Moral Armor On Predational Pregnancy

By Author: Ronald Springer
Total Articles: 1
Comment this article

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 contact RonaldESpringer@MoralArmor.com or visit www.MoralArmor.com for details.