I see no reason why such person deserve anymore than bare minimum. That is bare minimum that society considers acceptable. So clearly it should be acceptable for absolutely everyone.
Yes, if you want to be sure that you don't end up badly, either accept that minimum standard is social security. Or safe up yourself. Don't expect to be able to exploit someone else for your heightened standard of living.
Obvs prenups etc tweak the split/vesting schedule effectively, and that's fine, but don't expect to be a CEO of a startup, sell £1M of product and be able to walk away with the entire value of the business.
Divorce was indeed lower when women typically had no way of supporting themselves, and therefore were often forced to stay in a marriage. That hardly seems like the better end of the deal.
Sure, that's why I stipulated 'sometime you're up against impossible odds'. But I don't see how there can be talk of an equal partnership when one party is expected to bring in all the money and do half the emotional labour, and typically a good chunk of the housework in the process.
The reason is that that's the standard marriage contract both of them signed. If they wanted a custom pre-nup, they could have done that instead.
Of course, the default contract itself could be changed, but I think your ideas are pretty far from most people would consider fair or reasonable.
Abortion, ok.
But do you mean putting your own, healthy kids up for adoption???
And there are different degrees of "more important". "Throwing the kids away" is a super extreme measure few would take.
I hate it when during internet discussions, suddenly the other side slides on a slippery slope all the way to Level 99.
Your single without children?
Adoption may be the best option for some people in some situations. I can imagine that. But presenting it as an obvious solution to this problem indicates a glaring gap in their understanding of human beings.