# 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:** 35
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/681 "2011-01-07T15:09:32Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Try being honest in this discussion, it will make it so much easier. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Try looking past your blind rage **villa** and **Damuri Ajashi** , both of you need to tone it down and discuss this issue without the hostility and personal aspersions. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/682 "2011-01-07T18:13:10Z")
> [@villa](#): > > OK - I see the problem here. You still, after 14 or so pages, have not the first idea how child support works. > > You honestly think the custodial parent isn’t responsible for providing support to the child. > > Well, they are. It isn’t the non-custodial father held responsible for the entire upkeep of the child. Both parents are held responsible. Because (in the situation we are discussing) the father is non-custodial, he is required to provide his support in terms of a financial contribution. That financial contribution is not expected to be the sole source of support for the child. No, I understand that both parents of the child are responsible (currently). This debate is about more than that though. This debate is about whether or not a father (male = no abortion rights) needs to be told by the State to pay for a child he doesn’t want. This part of the debate doesn’t really hold water for folks who have children in wedlock. This is also the part I think you are failing to comprehend. Once again, if the child is the sole beneficiary of the monies that fathers may pay, why isn’t it a set amount but rather a percentage of what the father makes? I know what you’ll say… (think before you do though) This argument doesn’t hold for children born into wedlock where they are _used_ to a certain standard of living. This would be for children still in the womb whom have no standard of living. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/683 "2011-01-07T19:00:14Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > WTF, are you talking about? Are you that convinced that all men are scumbags? Of course not. You are the only person who ever said these words. As a woman, I would also sign these papers if I had the possibility to. If your options are: A: Make an irrevocable decision that could potentially have the government decide when, where and how much you have to support your kid. B: You decide when, where and how much you support your kid. Option B is the only one that makes sense. Nobody would rationally take on a legal obligation that they do not have to. Why would anyone make themselves subject to extra laws? Being a scumbag has nothing to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/684 "2011-01-07T19:02:30Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What would you do about those situations where a woman genuinely did not realize she was pregnant until she was well into her second trimester or later? There are not a lot of doctors that will perform discretionary abortions at that stage, or at least the access if fairly limited. I would say that is an area where the state should step in. Of course, in my ideal world, child support would not be based on the non-custodial parent’s salary rather on the the basic minimum calculated necessary for raising the child and identical to what families on various social safety net programs like TANF for example get. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/685 "2011-01-07T20:33:31Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![PandaBear77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@PandaBear77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PandaBear77)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/686 "2011-01-11T23:30:25Z")
I’m (very) pro-life and yet I find myself agreeing with **Diogenes.** What’s happening to me? ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/687 "2011-01-12T00:15:49Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Not at all. I’d say the motivation for some other people lies more in the punish the slut mentality. Others have a simple misunderstanding of the situation. It’s not punish the slut. It’s punish the stupid. It’s punish the people that choose to bring a unwanted child into the world with no plan to support it. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/688 "2011-01-12T00:20:25Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Nobody would rationally take on a legal obligation that they do not have to. Why would anyone make themselves subject to extra laws? Being a scumbag has nothing to do with it. If that were true no one would ever adopt a child either. Plenty of people voluntarily make themselves subject to extra laws by joining the military or certain government agencies and it is considered quite honorable and laudable. What is not honorable is involuntarily forcing someone of either gender to be a parent. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/689 "2011-01-12T00:22:24Z")
> [@PandaBear77](#): > > I’m (very) pro-life and yet I find myself agreeing with **Diogenes.** > > What’s happening to me? The forced birth movement and the forced fatherhood movement have common ground. Both believe in trampling adult rights in favor of potential children. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/690 "2011-01-12T03:31:34Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Yes you are. It isn’t the mother she wants to see penniless, but the child. The intention is to ensure the child is as badly off as possible. Yes, I think this is true. There are a few things to keep in mind about **ZPG Zealot** when engaging in this kind of discussion with her. First, she hates children and doesn’t value their existence at all. Second, she resents people who DO value children because those people have the temerity to bring them into the world, where ZPG doesn’t want them to be. Third, she curiously seems to believe that it’s mostly women who value children, and that if it were left up to men, she’d live in a blissful world where children don’t exist. Ergo, she kind of hates women, as well. Once you realize all of this about her, her arguments start to make a little more sense. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/691 "2011-01-12T17:02:48Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Of course not. You are the only person who ever said these words. As a woman, I would also sign these papers if I had the possibility to. If your options are: > > A: Make an irrevocable decision that could potentially have the government decide when, where and how much you have to support your kid. > B: You decide when, where and how much you support your kid. > > Option B is the only one that makes sense. Nobody would rationally take on a legal obligation that they do not have to. Why would anyone make themselves subject to extra laws? Being a scumbag has nothing to do with it. Its not rational, its scummy and I don’t for a minute believe you would sign those papers with the sort of deception you proposed, you simply aren’t that scummy. Here was your scenario: “So what would happen is that men and women would make plans to have a baby (or, at least, not make plans not to have a baby) and then when the woman was pregnant her partner is going to say something like “Honey, of course I’ll take care of you and our lovely child and I love you guys to pieces. We don’t need a legal contract to guarantee that! I have to sign this paper to make sure I have the flexibility to take care of you guys the right way. We are never splitting up, honey, so don’t worry about it. It doesn’t change a thing. Everything it going to be okay.” Or maybe, in between painting the nursery walls and shopping for car seats, he’ll duck into the courthouse and sign it without telling a soul, for insurance.” Ducking out between painting the nursery and shopping for car seats to absolve yourself from legal responsibility for a child that you purport to love, that you have with a woman that you purport to love, that the woman gave birth to after you tell her you love them both and will support them… is a scumbag move. Do you really think that is rational or do you think taht maybe some scumbags somewhere might try to pull something like that? I could turn your rationality argument around and say that it is irrational to give birth to a child you cannot support without child support payments form a reluctant father. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/692 "2011-01-12T17:04:53Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Most women are not marriage-money-baby rabid.. And the rule we are talking about would nto apply to msot situations. > [@](#): > > If you stick to depositing your sperm in people you have at least a bit of trust in, chances are almost certain you will not end up paying unwanted child support. Of course if you are a horrible judge of character, you will probably have to be bit more cautious with who you fuck, just like you should probably be a bit more careful who you lend money to. And once again, why can’t the woman be a bit more careful about letting scumbags stick their penis in her? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/693 "2011-01-12T17:14:57Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > It’d be good to make incentives to abort wanted, loved babies? Most single parents never meant to break up. They never thought they’d be on their own. They thought their love was going to last. It’s not until later- when the kid is already there- that things fall apart. This is a far, far, far, far more common scenario than “the evil bitch tricked me into impregnating her.” And that is not the subject of this thread. NOONE is saying that you should be able to abandon your child support obligations for a child you wanted to have in the first place. > [@](#): > > And I don’t see how you could prevent people from getting them in secret- it’s not like you are going to get many women to sign them. Because its have to get approved by a judge and a judge wouldn’t let that happen without notice to the pregnant woman. It simply isn’t the sort of thing that can happen in secret. > [@](#): > > I would be open to the idea of a pre-sex agreement, where both parties can state their intentions openly. That would keep people from saying one thing with their mouths and another with their lawyer. Of course “If I knock you up, you’re probably on your own, Babe,” probably isn’t going to get a lot of guys laid, which is why I suspect this idea isn’t floated. Otherwise, if your objectives are so clear why wouldn’t you be comfortable expressing them from the get-go? In this sentence, you are talking about defaults. Should the default be that you must support unwanted children unless you agree that you wont before the act of sex OR should the default be that you can absolve yourself from responsibility by timely notice unless you agree to support any children taht result from sex beforehand. IOW, why can’t the default be, the man doesn’t have to support unwanted children born outside of marriage unless the man signs an agreement that he will in fact support any such children? Considering that fact that the woman has the ultimate ability to abort an unwanted pregnancy, why is your default more equitable than my default? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/694 "2011-01-12T17:19:49Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > That’s what I’m struggling to understand. Everyone should be in agreement that if one or both lovers do not want to become parents, they should make that explicitly and abundantly clear before an unwanted pregnancy occurs. I can’t see how this is arguable in the slightest. If a woman continues to have sex with a man who has told her upfront that he doesn’t want a kid and will not help her raise one, then I would be perfectly fine letting her be 100% responsible for any child created. Because she was given informed consent before playing with a loaded gun. > > Since there is no better way to document that a person’s desires have been made explicitly and abundantly clear to another person than having them both sign a legal agreement, why do so many people reject this idea in favor of a system in which a man could theoretically tell a woman one thing (“I love you; let’s make babies!”) and then do a complete 180 once sex leads to pregnancy (“I hate you now that your ankles are swollen and you’re throwing up all over the place; I don’t want to be a dad anymore!”). It just makes no sense and unfortunately makes people who do this look stupid and/or sinister. > > The beauty of having a pre-agreement is that in theory, it would allow a woman to fully inform her intentions to the man too. She could let him know that should she become pregnant, she would not pursue an abortion or give the baby away. Can someone explain to me why a man hellbent on not being a daddy and who thinks abortion is as simple as taking a pill would _not_ want to know this information _before_ he had sex with her? I mean, if I were such a guy, I wouldn’t want to let my gametes anywhere near her body. But it seems as though those who are pro “abortion rights” for men aren’t focusing on the benefits of an informed decision. They just want to have the power that they believe a woman has, with none of the negative consequences that come with this “power”. That’s all there is it to it. Thats not it at all. Why can’t we shift the burden of obtaining consent to the party who has the greatest ability to avoid birth? Why not make women who only want to have sex with men taht will support unwanted children make the men sign that pre-agreement. Its all a matter of defaults. You can contract around anything, the question is how do you craft defaults. If you have some reason why your default is better than my default, I’d like to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/695 "2011-01-12T17:27:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And once again, why can’t the woman be a bit more careful about letting scumbags stick their penis in her? _Everyone_ needs to be careful. People need to control what they can control for, and both men and women can control conception pretty darn well if they really choose to. So what we are talking about here is where both people either choose not to control conception or are actively seeking conception. The whole “she tricked me!” scenario that so much of this debate is about is a fake one that basically never happens. What does happen is people choose not to use birth control. Thus, both sides take responsibility. Again, the purpose of keeping abortion legal is not to provide women with a “free pass.” It is to make sure you have the right to make medical decisions about your body. I don’t find it relevant to child support. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/696 "2011-01-12T17:34:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And that is not the subject of this thread. NOONE is saying that you should be able to abandon your child support obligations for a child you wanted to have in the first place. But this is what will happen. The number of men who take basic precautions and still knock up a woman who refuses to abort is somewhere around .0000001%. It is a non-factor. The number of people who willingly have kids and then decide at some point later that they would rather not support them is pretty damn high. I know quite a few myself. My own father is among them. This happens all the time. You may not be intending to serve the latter, but that’s who this law will practically serve. To protect a basically non-existant population of hapless guys, you will be making it easier for millions of deadbeats who like having their spawn out there but don’t want to stick with it when the going gets tough. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/697 "2011-01-12T17:35:41Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > _Everyone_ needs to be careful. People need to control what they can control for, and both men and women can control conception pretty darn well if they really choose to. So what we are talking about here is where both people either choose not to control conception or are actively seeking conception. The whole “she tricked me!” scenario that so much of this debate is about is a fake one that basically never happens. What does happen is people choose not to use birth control. Thus, both sides take responsibility. > > Again, the purpose of keeping abortion legal is not to provide women with a “free pass.” It is to make sure you have the right to make medical decisions about your body. I don’t find it relevant to child support. This thread isn’t about the legality or lack thereof of abortions? But the ability to have that abortion at solely the woman’s choice is what drives the unfair nature of today’s law, which is why it has been brought up. If the man were given that same 3 month period to determine whether or not he could afford or even want the child in question, then the woman’s choice doesn’t get diminished, in fact, it relegates the responsibility for raising the child solely to her as it is solely her choice whether to have it. That being said, if she so chooses to have an abortion, I feel that the man should have to pony up the cost. Only because the woman’s body is taking the hardship of the surgery (otherwise it would be a 50-50 split) So to answer your question, yes it directly pertains to abortion (or at the very least the ability to get one) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/698 "2011-01-12T17:36:58Z")
Could someone please explain to me what parental agreements have jack all to do with the well being of child? The child didn’t have any say in coming into the world, why shouldn’t the parties responsible have to support the kid? The child is a 3rd party being unjustly injured by not being supported. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/699 "2011-01-12T17:39:15Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > But this is what will happen. > > The number of men who take basic precautions and still knock up a woman who refuses to abort is somewhere around .0000001%. It is a non-factor. > > The number of people who willingly have kids and then decide at some point later that they would rather not support them is pretty damn high. I know quite a few myself. My own father is among them. This happens all the time. > > You may not be intending to serve the latter, but that’s who this law will practically serve. To protect a basically non-existant population of hapless guys, you will be making it easier for millions of deadbeats who like having their spawn out there but don’t want to stick with it when the going gets tough. This supposed ‘law’ would do no such thing. This ‘law’ would not serve those couples whom are married and happily have three kids until such a time they divorce (when the kids are 1, 3, and 5) The point you seem to be missing is that the only people affected by this law are the unmarried lucky or unlucky couples who get pregnant. Once you willingly have kids, you don’t get a free pass to later go back and say “I don’t want him/her” ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985/700 "2011-01-12T17:40:18Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Could someone please explain to me what parental agreements have jack all to do with the well being of child? > > The child didn’t have any say in coming into the world, why shouldn’t the parties responsible have to support the kid? > > The child is a 3rd party being unjustly injured by not being supported. Again, this all depends on what you are calling a ‘child’ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-child-support/563985.md?page=36)