By “placing the all the responsibility on men” it gets re-placed back on women and children. Fathers kill their daughters or the threat of that causes daughter to kill themselves or their unborn in order to save their own lives. Of the family disposes of the baby in order to save their ‘honor’. The baby pays.
So the responsibility has NEVER been on men, it is always shifted to women, and their babies. And the men who actually co-create the children do not take the responsibility either.
It seems to me the Lord loves life, not death. He would not want women or their babies lives to be at risk.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is just that. It’s personal. That means the TWO people who start a new life are responsible for that new life.
What you want is to shift all the responsibility to the woman, and ultimately to the baby. That is nothing but pure cowardice. Always has been.
History shows that is it the baby/child who always ends up paying for the sins of their parents. How about we not do that anymore?
You said: “How is it “not logical” to impose a penalty on the key point where societally destructive behavior can be thwarted?”
That is an ends justify the means concept (very liberal concept by the way). If we want to go that route, let’s thwart MEN who want sex free from responsibility and who will protect that right at all costs (including by death imposing death).
By the way, your “gateway” concept was invented wholly by men who want to defer personal responsibility onto someone else.
You want ends justify the means? Let’s have it. I can think of many ways to do that.
Let’s start by imposing a penalty on all men who father a child out of wedlock (or inside wedlock as many married men also abandon their children).
Ends justify the means? Bring it.
Have a nice day.