My Thoughts on Paternal Surrender/Paternal Abortion.

Regarding the mechanics of paternal abortion/paternal surrender, I think an opt in arrangement would be best.

If the assumed father is informed before the birth that the child is his, then he should be given a maximum time frame of 8 weeks to decide if he wants to be the father (opt in). If 8 weeks elapse, and he makes no decision, he forfeits his right and responsibility to raise the child. (opt out)

I base 8 weeks on the fact that abortion is available to women on request up to 12 to 14 weeks gestation in most western countries. I calculate a maximum 8 week time-frame from this. 13 weeks minus 5 weeks – a woman on average finds out she’s pregnant at around 5 weeks gestation. Let’s say that a woman tells the assumed father that she is 10 weeks pregnant with his child. The man then has a legal right to consider whether he wants to opt into the duties of fathering that child up to the 18th week of her pregnancy – 8 weeks after she has informed him.

However, paternal surrender needs to be adopted in combination with other measures.

A mandatory DNA test at birth will determine who the biological father is.

I think the same maximum 8 week time frame can apply after birth too if the father is not informed until after the birth of a child that is biologically his and the same opt-in/opt-out rule will apply.

If the man was informed before birth he was the assumed biological father but the subsequent DNA test at birth reveals that he is not the biological father, then he is automatically opted out and the biological father is sought out and offered the maximum 8 week process of opt in/opt out instead.

If the man opts out before or after birth, he’s not to be punished with child support payments. If he opts in before or after birth, then he still has joint-responsibilities with the mother to support the child.

So that’s two things, legal paternal surrender and mandatory DNA test at birth, that are going to cause a lot of short term pain in society before the long term gain kicks in.

I think a new Ministry for Adoption will help tide things over in various jurisdictions. Given that, as things stand, an estimated 10% to 12% of children are not biologically related to the man who is assumed to be the father, I can anticipate that many men, upon learning from the DNA test at birth that he is not the biological father, will opt out of fathering the child. I can perfectly understand this. Both men and women have a biological imperative to pass down their own genes, not someone else’s. Additionally, many men may feel betrayed by a woman who led him to believe that the child was biologically his when, in fact, it was not. The mother who has no father to support the child will be free to give her child up for adoption (or she can keep the child but will not receive coerced child support payments from an unwilling father) and the new Ministry for Adoption will have a remit to place these children with psychologically stable two parent families.

My proposed Ministry for Adoption will also have an investigative division tasked with tracking down biological fathers. It may not be possible to track down the biological fathers in all cases, for example, in the case of jet-setting romeos who live overseas.

Over and above this, there ought to be mandatory joint custody so that in the event of a subsequent separation or divorce the child will have the benefit of continuing to be raised by two parents. This right is provided for in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (article 9). Secret family courts must also end. All orders of family courts including orders for joint custody or visitation must be enforced. Custodial sentences will be imposed on those who refuse to comply. In the UK, it is estimated that about 5000 parents a year – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact with their children. They’re not punished. They should be punished with incarceration. In the UK, a man recently got a 3 month prison sentence for filming crown court proceedings in Manchester. Why not give these parents who defy court orders a similar punishment?

Whether we like it or not, part of the role of law is to deter. For the personality disordered, the threat and execution of punishment is probably the only thing that is going to adjust their behaviour.

I emphasize that my proposals grant reproductive freedom to both men and women. A child can be transferred in a timely fashion to adoptive families by the Ministry for Adoption before attachment issues for the child become a problem. That window is generally considered to be the first year of the child’s life.

We need to remove marriage custom from the honour system of tradition and duty and subject it to clear and positive law that is aligned with natural justice. Both men and women should be free to decide for themselves if they wish to parent. Currently, only women have this privilege which, in fact, should be a human right, enjoyed by both men and women.

A Pew Research survey from 2010 and 2011 found that 94% of women and 91% of men, aged 18 to 64, said that being a good parent was one of the most important things or very important in their lives. These are very similar results.


Clearly, we should give both men and women the benefit of the doubt that they wish to be physically and emotionally present in the lives of their children and thus parent them well. There is no need to subject either sex to shame as was the norm under the honour system of the past.

Equality before the law is the basis for the success of (western) civilization. And what more important equality is there than that between men and women?

Women already have reproductive freedom. She can abort her biological child. She can put her biological child up for adoption. She can abandon her biological child in all 50 US states thanks to Baby Moses laws. Extend this freedom to men. The heavens will not fall upon us.

The fertility rate amongst the native population in the English speaking world is now about 1.8 children per woman of reproductive age. It is less than 1.5 children per woman of reproductive age in countries such as Germany, Italy and Japan.  I believe that the natural justice measures I propose above will raise this to around 2.5 children per woman of reproductive age, well above replacement level. Globalist politicians will no longer have any excuse to import people from the alien cultures of the Middle East or Mexico.

Aside from equality before the law, another basis for the success of (western) civilization is monogamous marriage. My natural justice measures will strengthen the institution. Men will no longer be entrapped in marriage. What is the point in forcing a man who does not wish to be father to be father? How is that in the best interest of the child?

We need to walk away from genetic fallacies, for example, the fallacy that biological parents automatically make better parents than adoptive parents. Studies show this not to be the case. Another one: the fallacy that a woman makes a better parent than a man. Once we liberate ourselves from these fallacies we can think clearly. Once the dust settles, we can see that the critical question we should ask ourselves is do we want our society’s children to be raised by only one parent or two? Clearly, the optimal arrangement is 2 parents, a man and a woman. Longitudinal studies show that the children of two parent homes, whether biological or adoptive, have better career and educational outcomes and commit less dysfunctional and criminal behaviour than the children of one parent homes. In short, they become more productive citizens who contribute wealth to society rather than be a drain to it.

Another important question to ask ourselves is what is marriage and where does marriage come from? It seems to me many people are confused enough to think that marriage is the creation of and is in the gift of a master manipulator of organized religion or of the state who doles out marriage certificates to the favoured. In fact, marriage is the expression of human behaviour that likely has been part of our species for millions of years. A legitimate question to ask ourselves is how do we behave as a social animal. It seems fair to say that social monogamy characterizes our species in contrast to chimpanzees who enjoy more haphazard sex and the polygyny of gorilla societies. Certainly, we are not perfectly socially monogamous, we are not machines but we tend towards social monogamy.

I offer the case that this behaviour first arose around 5 million years ago in the savannah of East Africa where in contrast to the jungle of West Africa enjoyed by our chimpanzee ancestor cousins, our ancestors had to contend with less food and less forest cover. We had to forage more. Faced with extinction, the sexual licentiousness of our common chimpanzee/human ancestor was abandoned and replaced with monogamous behaviour – “a man and wife”, long term pair bonding, monogamous marriage. The anatomist, C Owen Lovejoy, offers his insight into how this new monogamous behaviour acquired millions of years ago was related to our new ability at that time to walk with facility on the ground freeing up our two hands so that our male ancestors could forage more efficiently for food in the resource scarce environment.

In return for his work for his bonded pair, he was rewarded with sex with a partner who remained his partner for at least as long as their children were to be nursed and raised, if not for life. Both achieved a win-win outcome out of the negotiation. He got sex with one partner who committed to him alone and thus he got a guarantee of sorts that any children that she subsequently gave birth to were biologically related to him. This fulfilled his biological imperative as a man to pass on his own genes to the next generation. She got food security by having a man forage for food and resources for her and the baby she was pregnant with and which she subsequently nursed. Over her lifetime, she could conceive more babies. She could resume ovulation sooner after each pregnancy because of the improved nutrition she received by having a male “breadwinner”. Monogamy it would seem is as integral to our species as walking on two legs.

Marriage predates organized religion and the state. It is just another name for long term pair bonding and we, as a species, have been practicing long term pair bonding for millions of years. In an anthropological sense, marriage is integral to our behaviour. If an alien David Attenborough were to observe our species, surely he would remark on our tendency towards social monogamy or pair bonded loyalty between one male and one female of our species. Our social behaviour is more akin to the social behaviour of gibbons than it is to our genetically closer relatives of chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans. This social behaviour is, in fact, truth, a truth about ourselves that the psychopathic manipulators of state or religious power would deny in their thirst for power and the right to dole out marriage certificates only to the approved. Marriage is not top-down. It is bottom-up.

Social monogamy gave men a crude guarantee that his woman, with hidden ovulation and permanently enlarged breasts, would not sleep with other men and that his genes would be passed on to his children along with hers. That crude guarantee made long-term pair-bonding or marriage work for millions of years. Prior to the 1960s in the west, it remained in place. The sexuality of women was repressed. Women who had children out of wedlock were forced by ostracism to give the baby up for adoption. Marriage was successfully defended by the custom of the state. That arrangement has since broken down. The stigma of having children out of wedlock has been removed and, indeed, single mothers nowadays are huge beneficiaries of the welfare state.

Women can now marry the state who becomes her provider. A man, nominated by her, can be shaken down by the state for child support payments and more. This social change over the past 50 years is nothing short of civilization destroying which is why I propose the natural justice measures above to restore the balance, specifically to restore the guarantee that men always had under monogamous marriage to pass on his own genes to the next generation.  If my proposals are implemented fully, indeed, he’ll have a rock solid guarantee as paternity DNA tests these days are 99.99% accurate.

Do we want the 21st century to be the empathic century of unprecedented human peace and prosperity?  My proposed measures will ensure that that is the case.

It cannot be emphasised enough how important monogamous marriage is to civilization. I argue that around 50,000 years ago, the evolution of the brains of our species had reached a point where we started to become aware of our own mortality.

Ernest Becker writes in the Denial of Death:


“Man is literally split in two: he has an awareness of his own splendid uniqueness in that he sticks out of nature with a towering majesty, and yet he goes back into the ground a few feet in order to blindly and dumbly rot and disappear forever.”

The symbolic self arose, I would argue 50,000 years ago, in opposition to our original animal physical self which had been blissfully unaware of imminent death. We constructed our symbolic self as the engine to embark on what Ernest Becker called the immortality project, a project that would transcend death itself.

50,000 years ago, I would argue, our species took a tumble down the hill. The monogamy that we practiced up to that point was abandoned in favour of polygamous relationships as the “immortality projects” of some men clashed with those of others and triumphed over them.  “Strong men” monopolized all the women. It paved the way for highly inefficient early societies: bands, tribes and later civilizations. Excess men had to be enslaved, tortured or killed in order to reduce the risk of revolt. However, around the 6th century BC, the ancient Greeks once again adopted monogamy as the gold standard and, wouldn’t you know it, from around 600BC onwards, you see a flourishing of Greek civilization, art, thought, philosophy, individualism & technology as energy was released from coercing others to be employed in cooperative projects.  This more advanced Greek civilization eventually replaced the less advanced civilizations of their neighbours. Monogamy was also adopted by the Romans and it was in turn inherited by the Christians. Islam re-embraced polygamy allowing a man to have up to 4 wives. Christianity prescribed only one. Because of this fundamental choice, the Christian world would thrive in the centuries ahead while the Islamic world would decline.

It is monogamy that has resulted in the splendid civilization we enjoy today. It is monogamy that we must defend for this civilization to continue to thrive. For men to consent to monogamy, he wants, as a social animal, his guarantee that his offspring is his. This can be given to him by making a DNA paternity test at birth mandatory. They’re now 99.99% accurate. Pre 1960s, there were crude and psychopathic structures in place that gave men a guarantee that he could have faith in. Unfortunately, it entailed the ostracization of women who had children out of wedlock and the sexual repression of women in general who wished to be part of “polite society”.

I certainly don’t propose that we rewind the clock back to the pre-contraceptive pill pre legal abortion pre-no-fault-divorce pre-1960s. All we need to do is deliver to men the guarantee that he is the biological father of his child. That, nowadays, can be delivered by means of a DNA paternity test at birth.  It was the pursuit of that guarantee 5 million years ago that drove our ancestors to get down from the trees and start walking on our hind-limbs. It was the pursuit of that guarantee that drove Greek civilization to unprecedented heights from 600BC onwards and the Roman, Christian and modern civilization after that. Let men continue to have this guarantee and society will continue to thrive.