# About abortion and child support. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 9, 2009, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052 "2009-02-09T13:49:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/181 "2009-02-11T19:23:27Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > And it’s her choice to have a baby which affects his wallet and I disagree with this. IMHO if she wants to have a baby by herself that’s fine but she should have no right to make an unwilling partner pay. Once again, the laws of the land have to relate to the reality of how biology works and try to protect the rights of everyone involved. The mother the father, the child, and society in general. Not all parties can be treated completely equally because the biology isn’t equal. There’s nothing that can be done to make it completely equal so it’s a balancing act of rights and the welfare of children. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/182 "2009-02-11T19:37:01Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Sperm by themselves do not create pregnancies. That’s why men aren’t financially responsible for _all_ the resulting babies care. See how justice works? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/183 "2009-02-11T19:41:32Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Huh. So that 99% effectiveness of the pill, not to mention tubals and just plain infertility don’t exist in your world? And all the women there who “fall pregnant” carry them to term? Great idea. Men should only have sex with woman on the pill. Although, my daughter was conceived when my girlfriend was on the pill. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/184 "2009-02-11T19:50:37Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > But A is claiming that that B’s financial support is necessary for raising the child, and legally the kid has a right to the support of two parents. And up to here we are on the same boat. I agree that if A needs the support and asks for it, and B is able to provide it, then B should pay, no matter what they want or think. Is this how it works? I get the feeling from other people’s comments (and with nothing else to back it up) that B always pays, no matter whether A needs it or not, and no matter whether B can pay or not. Making B pay an A that doesn’t need it is just punishing B for no good reason. Wrenching money from a struggling B to pay for the baby is just transferring the poverty from one person to the next. The state will still need to pay for the deficit, except that it will do it to B in a very inefficient manner of reaching the baby, who is supposed to be the motive for this law. Paying the baby directly (with programs such as WIC which gives milk and other non-cash help) makes it more likely that the help will reach the baby and not be filtered by B or A who might want that money for something else. > [@](#): > > That’s much, much harder and more expensive than it sounds. Very true, I agree that this is not something to be taken lightly. Still, it is not harder nor more expensive than the case were both A+B want to surrender the baby. In fact, it is cheaper since there is no need for foster home, adoption procedures and all that. And if A wants the baby but is not able to provide for him, then it is not different from single parents (widows, unknown father, etc) who are not able to provide for their babies. The provisions exist and are used regularly. They are not cheap and they are not pretty, but they are in place. ETA: I see that your post #180 addresses some of my questions. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/185 "2009-02-11T20:17:59Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Biology (and the law) ain’t fair. The woman has the final decision (as she should) as to whether or not she is going to remain pregnant. She also has the final decision as to whether or not she is going to keep the baby and the man has NO say in that, yet he is required to pay? If the woman decides she wants to take on this expensive project for 18+ years without having to consult the man, why in the world is he forced to help her pay for it? Because he helped create it. > [@](#): > > That is the crux of it right there. Who says he voluntarily created this pregnancy? All the man has is a condom, which is a pretty crappy method of birth control even if it doesn’t have a hole in it. Perhaps the woman didn’t voluntarily create the pregnancy either, but she _did_ voluntarily decide to maintain it and to keep the child. There are several points of decision from sex to child, and the financial responsibility that brings. Biology dictates men and women do not have the same choices. > [@](#): > > Any man that didn’t want the kid from the first moment they find out the woman is pregnant, yes. I don’t see why men should be held financially accountable for a decision they had no input on. If there wasn’t any input the decision wouldn’t be necessary at all. You seem to be suggesting women bare the greater {or entire} financial burden and the resulting children just make due because women’s biology gives them more choices. You also seem to be suggesting that men , because of a lucky biological circumstance, get to do all the screwing they can without any financial responsibility. That hardly seems to promote responsibility or consequences for choices in the male portion of society. Fortunately the courts that deal with those consequences have decided you’re wrong. Individuals have to take responsibility for the choices **they have** , and **they make**. They can’t use the fact that others have _different_ choices as an excuse to escape the consequences of their choices. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/186 "2009-02-11T20:58:48Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Once again, the laws of the land have to relate to the reality of how biology works and try to protect the rights of everyone involved. The mother the father, the child, and society in general. Not all parties can be treated completely equally because the biology isn’t equal. There’s nothing that can be done to make it completely equal so it’s a balancing act of rights and the welfare of children. Yes, but the mother is more equal than the father. We accept biology isn’t fair as an explanation in this case but it would never be acceptable if it went against the woman or against a minority or against a handicapped person. In those cases there is never enough reason to say “sorry, nature is just not fair”. Once a woman is pregnant if she decides to carry the pregnancy to term and the prospective father does not want to be a father then, IMHO, he should be let off the hook. It is her sole decision and she solely should bear the cost and consequences. Just my POV. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/187 "2009-02-11T21:11:54Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Yes, but the mother is more equal than the father. Not really. Prebirth, both a woman and a man can determine if their gametes may be used to possibly result in a child. Each has 100% control over that, until their gametes, or the result thereof, leaves their bodies. After birth, each party has equal responsibility for the upkeep of the child jointly created. Not sure I see an inequality there. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/188 "2009-02-11T21:13:07Z")
> [@villa](#): > > **Custody Preference** : I’ve already said this should be reviewed. Custody should be based on best interests of the child, and I think, facially at least, it is under the law. If the law is codified as to state “the mother has preference for custody” I think that should be changed. I don’t believe that is the case, but if it is, it should be changed. I think, reading the rest of your post, that we have a lot of agreement. I’m all for changing the preference thing as it stands currently. It just isnt fair > [@villa](#): > > **Alimony independent of income** : Never seen anywhere this is the case. I’m not a family lawyer, but I have a limited awareness of divorce law. Everywhere I have seen alimony awardable it is based on a drop in income and/or a surrender of career/education in order to stay at home. Again, could be the case that some jurisdictions award alimony independent of the financial status of the woman, and the law in that jursidiction is codified to specifically state this is available for women, not men, but I would nto only be surprised, I would also support it being changed. Its been my experience that mothers get some bizarre ability to say that they have to get as much money in order to maintain the lifestyle of the kid (allegedly) before the divorce/separation. Maybe reality is different, I dont know, I certainly hope so. I also agree that this should be changed. I cannot fathom why a child should have the expectation of the exact level of lifestyle if their parents separate. No child should be worth thousands a month. Perhaps this particular point is better stated that I want a cap on the maximum amount of alimony. How much does it cost to raise a kid for a month? A few hundred bucks? Definitely nothing over $1000 unless the kid is special needs > [@villa](#): > > **Right to give up child for adoption without father’s consent** ; I was under the impression if a child was placed for adoption, and a biological parent had not given permission, that parent would have a chance to claim custody. I have certainly read cases that way. Again, I think the standard is best interests of the child. I should have been more clear, sorry. I meant that its unfair that the only way the father can get sole custody seems to be only when the mother decides to give up her rights. Now that I think about it, I believe you’re correct on this. :smack: > [@villa](#): > > **Right to force the father to pay or not** : this is a right the custodial parent always has - a custodial father can choose not to pursue child support against the mother of the child. Now, in the majority of situations the sole custodial parent is the mother, but that goes back to many factors, including problems in custody application (not the law I think) that need to be addressed. You’re right. My main point of contention here is the custody part. Mothers get preference, fathers get screwed. Its not right. There are many loving fathers out there denied an equal chance to raise their kids. Part of the archaic Victorian values that I railed against earlier > [@villa](#): > > The termination thing is irrelevant here because at that stage there is no child. Once there is a child, the rights seem, on the surface of the law (though not its application) to be pretty much even. As to the rights of the child - no, no rights are violated by a child being born to a poor family, or a child that is orphaned. However, that is a different scenario to the present structure where we are willing to hold people responsible for the consequences of their actions, especially where those actions create a burden on someone innocent. I am totally for holding people responsible for their actions, but not when they are not given equal chance to correct those actions in the first place. As far as social burdens, I’ve addressed that above. Society takes on certain burdens that individuals cannot or should not. Nothing inherently unfair about that > [@Voyager](#): > > I’d have to look it up, but I strongly suspect outcomes from being in an orphanage are worse than being with a parent. A parent has the right to give up a child, but you are basically forcing it to be taken. You are also objecting to equal obligations to the child who whose conception was the responsibility of both. Now, I personally would be for abortion in this kind of case, but being pro-choice means exactly that - giving the woman the choice of carrying the baby or not. Since birth control is legal, and sex is not mandatory, the man exercised his choice a bit earlier (as did the woman.) > To go _reductio ad absurdum_ on you, do, you still consider it fair if a billionaire refuses to pay say $1,000 a month to a woman who is on the edge of poverty?. Kids are definitely worse off in an orphanage, but thats irrelevent. Its simply their circumstances and nothing says one must be born wealthy. While I am essentially forcing the state to take the child, as I’ve said above, I’ve no problems with communal burdens. We all pay for roads we dont use, parks we dont go to, museums we dont visit, schools when we have no kids. This, to me, is no different, and certainly the lesser of many evils. To answer your example, I am unswayed by emotional pleas, so yes, it would be fair. If the poor woman in that example can opt out of the kid’s financial future with an abortion, then the rich man should be able to opt out of paying too. He’d be an ass, but I would definitely not have any legal objections to that scenario. And what kid needs $1000 a month anyway? > [@Voyager](#): > > He was guilty, guilty, guilty. Sometimes you just get caught, even if the odds are against it. As for the rest, remember that his actions have influenced her life far more than a request for payment influence his. Would your opinion change if she was known to be anti-abortion from the start, so there was no chance going in, as it were, that she would abort an accident? He can make his opinion known all he wants, but he still has responsibility. Plus the father is helping to pay for it. I certainly don’t say he has 100% responsibility. I’ll take your word for it that he was guilty. But still, he can contest the ticket. And with clever lawyerly tricks, its not a forgone conclusion that he would have to pay anything. A father in the custody situation we’re talking about has no such option. His only hope is that the mother or the kid dies. My opinion would not change if she was anti-abortion from the start, because she can change her mind. The father has no power to change his alimony payment at all. Only by allowing him to pay or not pay, being solely his decision, would make the example equal. Also, I never said he had 100% responsibility. This is about what powers the mother has to decide. She can decide to have herself the responsible party (by taking custody and not accepting alimony), both to have responsibility (take custody and make the father pay), or someone else (giving the kid up for adoption, absolving herself of all parental responsibility). Now as far as I know, if the mother gives up the baby for adoption, the father can claim it as the biological parent, but has no power to go back and force the mother to pay alimony. I may be wrong, I hope I am, but thats what I think the law currently stands. And its wrong. The father should have an equal right to give the kid up for adoption and remove himself from all financial responsibility > [@Voyager](#): > > I’m aware that in some states the option doesn’t exist. Pre-nups used to be almost non-existent, now they seem fairly common, and I’m in favor of law changes to make this feasible. However I’d certainly require that the man get the woman’s signature acknowledging his refusal of responsibility, otherwise we have a he said she said situation. Buzz killer for sure, but that may be a feature. I’ve kicked that idea around too. I think it would be great. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/189 "2009-02-11T21:19:10Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Its been my experience that mothers get some bizarre ability to say that they have to get as much money in order to maintain the lifestyle of the kid (allegedly) before the divorce/separation. Maybe reality is different, I dont know, I certainly hope so. I also agree that this should be changed. I cannot fathom why a child should have the expectation of the exact level of lifestyle if their parents separate. No child should be worth thousands a month. Perhaps this particular point is better stated that I want a cap on the maximum amount of alimony. How much does it cost to raise a kid for a month? A few hundred bucks? Definitely nothing over $1000 unless the kid is special needs You do know alimony and child support are completely separate things? And moreover, complaining about the way the law is enforced (which certainly has problems) is a fundamentally different thing to saying there is an inherent unfairness in the law (which seems to be the basis of many of those who want fathers to be able to abandon financial responsibility for their offspring). > [@YogSosoth](#): > > No child should be worth thousands a month. Mine is. I’m assuming as well you don’t have children, based on your lack of knowledge as to the expenses involved. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/190 "2009-02-11T21:19:15Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > You’re right. My main point of contention here is the custody part. Mothers get preference, fathers get screwed. Its not right. There are many loving fathers out there denied an equal chance to raise their kids. Part of the archaic Victorian values that I railed against earlier How is that Victorian? I still don’t see how we’re in a Victorian-esque era. In a divorce, the father pretty much always just got custody of the children during the Victorian times in the rare cases a divorce occurred. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/191 "2009-02-11T22:14:05Z")
> [@villa](#): > > You do know alimony and child support are completely separate things? No actually, I didnt > [@villa](#): > > And moreover, complaining about the way the law is enforced (which certainly has problems) is a fundamentally different thing to saying there is an inherent unfairness in the law (which seems to be the basis of many of those who want fathers to be able to abandon financial responsibility for their offspring). Cant it be both? > [@villa](#): > > Mine is. I’m assuming as well you don’t have children, based on your lack of knowledge as to the expenses involved. I probably shouldnt have said “worth”, as you seem to have confused worth with expenses. No child, unless special needs, requires more than $1000 a month to live in relative comfort. The types of payments I’ve read about that’s maddening seems merely for the mother to maintain her lifestyle rather than the child > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > How is that Victorian? I still don’t see how we’re in a Victorian-esque era. In a divorce, the father pretty much always just got custody of the children during the Victorian times in the rare cases a divorce occurred. In context, its Victorian because the mother is usually assumed to be the one that should be taking care of the kid. Certainly back then, when women were generally unemployed dependent on their husbands, they gave the kid to the one who wouldnt be living on the streets. But their values are still archaic. In a family, the man was supposed to work and the woman stay home. Imagine the outrage if it were the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/192 "2009-02-11T22:54:07Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > No child, unless special needs, requires more than $1000 a month to live in relative comfort. The types of payments I’ve read about that’s maddening seems merely for the mother to maintain her lifestyle rather than the child Oohhh boy. Don’t have kids. I’ll agree on the $1000 a month. However, it’s the ‘unexpecteds’ that will kill you. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/193 "2009-02-11T23:09:19Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > The only way anything even remotely similar to this is going to happen is if the US makes birth control/pre-natal care/abortion facilities free (or extremely cheap) and accessible, and offers new mothers generous maternity leave from jobs they can return to (with the law on their sides), free health care, affordable daycare and schooling. Until then, the gov’t will be happy to blame deadbeat dads for the missing $200 a month that would have kept the kids away from a life of crime (the kids who were, of course, wanted miracles who had to be protected and saved… until they actually had the gall to be born). Or, if fairness to the man is really an issue the country needs to worry about, we could outlaw abortion all together. Then **neither** Mom nor Dad has an option the other doesn’t. I’m sure everyone would be happier then…😉 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/194 "2009-02-11T23:10:45Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Yes, but the mother is more equal than the father. No the mother isn’t more equal. Because of biology the mother has more points at which to make a choice. That’s nobody’s fault , just a reality we have to deal with. > [@](#): > > We accept biology isn’t fair as an explanation in this case but it would never be acceptable if it went against the woman or against a minority or against a handicapped person. In those cases there is never enough reason to say “sorry, nature is just not fair”. Please explain perhaps with examples. Be specific. I honestly don’t get it. It’s biology that some people are black and they had to fight for equal rights. Women had to fight for the right to vote and get equal pay. Now men are whining that they have to support their offspring against their will. What a unfunny joke. But please, explain with specifics. > [@](#): > > Once a woman is pregnant if she decides to carry the pregnancy to term and the prospective father does not want to be a father then, IMHO, he should be let off the hook. It is her sole decision and she solely should bear the cost and consequences. Just my POV. We are talking about a human life rather than a car they went in on. When pregnant it is the woman’s choice because it is her body. Once the baby is born the man has some choices and they aren’t all hers, but then the baby’s welfare comes into play as well as the rights of the parents. The Dad can sue for custody if he feels the Mom is unfit. He can assume a parental role if the woman decides to give the baby up. He can even choose to court the woman and convince her that he’d be a good partner and parent. He is not without choices, so no it isn’t her sole decision. What he can’t do is abandon the welfare of a child he helped create and walk away without consequences. To allow men to do that would be a horrible encouragement of irresponsibility. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/195 "2009-02-11T23:17:03Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > No actually, I didnt Alimony is a payment to the ex-spouse independent of children, usually for reduction in earning capacity caused by marital duties - for example, a woman may have been out of the workplace for a long time, and is thus less employable. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Cant it be both? It can be both, but nothing you have said points to actual unfairness in the law, rather than its application. Given that the thread was about unfairnesses in the law itself, you are going off on something of a tangent. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I probably shouldnt have said “worth”, as you seem to have confused worth with expenses. No child, unless special needs, requires more than $1000 a month to live in relative comfort. The types of payments I’ve read about that’s maddening seems merely for the mother to maintain her lifestyle rather than the child I know what you meant, and I pay significantly more than $1000 a month in child support, especially when full value of things I pay for is considered. And my son is fully deserving of those things. If we say $1000 a month as your cut off, how much of that goes in the difference between a one-bedroom apartment and a two-bedroom. Quite conceivably $500 in a big city. So out of the $500 left, how much goes on health insurance? Likely to be at least $100, probably more. So we are down to $400 to feed, cloth and entertain the child. That’s before transportation costs, of course. Better hope there are no emergencies, no co-pays for medical treatment, no prescriptions to buy, no school trips. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/196 "2009-02-12T00:25:22Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Alimony is a payment to the ex-spouse independent of children, usually for reduction in earning capacity caused by marital duties - for example, a woman may have been out of the workplace for a long time, and is thus less employable. Good to know. I speaking strictly of child support then > [@villa](#): > > It can be both, but nothing you have said points to actual unfairness in the law, rather than its application. Given that the thread was about unfairnesses in the law itself, you are going off on something of a tangent. I dont see how you can only point to only application when it comes to not letting a father have the choice, as a mother can dictate at her whim, whether or not to force the other into 18 years of monetary commitment. At least offer a compromise, even a bad one that would prevent mother from changing their minds years later. I dont know what the law is currently, but if the mother decided she doesnt want child support, and then changes her mind a year later, is that allowed? I dont want to be a guy who has to look over my shoulder for 18 years hoping his ex would be kind enough and not get into a financial rut in which she can declare out of the blue a part of my paycheck. > [@villa](#): > > I know what you meant, and I pay significantly more than $1000 a month in child support, especially when full value of things I pay for is considered. And my son is fully deserving of those things. If we say $1000 a month as your cut off, how much of that goes in the difference between a one-bedroom apartment and a two-bedroom. Quite conceivably $500 in a big city. So out of the $500 left, how much goes on health insurance? Likely to be at least $100, probably more. So we are down to $400 to feed, cloth and entertain the child. That’s before transportation costs, of course. Better hope there are no emergencies, no co-pays for medical treatment, no prescriptions to buy, no school trips. I think you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective. I believe that child support is just that: support for the child that you would pay if you were there with the mother. You dont need to spend $400 a month on a child’s entertainment, food, and clothes. You may want to shower him in gifts and Playstations, but if a woman, by herself, is on that kind of budget, then the child should probably have gone to the father instead. Here’s what I think you are not getting: We are talking as if the child’s welfare is independent of the mother. What happened to her sharing part of the upbringing? Take all your expenses up there and cut them by half, that’s how much the mom should be paying independent of child support. Its as if when the father leaves, he’s paying **all** of the child support. $500 for rent? Sure, you pay $250 and she pays $250 and boom, $500 right there. $100 health insurance? That’s $50 from you and $50from her. Dont look at it as if its all your burden, she’s gotta share it too ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/197 "2009-02-12T00:59:48Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I dont see how you can only point to only application when it comes to not letting a father have the choice, as a mother can dictate at her whim, whether or not to force the other into 18 years of monetary commitment. At least offer a compromise, even a bad one that would prevent mother from changing their minds years later. I dont know what the law is currently, but if the mother decided she doesnt want child support, and then changes her mind a year later, is that allowed? I dont want to be a guy who has to look over my shoulder for 18 years hoping his ex would be kind enough and not get into a financial rut in which she can declare out of the blue a part of my paycheck. Child support isn’t the entitlement of the mother, it is the entitlement of the child. The mother doesn’t have the right to determine that on the child’s behalf. It’s not **her** financial rut that you would be helping out with, it would be your child’s. And people have said repeatedly the father has a choice. That’s just not true. In the creation of a child, the father has control over his donation of genetic material. You make that choice, and a child results, then you face up to the consequences. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective. I believe that child support is just that: support for the child that you would pay if you were there with the mother. You dont need to spend $400 a month on a child’s entertainment, food, and clothes. You may want to shower him in gifts and Playstations, but if a woman, by herself, is on that kind of budget, then the child should probably have gone to the father instead. Here’s what I think you are not getting: We are talking as if the child’s welfare is independent of the mother. What happened to her sharing part of the upbringing? Take all your expenses up there and cut them by half, that’s how much the mom should be paying independent of child support. Its as if when the father leaves, he’s paying **all** of the child support. $500 for rent? Sure, you pay $250 and she pays $250 and boom, $500 right there. $100 health insurance? That’s $50 from you and $50from her. Dont look at it as if its all your burden, she’s gotta share it too Actually, $100 a month is closer to half of the payment for health insurance. And notice I didn’t mention anything to do with child care. Do you have any concept of the cost of childcare, especially where it has to run beyond traditional school hours to allow a person to work a normal job. A custodial parent is likely to have their earning potential reduced by being a sole physical custodian as well. And if you think $12.90 a day is extravagant for feeding, clothing and equipping a child for life, well, I am willing to guess you don’t have kids or experience of looking after them. Please don’t assume I am not getting something you are saying. This is something I see every pay check. My son did not cause my divorce, and the fact I got divorced should impact him as little as possible. You are thinking of children as an obligation, as something you should get away with as little as possible to do with. If that truly is your viewpoint, have a vasectomy now, or at least abstain from sex that might result in pregnancy. Of course it is possible to raise a child on the money you talk about - but a father who is partially responsible for creating a child has a responsibility to that child. It’s not a matter of just ensuring that the child has a box of macaroni and cheese a day. Whether he chooses to be a part of the child’s life or not in other ways, he has a financial responsibility to that child. Any arbitrary cap that allows bankers or basketball players to live in luxury while ignoring the well being of their offspring is foolish in my mind. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/198 "2009-02-12T02:45:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But they DID have input. Their decision to become fathers was 100% informed and voluntary. Any guy who ejaculates in a fertile woman is making a _de facto_ agreement to potentially become a father. If you randomly shoot a gun into a crowd, you’re responsible for where the bullets go. If you shoot your sperminto a uterus, you’re responsible for any babies you create. There are consequences for decisions. Repeating this over and over doesn’t make it a fact. Men have a right to have intercourse without needing to worry that the woman is going to have a baby the man doesn’t want and never did. There is no reason these days, since women are able to work and all that, for a man to be forced to pay to raise a child he didn’t want, simply because the woman decided not to abort and decided not to put the baby out for adoption. Anything else is trying to push women back into the days when they were viewed as helpless little ninnies without a man to take care of them. You may be completely misogynist with your idea that all women are just baby factories and all that, but fortunately the majority in this country don’t agree with you (well, I hope…some days I wonder) ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/199 "2009-02-12T02:50:33Z")
[QUOTE=Cat Fight] The only way anything even remotely similar to this is going to happen is if the US makes birth control/pre-natal care/abortion facilities free (or extremely cheap) and accessible, and offers new mothers generous maternity leave from jobs they can return to (with the law on their sides), free health care, affordable daycare and schooling. Until then, the gov’t will be happy to blame deadbeat dads for the missing $200 a month that would have kept the kids away from a life of crime (the kids who were, of course, wanted miracles who had to be protected and saved… until they actually had the gall to be born). [/QUOTE] I’m not getting this. How does encouraging women, who cannot afford to pay to raise their child on their own, to have babies solve anything? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/200 "2009-02-12T02:56:28Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Nobody’s rights are being violated when the many pay to support a government. I dont use public parks, nor do I have any schoolage children, and I buy my own health insurance. Should I have the power to demand the government lower my taxes by the appropriate amount? I dont support religion either so I dont want my taxes going to those mooching no-tax religious instutions. The fact is, as a citizen of a country, you pay into a collective fund that the government uses to allocate and help what all of us deem a communal necessity. Taxes should and does go to orphanages right now. Where is your tirade about the current violation of your rights? I thought that I had the right to not be taxed without representation. Sorry I made that mistake - can you tell me when I lost that right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052.md?page=11)