Monday, July 04, 2011

Are father's redundant or not? You can't have it both ways Mr Cameron

A single mother has just won the right for the taxpayer to fund her to have a child with no father. See here, and here

Lets just set aside for a moment the fact that this woman is already receiving money from the taxpayer, and the fact that taxpayers are already forced to spend untold BILLIONS on supporting single-mothers (who are usually single through their own choices) at a time when pensioners are living in poverty and people are dying due to the NHS rationing certain drugs....

and instead listen to what our Prime Minister has to say about fathers:

"We need to make Britain a genuinely hostile place for fathers who go AWOL. It’s high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale."

Have I missed something here? Am I going insane?

On the one hand the laws of the land think its perfectly reasonable for women to CHOOSE to have children without fathers, and for the taxpayer to be forced to pay for this, then the law and the establishment will also REFUSE to work to ensure fathers who are kicked out of the home are able to see their children, yet at the same time, Cameron is almost inciting violence against absent fathers.

Utterly fucking astonishing.

Well, it would be if you weren't already aware of the lack of values displayed by the psychopaths who seem to populate governments.

So, when it suits women, fathers are totally unnecessary, and the costs for having a child are supposed to be the responsibility of the taxpayer. But if its at all possible to blame a man, then through his absence and/or lack of paying for his own child he becomes the worst sort of scum. How is that not self-contradictory?

Equally astonishing is the claim of the mother that: "‘I believe that it is my right as a woman to be a mother. The fact that I am single is irrelevant.."

When was this right established and by whom? And by what authority did they ascertain that the taxpayers - including starving pensioners and dying cancer victims - should fund this 'right'?

And who established that this right was more important than the rights of:

children to know their fathers?
old people, who have paid taxes all their lives, to get a decent pension?
fathers to be treated as important?
hard-earning taxpayers not to have their own money taken away for non-essential, 'lifestyle' services for women?

And to rub salt in the wound, we also learn that this woman says she " wanted a child for so long and I tried to get pregnant the normal way for ten years – even when I was with men I didn’t really want to be with."

Sounds to me like she was willing to TRICK a man into supplying her with his sperm, then most likely kick him out of her life, and the life of the future child.

And this is EXACTLY what hundreds of thousands of women in this country do, and as a taxpayer I am forced to pay for it, and also for the costs of social breakdown that ensue from this culture of fatherless children.

I urge all Brits to NEVER vote for Cameron, and to support whole-heartedly fathers for justice:

No comments: