A society needs to insist that any man who fathers a child, by any means, is liable for the support of that child. The covenant is between the child and the father, not the father and the mother.
If I were on a jury that’s how I would see it. The child never agreed to relinquish a relationship with his father or to forgo the fathers obligations. Men know they’re donating sperm for the purpose of reproduction. They want children without responsibility for them. I don’t buy it.
Thank you.
But it goes far beyond financial support. Anyone who co-creates a child has a common identity with that child and robbing said child of that identity should be a crime.
Beyond that, a co-creator owes the child more than money. Creating a child is a sacred bond. Breaking that bond is an abominable act committed against the child. (This goes for both co-creators).
Notice in the story and the laws, there is no mention of the child’s rights in any sense. This stems from our societal belief of childern having no value. They are disposable.
I disagree. It traditionally had been the case that only children conceived in wedlock were due support. It was a big incentive for women insist on marriage. Then in the early 1970's, the Supreme Court invalidated those state illegitimacy laws.
This is one factor that helped the downward slide that started in the 1960's and 70's.
And if a husband and wife were unable to conceive and a sperm donor was used, then do you feel the biological father is responsible?