# Abortion and child support **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985 "2010-12-13T15:24:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/261 "2010-12-16T18:25:05Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Exactly. > > “I, Mary Jones, on this day, Dec 16 2010, while 4 weeks pregnant, acknowledge that if I don’t get an abortion, in 8 months time a legal entity will be formed, my child, which will need support. I also acknowledge that the father of the fetus, Joe Smith, does not want a new child and has declared that he does not want to support one if born. I have the right to an abortion and I have the right to carry the fetus to term. I am willingly choosing carrying the fetus to term, and therefore, accept full legal responsibility for paying for 100% of the cost of supporting the resulting child” > > _Before_ the child exists as a legal entity, the mother can make an informed decision and sign a legal document, if she wants to keep the baby and the father doesn’t. > > The practical problem with the above scenario is what can the state do with women who want to carry the baby to term but refuse to sign the above document at X weeks of pregnancy? I think almost everyone would be against forcing the woman to get an abortion unless she signs, but maybe the law can be such that if you carry the baby to term under those circumstances, you are implicitly legally bound to it. > > Overall, as has been stated, the current setup is not fair, but it is the best we have come up with, taking into account the overall well-being of all involved. I think a lot of problems would be solved if men and women were required to carry that document and sign it before having sex. It doesn’t sound like the document is necessary if you insist the man isn’t responsible even if she refuses to sign. Lot’s of women raise kids without support for a variety of reasons. The question IMO is what kind of moral precedent are we setting up by allowing males an easy way to avoid parental responsibilities. Then you have simply shifted even more of the burden onto females rather than made it more fair. You’re essentially saying that because women carry the child in their and have an abortion option, {that not all morally agree with btw, so it’s really not an option for a lot of women} then men should be given the ability to have sex as much as they like and never bare the responsibility of fathered children if they choose not to. Doesn’t sound more fair to me. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/262 "2010-12-16T18:28:01Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > But she is being compensated in the case of the impoverished mother that you mentioned above. She is using the child’s support for her own benefit. She’s skirting a lack of alimony and replacing it with child support. How is the child’s right to support from **BOTH** parents achieved in this case? No she isn’t. The purpose of the child support is to support the child. That requires a custodial parent to support that child. Being a single custodial parent significantly reduces ones earning potential. Allowing a single custodial mother, for example, to purchase a car, benefits the child. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/263 "2010-12-16T18:29:35Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Well what we have right now is that if you have sex with someone and a born baby results, you are implicitly legally bound to support it. Agreed. I do think that the law would be fairer if the legal decisions and ramifications (implicit or explicit) happened after the pregnancy has occurred, and before the fetus is a legal entity. However, even though it would be fairer, it likely would result in a lower overall well-being of society (especially the kids) and so what we have today may be the best compromise. > [@](#): > > I’ve said in previous threads on this subject that I’d be okay with men not having to support the babies they help make if they get signed statements from every woman they ever have sex with that say, “I acknowledge that John Doe wants to fuck me but doesn’t want any risk or responsibility whatsoever if I get pregnant and that he’s saying it’s all my fault and my problem and I am still willing to have sex with him.” 🙂 Legally speaking, I wonder if anyone crazy enough to do something like that, would it override current child support laws? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/264 "2010-12-16T18:29:41Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Exactly. > > “I, Mary Jones, on this day, Dec 16 2010, while 4 weeks pregnant, acknowledge that if I don’t get an abortion, in 8 months time a legal entity will be formed, my child, which will need support. I also acknowledge that the father of the fetus, Joe Smith, does not want a new child and has declared that he does not want to support one if born. I have the right to an abortion and I have the right to carry the fetus to term. I am willingly choosing carrying the fetus to term, and therefore, accept full legal responsibility for paying for 100% of the cost of supporting the resulting child” > > _Before_ the child exists as a legal entity, the mother can make an informed decision and sign a legal document, if she wants to keep the baby and the father doesn’t. > > The practical problem with the above scenario is what can the state do with women who want to carry the baby to term but refuse to sign the above document at X weeks of pregnancy? I think almost everyone would be against forcing the woman to get an abortion unless she signs, but maybe the law can be such that if you carry the baby to term under those circumstances, you are implicitly legally bound to it. > > Overall, as has been stated, the current setup is not fair, but it is the best we have come up with, taking into account the overall well-being of all involved. A person may not, by contract, sign away the legal rights of a person who does not yet exist. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/265 "2010-12-16T18:29:49Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > biology does not confer rights to people. > > We, as people, decide what rights people have. > > It just happens than in our setup, a woman has the right to choose an abortion or not, but that is our decision as a people, it is not a universal right granted by “biology”. You’re playing with semantics. Yes, we’ve decided it’s only her right because biology dictates that it’s only her body that carries the child. Unless you think men should have the right to legally compel a woman to have an abortion I don’t get what you’re arguing about. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/266 "2010-12-16T18:32:06Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Except only one of us is being a grown up. You are arguing for the right to be a child - to walk away when things don’t go as you plan. And you, given your personal comments to me, are the last person to play the hurt and offended “be nice to me” card with any degree of credibility. > > And while participating in getting someone pregnant is getting someone pregnant, choosing to participate in the activity differs from choosing to get someone pregnant. The voluntary choice is to participate in sex, knowing pregnancy may result. The pregnancy is the consequence, intended or not, of that voluntary action. > > There is your choice. Once you make that choice, you take the consequences. Stamping your foot and saying “But **she** had longer to decide than I did” isn’t a particularly mature response. My personal comments to you have been addressed via a written apology I do believe. I’m not walking away from anything, I just don’t plan on repeating ad nausea what we have already covered. We have discussed the choice a multitude of times in a multitude of ways, the bottom line is that the states have decided to infer upon the woman a choice solely dependent on her biology which does in fact take a choice from the man (for the welfare of this not yet legal entity known as a child). We grant the woman the same choice as the man (in willfully engaging in sex), and then we grant the woman a second choice in whether or not to accept the consequences of the first decision (which we don’t give to the man) Right or wrong, those are the facts. We disagree, you don’t like my interpretation. I , like Polerius, agree that this is a compromise but I am left wondering if it’s the best compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/267 "2010-12-16T18:33:12Z")
> [@villa](#): > > A person may not, by contract, sign away the legal rights of a person who does not yet exist. They are not signing away the rights of the child. They are saying that they, “Mary Jones” will be responsible for the financial support of the child. The child does not have a “right to financial support from both parents” If anything, it has a “right to financial support”. If the mother signs the above agreement, she is just stating that she will be providing that financial support, and is therefore not taking away any rights from the kid. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/268 "2010-12-16T18:37:14Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > read the thread above yours for the explanation. Even if the woman is on welfare the child support paid by the father, {which is what we’re talking about} is not compensating her. It’s still for the child. I expect that child support is considered as income when a mother is applying for welfare. That’s why states that provide assistance go after the Dads. Are there acceptations to the rule and people who abuse then system. Sure, but that’s not the point. In general, child support is NOT compensation for the mother so that concept needs to vanish from judgment of fairness. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/269 "2010-12-16T18:39:09Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > They are not signing away the rights of the child. They are saying that they, “Mary Jones” will be responsible for the financial support of the child. > > The child does not have a “right to financial support from both parents” > > If anything, it has a “right to financial support”. > > If the mother signs the above agreement, she is just stating that she will be providing that financial support, and is therefore not taking away any rights from the kid. Actually the child **does** have a right to financial support from both parents. “Mary Jones” cannot sign away the kid’s claim on the father, before the kid even exists. The right isn’t to $x per month, it is to support from both. I’ve said this in previous threads, that the only way I can see one of these working is for the mother to sign a contract pledging to personally reimburse the father for any child support payments ordered. However, the father would still have to make the payments, and I am 99.9% certain a court would refuse to enforce it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/270 "2010-12-16T18:40:28Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > My personal comments to you have been addressed via a written apology I do believe. > I’m not walking away from anything, I just don’t plan on repeating ad nausea what we have already covered. Yet you continue to repeat ad nauseam what you have already said. And while you apologized, well, to me once you make personal remarks regarding someone else’s family a “whoops, I’m sorry, never mind” doesn’t make everything perfect again, and give you some kind of imagined moral highground. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/271 "2010-12-16T18:41:12Z")
Semantics, someone on the end of the person who has custody of the child is getting compensation. Whether you want to call it ‘her’ or not, legally she is responsible for that child. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/272 "2010-12-16T18:41:16Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > The child does not have a “right to financial support from both parents” > . Who says. Do you know that in some cases the child can sue for child support if the mother is unable to. Evidently society has decided that a child does have a right to expect financial support from both parents. Once more, even without laws saying so the moral ethical obligation remains for parents to care for their offspring. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/273 "2010-12-16T18:43:33Z")
> [@villa](#): > > No she isn’t. The purpose of the child support is to support the child. That requires a custodial parent to support that child. Being a single custodial parent significantly reduces ones earning potential. Allowing a single custodial mother, for example, to purchase a car, benefits the child. And a mother that gets a spa treatment and a makeover because she has a job interview might benefit the child. In fact, outside of illicit drug use, it is difficult to come up with any expenditure that couldn’t in some tangentially related way benefit the child. That’s why I would call for more oversight. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/274 "2010-12-16T18:45:36Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Yet you continue to repeat ad nauseam what you have already said. And while you apologized, well, to me once you make personal remarks regarding someone else’s family a “whoops, I’m sorry, never mind” doesn’t make everything perfect again, and give you some kind of imagined moral highground. I don’t imagine I have some moral high ground. I have stated repeatedly, we disagree. I have laid out the facts as I perceive them (in regards to the states involvement in child support issues) and you continue to fight that. Good on you. If you continue to be derogatory towards me though, I will follow suit. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/275 "2010-12-16T18:48:04Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Even if the woman is on welfare the child support paid by the father, {which is what we’re talking about} is not compensating her. It’s still for the child. > > I expect that child support is considered as income when a mother is applying for welfare. That’s why states that provide assistance go after the Dads. > > Are there acceptations to the rule and people who abuse then system. Sure, but that’s not the point. In general, child support is NOT compensation for the mother so that concept needs to vanish from judgment of fairness. Umm, this is supportive of my assertion that she is the recipient of the funds. SHE is being compensated. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/276 "2010-12-16T18:50:11Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Semantics, someone on the end of the person who has custody of the child is getting compensation. Whether you want to call it ‘her’ or not, legally she is responsible for that child. Legally both are. THat’s the point. SHE IS NOT the person being compensated since she is also financially responsible for the child. Child support is for the care of the child not to compensate the mother. The amount is usually figured on income. The law feels the child should be able to expect a certain amount of benefit based on the income of both parents. That’s why it’s not a flat fee. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/277 "2010-12-16T18:50:17Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > 🙂 > > Legally speaking, I wonder if anyone crazy enough to do something like that, would it override current child support laws? No, because the mother doesn’t have the right to override her child’s rights. Imagine someone said, “Religion in the US causes so much drama. If we just had a state requirement that there be no religion, things would go better. Here, sign this paper and it will revoke your unborn child’s right to freedom of religion.” Would you consider that reasonable? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/278 "2010-12-16T18:50:54Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Actually the child **does** have a right to financial support from both parents. “Mary Jones” cannot sign away the kid’s claim on the father, before the kid even exists. The right isn’t to $x per month, it is to support from both. Could be. Do you have a cite for that? (i.e. a law that says that the kid, even if it is receiving lots of money from the mother or father, can still sue the other parent for some more money?) Also, how does that fit in with adoption? When the parents both decide to give up the kid for adoption, can the kid then sue his biological parents for financial support? If an adopted kid can’t sue his biological parents for financial support, because the new parents have assumed financial responsibility for him/her, how is that different than one biological parent assuming financial responsibility for the child and whether that child can sue the other parent for financial support? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/279 "2010-12-16T18:51:29Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Umm, this is supportive of my assertion that she is the recipient of the funds. SHE is being compensated. So you are making up a new meaning for compensated? That’s a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/280 "2010-12-16T18:52:28Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > No, because the mother doesn’t have the right to override her child’s rights. > > Imagine someone said, “Religion in the US causes so much drama. If we just had a state requirement that there be no religion, things would go better. Here, sign this paper and it will revoke your unborn child’s right to freedom of religion.” > > Would you consider that reasonable? What child? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985.md?page=15)