Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
In most countries we can do prenuptial agreement.
The reason is obvious.
Imagine if the man is very rich. Say a billionaire. If he marries and his wife left him, she will make billions of dollars.
When government make the whole deal, for some reason, government makes marriage deals to be very disadvantageous for rich men.
Alimony is more expensive for rich men. Child support is more expensive for rich men. Many women want to marry rich men but marriage must be monogamous.
However, in supposedly free country, people are free to make their own deals. So government allow prenuptial agreement. The agreement basically makes the deal more fair by not linking the man’s wealth to his wife’s share.
Being able to make such agreement is also beneficial for the women and the children out of the union. Without prenuptial agreement, the man will not want to marry the woman. The woman will end up choosing poorer man to be her husband. Now, with prenuptial agreement, the deal can work, and the woman’s children will live a far more opulent life.
But even prenuptial agreement is far from free. Government can still stipulate that marriage must be monogamous, for example.
Many men no longer want to get married. However, the rich ones, at least, do not mind paying reasonable child support.
As usual, when government decide child support amount, government set the child support to be somewhat proportional to the man’s wealth and income. Child support can run for millions of dollars. A father that don’t live and “used to responsibly provide for the children” can end up paying huge child support because child support amount is set proportional to “the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved;”
The effect, if not the intent, is pretty much preventing rich men from having more children. Indirectly this also increase the number of children of poor men increasing welfare and votes for welfare recipients.
For similar reason with prenuptial agreement, a deal can be made so that the amount of child support is whatever the man and woman agree with. The government can set some reasonable minimum amount not linked to the man’s wealth, but anyone wanting to have children should be able to override it.
After all, if poor, ugly, and or dumb people can have children, often with welfare paid by tax, why prohibit rich men and women prudent enough to consider financial situation from having children.
The benefit is huge. Rich men can father more children. There will be less welfare and less tax. In a free country, this shouldn’t be a problem at all. If the potential father and potential mother agree, and the child will live an opulent life and society will not have to pay the burden of the child, it’s totally victimless.
Also many controversies about abortion and child support can be settled before conception or even before having sex.
Government can set whatever default based on what societies think is true. The current default, for example, is that women have right to abort, and if the mother choose to continue the pregnancy, the man is responsible for child support.
Say a man doesn’t want his children murdered and he thinks abortion is murder. Simple. Only have sex with woman that agree first she won’t abort the baby.
Say a woman wants to make sure that she and her children will get $1 million dollars compensation. Simple. Find a very rich men that explicitly agree to it.
In fact, such deals can totally replace marriage. Most sex do not affect society as a whole anyway, with the exception of welfare in case parents are poor dumb, and extra start up businesses in case parents are smart and rich.
Think about it. If women prefer the rich, how can there be any kids with poor dad? Customers no longer choose to buy typewriters, horse chariots, and handwoven fabric.
Factories that produce superior products, like all factories typically want more than one customer. As consumers pick who they want more, those who do not get picked simply disappear.
The same way most rich men want to have more than one woman. When this is easier richer men will be available to more women. The result is that some women will choose that richer men as father and have richer smarter children that live better life.
The other women that do not choose will have had their choice. This will undermine justification for welfare. Now we know that poverty is the result of woman’s choice, namely choosing poorer father of their children.
So, why do many women still pick poor dumb men that do not pay a lot of money for child support? How can there be single mother for example?
This idea has been legal in most countries. In US, for example, a rich man can just pay harvard female college students for eggs. The cost is a mere $10k. So women do get paid for having children. Also they can do it in ways where they do not get unreasonable amount of money. Why not extend this to children conceived naturally?
In other country, people can pay doctors and woman to have children. But such technology is only legal for “married couple”. Again encouraging marriage and put men that want to have children and want to financially support the children but does not like governments’ idea of marriage at severe disadvantage. Yet, every time I propose the idea people are mad, not willing to discuss this, and I got banned.
Yes the wording is slightly different, but the idea remains the same.