Atheism

Politics

Memes

Mind

Matters

Random

Interact

Feedback

Email

Links

Forum

Home

Women Priests

The Right to Choose

The Better Half

Aborting Babies

Women in Islam

Gandhi: Great Soul or Arsehole?

Persecuting Minorities

Paedophilia is Not a Crime

Freedom is Bad for Your Health

Long Live the English Republic

The Founding Fathers

What the Bible Says About Abortion

War: What is it Good For?

Consent Matters

Circumcision

Is Equality Possible?

Slavery: Not a Black and White Issue

Stand clear of the doors!

A woman has got the ultimate say over her own body and men have just got to accept this. It is fundamentally unjust to force a woman to carry a child against her will, this right to determine what happens with her own body trumps the rights of the dependent foetus. However if a woman has got a right to choose (when she carries a baby, who she has sex with, whether to kill a man's unborn child) a man surely has got the right to know whether he is a father or not. Women have that certainty, except in extremely rare and tragic circumstances, men never have that certainty.

It is not defensible to give women rights they never had before such as recognizing rape in marriage as a crime, ensuring equal pay in the teeth of the free operation of the labour market , ruling offside recruitment interview questions that ask women whether they intend to get pregnant and at the same time cling on to a woman’s right to lie to men. How can women hold their heads up high when the law is securing them rights they never managed to achieve without it and at the same time clinging on to the low animal right to lie to men, to slap men without retaliation, to fight with hair-pulling and nails and when push comes to shove the “right” to destroy a man’s entire life plans by knowingly deceiving him into bringing up a family of her bastards while he thinks they are the fruit of his loins.

Equality should run both ways. It is not right that a man be used as a sperm donor and an income source while denied all the rights, responsibilities and joys of fatherhood. What sense does it make to say that a man has responsibility to provide for children he is not allowed to see or care for? What sense does it make to make men responsible for children they had no knowledge of, no say in and took active steps to avoid having?

If I beget children with a random strange woman it is arguable that my genes have received some kind of benefit from the affair. Great, make my genes pay the child support. If I don’t see any children that result in what way have I benefited from having children? Making biological fathers pay makes no sense other than the same sense that speed cameras make, proof is easy and clear cut. A man is either the biological father or he is not, and the laboratory technicians can give a categorical decision on that matter these days.

Legally speaking a woman could inseminate herself from the contents of a condom that never came near her body, actively stealing the sperm of a man she never met and still get a court to decide that the man was legally and financially responsible for however many children are produced until they reach the age of majority. It’s a wild speculation of course but there is nothing to stop an underage virgin girl stealing a condom, freezing the sperm and using it to have a child every five years until she’s fifty and demanding that the children be kept in the manner appropriate to the income of the father while she brings them up and teaches them to despise him as the worst human being alive. This is the way the law works. It is not necessary to prove anything except simply biological paternity, if you do that the court acts as if the woman is the wronged party and has been abused by the man who must be named and shamed and made to pay. It does no good to claim that the woman has lied about contraception or been an evil manipulative gold-digging bitch, the tests show the truth which must be respected. So why isn’t every child paternity tested? If biological paternity is everything, and determines who should be forced to pay for the child why not test all children and remove once and for all the greatest fear of man?

Does a woman have a right to lie about the paternity of her children? I think a man has the right to know whether he is the father of a child and should be able to ask that this be tested. A man does not have the right to know who the father of a child is, only whether or not he is that father.

There is of course another vitally important right to know in regard to paternity, that is the right to know that the claimed paternity of claimants to titles and the monarchy is genuine. If people are to be given jobs on the basis of who their parents are (which of course is monstrous and indefensible in the world we live in) those who are obliged to respect such succession surely have the right to question whether that claim is genuine. In the past we did just have to take their word for it, these days simple proof is available with nothing more than a cheek swab. We should demand that the royal family proves its claims because in effect the British public is footing the bill for the raising of these children and the provision of special protection for them. Don’t we have the right to know that we have not been cuckolded by a devious princess? Ought we to know whether a sickly royal child has been replaced with a foundling?

We know the royal family are not above a little adultery, in the way the ocean is not above the sky, it is high time this was brought out into the open and acknowledged. If they don’t want their family business made the nation’s business then the answer is simple: get out of the monarchy trade. The only thing a royal has to do is to produce legitimate heirs and we have long since past the age when we would be calling for the beheading of queens who failed in that duty. I suppose you could say we’re far too civilized for monarchy.

© 1999 - 2010 by Martin Willett.

mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited