Send This Site to a Friend
MORAL ARMOR on Predational Pregnancy
Copyright 2005 Ronald Springer
We constantly hear of crackdowns on “dead-beat dads,” but
the topic of how they often originate remains hidden and
deserves serious light: Dead-beat Mothers.
Imagine if a toy company put out a realistic product for
Christmas that had kids screaming, “I want Baby-Waste Your
Life! It comes with a work book and legal kit on how to
lie, how to sue, how to apply for welfare, the various
addictions I’ll employ when it blows up in my face and all
the excuses I’ll need for why my life is not my
responsibility!” Why are girls given dolls when we all know
what a disaster a baby actually is for a young girl? Why
are we shocked, when unprepared for constructive dreams,
that is what they choose?
Motherhood has always been played off as a moral symbol
beyond reproach, so in panic, some women move straight for
its cover. The truth is it has little moral worth (anyone
on I-75 at rush-hour knows there is little risk of the race
dying out). Babies are not the final frontier, though they
serve as that mask for the fear-driven. Defaulting on life,
her goal is twofold: to have her sustenance assured—to
force a man into a position where he must support her—and
second, to neatly dispose of her productive years.
There are certain levels of living that no one has the
right to affect, including your spouse. First is your
purpose in life. Second is the choice of rewards for your
own effort, of which she too, is an extension. Trapping a
spouse is among the worst long-range acts of malice as it
permanently affects so many. Pregnancy in this case is a
grasping attempt to take your living energy and spend it on
her own bumbling course of destruction: if she is willing
to derail your life, she doesn’t care what happens to you
and it’s just the beginning—the tip of the iceberg.
To foster this, a woman is given a clear legal pattern for
transgression upon a man. A man must finance the endeavor,
regardless of what a woman does to conceive. When deception
has no legal relevance, a serious bias exists for evil to
thrive. Among these cases, here is the type of insanity it
manifests: a woman slips into a bedroom at a party, has sex
with an unconscious stranger, has a baby, sues him for
support and wins. In another, a nurse fondles a hospital
patient, inseminates herself in the bathroom, has a baby,
sues him for support and wins. Theoretically, a woman could
break into a sperm bank, inseminate herself from a dead
millionaire, then sue his estate for support and our courts
would oblige. There are countless cases of equally asinine
yet more conventional deception, which is all predation,
period. Such a woman believes the state of motherhood is
beyond moral question, and backed by our courts, is free to
commit any atrocity to achieve it. What are our legal
guardians thinking? I wouldn’t trust such a Judge to
preside over a toaster: fraud is a felony. The legal and
moral response to securing values through fraud in any
other realm is time and restitution, but in this case, the
penalties are reserved for the victim.
Only one reason makes a woman violate the sanctity of her
romantic relationship: it isn’t sacred to her. Social
dysfunction is predicated on cognitive dysfunction. A woman
who wants a child with or without a sound relationship,
does not respect the need for a father in the lives of her
children. She is perfectly willing to let them feel the
rejection and emptiness conjured when a parent leaves,
along with its complex psychological implications. She
designs heartbreak into their lives and hands down an ill
pattern for human relations, which will likely be
perpetuated. She doesn’t know how to have a wholesome
relationship; she doesn’t respect basic human rights and
will not be able to pass that respect on. If he tries to
step in and make a difference, he is legally chained to a
neurotic who has no obligation to act rationally, but has
the full power to override his and continue running wild in
the attempted moral validation of her own illness. He can’t
defend the child from the inconstancy, malice and evil in
the world when it comes from its own mother. He is forced
to work with her as an equal—someone whose actions would
get her fired or incarcerated under any other circumstances.
Our judicial confusion with moral responsibility
effectively means that this plight is guided by a bunch of
scared teenage girls. Holding them to no standard of right
and wrong simply allows their pattern to go on
uninterrupted. Our senseless legal solution is to provide
sacrificial charity wrung out of an involuntary
contributor, and in response, the girls conduct themselves
as any welfare recipient would. When sustenance comes from
an outside source one need not understand, one is free to
play it deuces wild. Nine times out of ten, if she knew she
couldn’t get away with it, it would never happen.
Couples must plan for the fact that no birth control method
is 100% effective, and the choice to have children or not
to and when, is not outside the court’s authority to
acknowledge. A violation of trust is the basis for any
legal suit, and it’s the court’s obligation to determine
innocence and reward it as to determine guilt and punish
it, or in this case, to grant it nothing.
Still, we hear “If you didn’t want children, you shouldn’t
have had sex.” If couples have sex twice a week over the
course of a twenty year relationship resulting in two
children, sex was had .001% of the time for procreation.
The other 99.999% of the time, it was for the sake of the
sex. Do we see bikini-clad models and think lustfully of
diapers? Does a woman see a gorgeous guy and think of a
minivan and a fat ass? SEX IS AN END IN ITSELF. If not,
then it is a form of prostitution. Unplanned pregnancy is
no longer an irreversible malady hopeless to challenge, and
if one partner changes the rules, both lives need not be
taken off track. Every new choice our medical advancements
offer poses an obligation by those involved to stand by
their word, and it’s about time the courts recognized it.
There are enough people on the planet; surely there is room
for justice. If men could opt out from the beginning, her
pattern would be broken. If she violates her vows as wife
or partner, she can face the consequences alone. Like
welfare reform, she’d become self-responsible and weigh her
choices more carefully. If she refuses abortion on
supposedly moral grounds, she’ll have to come to grips with
what her principles cost.
A man often can’t help but ask, “How can I fight this? What
are people going to think? What woman will want me if I
fight?” To them I say, it’s just the opposite. It’s immoral
to roll over when you’re being attacked. Only the
sub-human, wishing to reserve the possibility to act
likewise, would despise you for it. You don’t forfeit your
life by sleeping with a woman. If you’re not treated as an
equal in joint decisions, you’re being set up for slavery.
When consideration is dropped for you, you must drop
consideration as well, or be consumed. You’ll find that in
fighting insincerity, life will reveal a better class of
women to you, and a more elegant style of living. Cut your
losses and find a mate who deals from complete sincerity,
and nothing else will matter.
Relationships and parenting are too important to be handled
haphazardly. A man has a right to wait for the conditions
he finds conducive to his being a good mate and
father—conditions of his fulfillment, safety and honor—and
he has a right to retain his resources until he finds it.
It is each person’s responsibility to find a mutually
agreeable partner, together to develop a stable
environment, and take the next step when both so intend.
Children must be a product of love, trust, mutual respect
and sound life progression—not of fraud, contempt and
aimlessness. Waiting for the right time, our future
children will be given much more spiritually than what a
drained, unhappy parent could share.
Beautiful families are the product of man and wife planning
together; never are they born of malice. Sound laws would
return the moral and financial confidence all men deserve,
and we could watch both genders go on to achieve wealth and
happiness by rational means. Until then the risk remains,
so deny control to those whose vision and ambition is no
greater than lies, diapers and soap operas. Deny control to
those whose ambitions exceed that, possible only with the
means of others.
The world is full of Spirit Murderers who will try to take
control of your energy and use it to pacify their own
madness. For all men, an unwelcome pregnancy is viewed as
an immediate threat to our survival and our control over
it—which is why the leading cause of death for pregnant
women is homicide. Perhaps when the worst of your gender
stop trying to trap us, the worst of ours will stop killing
you.
Ronald E. Springer is the Author/Philosopher of Moral
Armor, the world's first fully-integrated moral philosophy
based on the nature of Man. Mr. Springer is available for
interviews, speaking engagements, workshops and seminars.
Please visit www.MoralArmor.com
for details.
Find More Related Info:
Also See:
Index of
Relationships & Marriage
Women's Health & Women's
Issues
Your Health and Wellness Center
