Yeah, I saw this yesterday. What strikes me is how many women are choosing to be single mothers on purpose. It's one thing to be delusional enough to think that Chad will stick around but quite another to deliberately choose that path. I suppose she realized that she would never lock down the high income Chad she feels entitled to and went this route because the thought of some icky beta having even the illusion of rights to his child that the law theoretically grants him is so enraging to her.
I suppose it's less about them choosing to be single mothers and more about them going about it in a way that doesn't allow them to leech off the father. I posted about a similar situation earlier this year. Typically the child is an excuse to extort a meal ticket out of the father in addition to daddy government. They're willingly giving up a paycheck by going this route (not I would trust the family courts not to financially rape sperm donors regardless of the law). That's why I speculate that they do this because even pretending that the father has rights (that the family courts regularly disregard) is just too much for these entitled cunts. It comes way too close to acknowledging that men (especially betas) are human for their comfort.
"And although I planned to raise our child on my own, my friend wanted to remain involved as a family member, attending birthday parties and school graduations, offering advice and an occasional shoulder to cry on. Someone to love my child fully and without condition, as I would."
She found her perfect beta with her faggot friend. Why do you think she probably chose this guy in the first place. She knew she would be able to sponge off of him with no obligation. This is every feminists wet dream.
My understanding is that he wouldn't owe child support because he's a donor and not the legal father. Not that I'd trust a family court to ever rule against a woman as I mentioned above. The upside for her is that he also lacks the nominal authority over the child that the law pretends that fathers have. He probably would let her mooch off him on a voluntary basis, which might be what you're getting at.
Yeah, I saw this yesterday. What strikes me is how many women are choosing to be single mothers on purpose. It's one thing to be delusional enough to think that Chad will stick around but quite another to deliberately choose that path. I suppose she realized that she would never lock down the high income Chad she feels entitled to and went this route because the thought of some icky beta having even the illusion of rights to his child that the law theoretically grants him is so enraging to her.
Why wouldn't they?
If she's got a kid, daddy government will give her a free roof over her head.
I suppose it's less about them choosing to be single mothers and more about them going about it in a way that doesn't allow them to leech off the father. I posted about a similar situation earlier this year. Typically the child is an excuse to extort a meal ticket out of the father in addition to daddy government. They're willingly giving up a paycheck by going this route (not I would trust the family courts not to financially rape sperm donors regardless of the law). That's why I speculate that they do this because even pretending that the father has rights (that the family courts regularly disregard) is just too much for these entitled cunts. It comes way too close to acknowledging that men (especially betas) are human for their comfort.
"And although I planned to raise our child on my own, my friend wanted to remain involved as a family member, attending birthday parties and school graduations, offering advice and an occasional shoulder to cry on. Someone to love my child fully and without condition, as I would."
She found her perfect beta with her faggot friend. Why do you think she probably chose this guy in the first place. She knew she would be able to sponge off of him with no obligation. This is every feminists wet dream.
My understanding is that he wouldn't owe child support because he's a donor and not the legal father. Not that I'd trust a family court to ever rule against a woman as I mentioned above. The upside for her is that he also lacks the nominal authority over the child that the law pretends that fathers have. He probably would let her mooch off him on a voluntary basis, which might be what you're getting at.