For the most part, courts say the bonds of matrimony trump biology.
Then how is it that biology trumps (the lack of) matrimony in the case of an unmarried father who must help support a child?
Lets face it, the courts change their mind depending on which way the hormones blow. In this day and age, testosterone stocks are worthless. Boys are darling pawns until they hit eighteen at which point they become worthless in the eyes of just about everyone, execpt men over 17 years of age. There is no equal protection under the law for men.
Then how is it that biology trumps (the lack of) matrimony in the case of an unmarried father who must help support a child?
_____________________________________________________
An unmaried father only has to support a child IF the mother is also unmarried. So if you want a child you don't have to legal support, find a lonely married woman.
She should be found guilty of fraud and grand larceny as well as compelled to identity the actual sperm donor for compulsory remittance to this defrauded husband and future child support. Were equality the aim in this backward "Roe v Wade" world, if she told him she was pregnant and refused to abort he should be freed of his obligations. If he didn't know, he should have a case based upon her fraud and interfering with his parental rights. (All assuming he is not otherwise unfit e.g. chronic drug abuser, child molester, etc.)
Adults should *NEVER* escape with such repulsive fundamental betrayal of a spouse simply because a child might find out the truth!
Men have no rights to reproduce (can't stop abortion of his child or destruction of his frozen embryos), to not reproduce (can't avoid child support if egg donor chooses life regardless of whether he was defrauded), or to be held harmless for any reproducing his lawful wife has engaged in (even if he's not the biological father).
Males, even children, are sexually abused and the law gives their female perpetrators a pat on the head and the victim gets an "Attaboy!" and pervert's wink from the court. Just look at the teacher/student cases with children from 9 to 13 in recent months, sometimes with abuse going for well over a year.
This is defacto proof the feminazi movement has never been about equality but rather always been about domination.
>>>Then how is it that biology trumps (the lack of) matrimony in the case of an unmarried father who must help support a child?<<<
That's unequal treatment under the law - unconstitutional.
Well, matrimony sure doesn't trump biology when the wife wants to abort her husband's biological child.
Well, that's not exactly what the court has said.
He says, he had no idea, she cheated on him.
She says, they were infertile and found a mutually acceptable donor in order to concieve.
Either one of these is plausible.. and while some may not like the morality of it... the gals story is not impossibly far fetched. Been going on since the dawn of time, and will go on until time ends even if its not spoke about in polite society.
At the end of the day, you have a he said/she said regarding the conception of this child... so to simply boil this down to matrimony trumps biology is spin.
There is no matrimony if the female steps out of the relationship.