False analogy. Nobody chooses to have a car accident, but one (at least) of the spouses, must choose a divorce. It is not something that happens to them by accident.
You're deliberately missing the forest for the trees. What matters is the end, not the means. The
end is the "divorce" (car accident), not what led to it (
means). A prenup protects the man from having his home, money, and everything else stolen from him by the woman. Car insurance protects a person from getting sued, and it pays for damages to their cars.
It is prudent to have car insurance because car accidents are beyond one's control. Divorce is up to the couple. No matter what the divorce rate is, a couple only gets divorced if one of them chooses it.
Your last sentence supports my argument and nullifies what you said just prior to it. Divorce isn't up to the man when his wife can "divorce" him for any reason, and no reason at all, through no fault of his own. Hence, the divorce is, indeed, beyond his control. Court cases prove it.
Making a prenup is preparing for divorce. It shows one believes that at least one of the spouses is capable of choosing divorce.
Yes, it prepares for a "divorce",
if it were to unfortunately come, but it's not expecting it. It's only prudent to prepare for the worst, especially when the trend is growing as time passes. I see you tried to change your language around ("preparing for" replaced "expecting") to make your point valid, but you only supported my point. Thanks.
Poll
