Having Four More Britain's most feckless father is having another four children - and is apparently 'engaged' for the third time in three months.

Harry

A man has just as much ability to provide or insist upon contraceptives. He, also can insist on a condom, make inquiries as to whether she is using birth control, or a diaphragm. This man in question can also, if a woman insists on using nothing, keep his penis to himself. He is just as responsible for the choice to have sex as a woman, and therefore should be just as responsible for the resulting child. They both agreed, the responsibility is 50-50. Women can't impregnate themselves, they happen to need a man involved as well.

C

Hello C

1. A man cannot insist on an abortion.

2. A man cannot insist on the morning after pill.

3. A man cannot force the woman not to betray the trust that he placed in her.

 it is perfectly legitimate for her to renege on the deal and decide to have a baby.

What you seem to be suggesting is that if, for example, a man and a woman agree to have sex together without a condom, then it is perfectly legitimate for her to renege on the deal and decide to have a baby.

In my opinion, such an attitude is contemptible, and it reflects the rather common but distasteful view that women should bear no responsibility for choices that they alone can make - in this case, the choice to have, or not to have, a baby.

But, yes, you a right, a man can always keep his penis to himself, or insist on using a condom. And this is exactly what my advice would be, given that so many women cannot be trusted.

And you, clearly, agree with this view.

You are actually admitting that if a man wants to be assured of not fathering a baby then he must not trust the woman that he is with.

you must be of the view that many women are untrustworthy.

In other words, you must be of the view that many women are untrustworthy.

I agree.

The difference between us is, therefore, that you think that when a woman betrays this trust, she should be allowed to get away with it. Indeed, you actually try to blame the man for trusting her - i.e. you 'blame the victim'. Basically, you are saying that if he is stupid enough to trust her then he should pay the price.

My view is that he should not have to pay the price for her breach of trust.

And your later notion that an agreement to have sex is identical to an agreement to have a child is too laughable for me to bother talking about it.

An average eight-year old could tell the difference between the two.

Harry

3/12/03

To Tell the Truth, Women Lie 

Harriet Arkell 

Evening Standard

The minefield of modern manners has turned British women into bare-faced liars.

A study of 5,000 women shows that only six per cent claim never to have uttered a falsehood.

The rest lie regularly about everything from why they are late to their boyfriend's sexual prowess.

 pretending to be on the Pill to get pregnant.

Three-quarters said they had told major lies with serious consequences, such as pretending to be on the Pill to get pregnant. "Women lie because they're afraid to tell the truth," said psychologist Susan Quilliam. "They're scared of hurting people, scared of failing and scared of being criticised.

"Women are expected to fulfill expectations, and to get what they want in life they feel they have to gloss over the truth."

Most of the fibs are white lies. Among common admissions were faking orgasms (48 per cent); pretending to weigh less (51 per cent); feigning delight at Christmas presents (88 per cent) and reporting sick to get over a hangover (60 per cent).

But almost half said that if they became pregnant through an affair they might tell their partner the child was his.

The study was commissioned by That's Life magazine and the average age of respondents was 38.

Jo Checkley, editor of That's Life!, said: "Just imagine the consequences if women always told the truth: 'Yes, you do look fat in that dress'."

Father Of 15 Children

Father Of 15 Children An unemployed father of 15 who lives with his wife and mistress is demanding a larger council house after getting both women pregnant at the same time.

He 'got' them pregnant, eh?

Well, that's not quite the whole story, is it?

The women got themselves pregnant would be a more accurate description of the events.

And having got themselves pregnant, they chose to have the children. No-one could force them to have children. Indeed, the choice was entirely theirs.

And that's a fact!

"Some people call me a scrounger, but I'm not. I'm just a good father. I love my kids more than anyone and want to see them every weekend."

But why do people see him as the 'scrounger', rather than the women who chose to have the children?