I understand your thinking but I can’t quite go along with it. If a woman chooses to NOT abort her child suddenly the “sperm donor” is liable for child support. He has financial obligation in the one case but no voice if she makes the opposite decision. Men who are really only sperm donors are not expected to support a child.
All too often married men are no more than sperm donors who DO have financial obligations. I know one right now who is living with the wicked witch of the East because he is afraid she will go back to Indonesia with their two daughters. The girls are American citizens but he has been advised by an attorney that if she leaves him the courts will almost certainly allow her to take the girls back to Indonesia with her. Marriage is stacked against men now.
I understand your thinking but I can’t quite go along with it. If a woman chooses to NOT abort her child suddenly the “sperm donor” is liable for child support. He has financial obligation in the one case but no voice if she makes the opposite decision. Men who are really only sperm donors are not expected to support a child.
All too often married men are no more than sperm donors who DO have financial obligations. I know one right now who is living with the wicked witch of the East because he is afraid she will go back to Indonesia with their two daughters. The girls are American citizens but he has been advised by an attorney that if she leaves him the courts will almost certainly allow her to take the girls back to Indonesia with her. Marriage is stacked against men now.
Marriage comes with financial obligations to wife and child and rights to the children that I believe are only accessable to all parties with marriage. Social engineering law is bad on all sides. IF you read upthread you will see that I think that unmarried men should have no financial obligation and no rights to children born without marriage.