You mean like in the OP case?
No, not like the OP. The events reported in the OP are not the events in the scenario you invented.
Just because you don't like the outcome and believe the guy's version of events doesn't mean it wasnt legit to have a court look at the case that the world would be a better place if he were automatically assumed not to want to be a father and this would never end up in a court except if he explicitly seeks to adopt the child - or that the court didn't have access to additional facts about this case that make their ruling more plausible.
I have not ruled out 'additional facts' that you now seem quite desperate to be the case, but the 'additional facts' would have to be the
opposite of the reported facts.
People tend to overestimate how much they can trust the word of a person they're infatuated with. You want to punish Sue for her humanity, for her frailty, for her emotions, while if she acted like a robot she'd be good? I thought that was a devilish thing when the guy in the OP was at the receiving end. What's good for the gander is good for the goose...
Oh I see, now you've revised your story, and Sue is infatuated and has lost all her faculties. Sue's infatuation cannot make a man who did not consent to fatherhood the father, and acknowledging that is not punishing Sue for her humanity.
I also think I read something about perverse incentives that may apply here too.
Also this "she brought it upon herself" posturing, why wouldn't that apply to the guy in the OP? He had an option to have his fatherhood annulled, he didn't take it. What's good for the goose...
It seems to me that if you use the existing law to say anything you do that doesn't comply is something you 'brought on yourself', then you can 'justify' anything. In Iran, there are many exclusive marriage and divorce rights that men are entitled to. But the solution is not to tell women 'just don't get married' (though that's happening, too), but to change the law to something reasonable.
The existing law that puts a timer on the implicit 'fatherhood' decision is unreasonable. Even in that case as in the OP, you keep speculating the court had 'additional facts', like maybe the timer started earlier than we are led to believe from the case write-up. That's the court deciding on facts on which there might not be hard evidence. My framework does not get rid of courts deciding facts and I never claimed it did.
Sometimes, the courts will get the facts wrong and that will involve a miscarriage of justice.
You're lying and you know it, or would if you were capable of reading. My scenario includes the line "after talking with both guys at length". Its in the part you quoted.
I am not lying. I indeed read your scenario, and your sentence contains nothing about
the content of what they talked about. I don't have access to your brain states and in your head you might have thought that phrase conveyed everything it needed, but it didn't. I took it to mean she talked to both men to sort her feelings out, because you then include sentences explaining her sorting her feelings out.
Grow the fuck up and learn to read
Learn to write.
instead of making unfounded and in some cases demonstrably false inferences about my beliefs,
The statement that it wasn't clear that the bio father even knew was completely justified. In the story in your head, he might have known, in the story you typed out, it was ambiguous.
Your story contains no explicit statement about Sue telling Bob she is pregnant and it explicitly says she stopped seeing Bob, not that they stopped seeing each other, implying her control over the situation.
based on your fantasy of what feminists (all of them, because they're monolithic somehow) think rather than my actual words and their implications
Haha, no. Feminists are not a monolith, because feminism is incoherent, and I enjoy their internecine spats every once in a while.
I said your scenario was gynocentric, not 'feminist'.