# 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:** 12
**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, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/221 "2009-02-12T19:26:57Z")
Calculation of child support varies from state to state, and country to country. Every system I have seen, the earnings of the non-custodial parent and the number of children that person is responsible for. All that I have had experience with also include the income of the custodial parent. It’s more than a little frustrating that people vociferously oppose the inequities of the child support system and don’t know how it works - whether it is not knowing the basics of how it is determined, or not knowing that alimony and child support are completely separate things. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/222 "2009-02-12T19:37:41Z")
> [@villa](#): > > It’s more than a little frustrating that people vociferously oppose the inequities of the child support system and don’t know how it works… I bet it is, which is why people like me need people like you to explain the details before we form a set opinion. Thanks for the time you are putting into this. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/223 "2009-02-12T19:38:22Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > 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. No, they really don’t have that right at all. The word “rights” gets thrown around a lot these days, seemingly without regard for what the word actually means. Why should men have that right? Seems to me what men really have is an obligation to figure out if he & whoever he’s sleeping with are likeminded when it comes to what option they would prefer in the event of a pregnancy. If he doesn’t agree with her preference (since, obviously, she holds the cards in that situation), or he doesn’t know her well enough to ask or feel confident that she won’t change her mind, then maybe he should look elsewhere for some non-Victorian nookie. > [@](#): > > 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) I doubt that this is what **Diogenes** meant by baby incubator…he was stating a fact of biology, which you’d be hard-pressed to argue with. His point is that pregnancy is an inherent risk of sex…you really shouldn’t participate in ANY leisure activity without understanding and accepting the potential risks, as well as doing whatever you can to minimize those risks. Personally, I find the argument from **Diogenes** to be a bit bizarre coming from a pro-choicer, because you could change “man” to “woman” and a pro-lifer could use the exact same argument. But he has a point that women have an option men don’t have…it’s just a simple fact of life in the year 2009. The only way to ensure that men and women both have the same chance to decide would be to outlaw abortion, and I’m guessing you wouldn’t be for that, would you? I agree that the situation is unfair for men, but life isn’t fair, and children shouldn’t always have to bear the brunt of their parents’ bad decisions…that happens enough as it is. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/224 "2009-02-12T20:02:42Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > By “can afford it” I don’t mean a fixed amount of dollars per day per child. I mean the ability to provide a level of life adequate to the reasonable expectations of a child of that class, etc. > > If A can afford to give all that to the child, whatever it costs and means, then most likely that money is not going to the child, unless A opens some form of saving instrument for the child to use when the need comes. With no form of oversight of what happens to that money, chances are that money is going to luxuries or crack, depending on the socioeconomic level of A. > > ETA: By the way, I have no idea how child support payments work? How is the amount to be paid determined? Oh for Pete sake already! B is the father of the child. He should pay. I don’t care if A is the president of a large bank getting billions of dollars in government handouts and giving her self a billion dollars in retention awards. B is the father. He should pay something to help support the child. Everyone is to freakin into ‘fairness’…fairness has nothing to do with this…you’re the father…BE ONE! My God, what can be cooler than being a father? ---
**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, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/225 "2009-02-12T22:38:54Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > I am beginning to understand why people talk about the “echo chambers of the internet”. It’s particularly sad when it is in Great _Debates_… :rolleyes: ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/226 "2009-02-12T22:45:06Z")
You don’t think it is sadder that amongst those who are most decrying the “unfairness” of the system of child support are those who admit to not knowing how child support is calculated, and who don’t know there is a fundamental difference between alimony and child support? It makes it next to impossible to explain to a person why they might not be correct when they don’t understand the basics of the system that they have predetermined is unfair. ---
**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, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/227 "2009-02-12T22:59:56Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > It’s the unpleasant messiness of humanity. Since she now has all she needs she may also put that money away for a collage fund or a car when they’re old enough. Why does she get that right? There are tons of kids out there without cars or college funds, why is it “right” to suck money out of the father for these things that aren’t _necessary_ to keep the kid alive and healthy? > [@](#): > > I would buy things directly for my kids and deduct it from the child support. I doubt that’s legal but she never challenged it. I think if I was stuck with child support, I’d do the same thing! > [@](#): > > There’s no way to create rules and laws to make things completely fair in every situation so our family courts are forced to do the best they can with the minor’s welfare in 1st place. Except it isn’t just the minors’ welfare if the mother is allowed to take money she doesn’t need to raise these kids. It looks more like punishment to the father for daring to have had sex, or daring to have not been happy in his marriage or whatever the circumstances are that led to him not living with the children. There is no law that says that children must have cars or go to college - why do the courts force fathers to pay for things like this? > [@](#): > > Here’s a scenario. An old friend of mine divorced her husband with whom she had two kids. The court decided that he was already paying his maximum CS to his older kids from a previous marriage so she got nothing. In this case his younger kids went without because the court was trying to be fair to him. Like I said, not a perfect system. Sounds like he should have had a vasectomy at some point… > [@](#): > > Who gets to decide their needs? Whoever it is that decides how much aid to kids tax money goes to the poor children. This is what I don’t get - it’s ok for poor people to have kids and raise them in squalor, but if a couple decides to not raise their children in one home, suddenly these children “deserve” all these extras, no matter what it does to the one paying support? And the big one - whether he wanted those kids or not in the first place? > [@](#): > > Here I agree to some degree. I recall a story about the former Governor of NJ who capped aide to dependent children. There was a huge uproar over how the children would suffer but the birthrate actually went down. Woman stopped cranking out babies to up their monthly check. I also support workfare rather than welfare. You need help, great, so do we. Here’s a mower, get over to the park. Here’s a bag and a stick with a nail in it. You get highway 17. Works for me! We have lots of graffiti they could be cleaning off/painting over here too! 😉 Is NJ still capped? ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/228 "2009-02-12T23:11:56Z")
> [@villa](#): > > 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. Then let the government take care of the child and have both parents pay the government. As long as all expenses are covered and neither parent has full custody, the child’s needs are met without the inherent injustice of a biased custody system. This would also eliminate the costs of the orphanage system as it stands now, for those worried about the money > [@villa](#): > > 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. You meant “…the father has no choice.” right? Cause I never said the father has a choice. Anyway, whatever you meant, your conclusion is flawed. Like I said people, I’m not against people facing up to their responsibilities, but I am against taking away their ability to erase those mistakes. Mothers can, by abortion or by adoption. Fathers cannot do either unless the mother agrees first, and therein lies the point of contention for me > [@villa](#): > > 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. If the mother cannot raise her child adequately with her funds, then she should give the child up for adoption or share custody with the father. People keep repeating that we have to pay the mother to help the child, why? Its obvious, to me at least, that the archaic notions of the mother being the best caretaker has seeped into people’s brains as some kind of default, preferable status quo. If the kid is a financial burden to mom, then place him with dad. And if the dad does not want the kid, he should still not be forced to overpay in order to compensate for mom’s inability to provide adequate finances. In other words, I’m saying that the best option isnt to have the kid be with mom or dad in all circumstances. If the maximum cap for child support doesnt cover the child’s expenses, then it is clear that both couples have no business raising the kid. Put him up for adoption in an orphanage, but both parents continue to pay into the system. The government can cover the rest, as it should Again I have to ask, orphanages exist, why not use them? If money is so important, then we should stop pretending that the kid has to go with mom or dad. The kid should go with the money is if that isnt mom or dad. > [@villa](#): > > 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. Alright, fair enough. But yes, I see children as an obligation. Within the context of the topic, they are, even if you love them. Since we are debating over the necessary compensation one has to pay to the other parent, then you need to stop thinking about it as a child and more as a debt. Only then can you break free of the emotional baggage of illogical fallacies and reason without coercion. I wont argue with you anymore over the specific amount, but I believe there should be a cap. I’m merely using my own experience that $1000 isnt too low to spend each month, as I live on a budget as well. But as far as the little debter goes, yes, we should be **forced** to pay as little as possible. If you have the money to pay more and want to, fine, go ahead. But it is not fair to force more payment when less will do. And again, dont think of this as some rich sob trying to get out of payment to a poor woman. Such emotional pleas do nothing to advance the argument. Think instead about the inequalities present when a woman has 2 chances to opt out of payment and a man has none and you will get my view. ---
**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, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/229 "2009-02-12T23:14:53Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > 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? You’re not talking about taxation without representation. You’re talking about taxing for something you disagree with. In fact, you have all the representation everyone else has. A congressmen, a senator, a president, and any number of local state and county and city representatives that has to run for office every few years. You are mad that I’m suggesting we add more burden to the taxpayers. That may be undesirable, but not illegal or unconstitutional. As I said before, you pay for a lot of things you dont use, and so does everyone else. I have the power to vote people into office to support our views, and so do you. Adding or change the tax burden isnt anything like what you’re suggesting ---
**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, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/230 "2009-02-12T23:20:04Z")
Ill answer the rest later, but this is just flat out wrong… [QUOTE=YogSosoth] Think instead about the inequalities present when a woman has 2 chances to opt out of payment and a man has none and you will get my view. [/QUOTE] The “2 chances” are abortion and adoption, from what you were saying earlier. The mother can’t give the child up for adoption without the father’s consent, and vice versa. So at most, you are talking about “1 chance” if you want to be accurate (which isn’t in itself apparent). I’ll say it again, because you are totally ignoring it. Once there is a 3rd person involved, the child, that person has rights. Before that, each individual has the right to control their own body, and the extent to which their body takes part in sexual reproduction. No inequality. Once the male has dumped his sperm off, he plays no further part in sexual reproduction, so has no further decision making role in that process. Until there is a child. Which occurs at birth. Up until the point at which he ceases to have a role in sexual reproduction, he has complete control over whether he wishes to risk having a child. Similarly the woman, up until the point that she ceases having a role in sexual reproduction, she has control over whether she wishes to risk having a child. Actually, she has less control, because the law limits her choice to have an abortion in later stages of pregnancy. ---
**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, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/231 "2009-02-12T23:20:09Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > fully knowing what pregnancy means {we hope} and the potential for babiness. That’s the point. The man has zero say as to whether or not a pregnancy turns out to be a baby. Since he has no say in that, why should he be forced to support a baby if he didn’t want it? You are suggesting he just never have sex unless he wants a(nother) baby? > [@](#): > > As I said before. It can’t be equal because biology isn’t equal. The laws are based on the possible choices and welfare of the individuals involved based on reality. Once pregnancy occurs the womans choice about her own body is key. Once a baby is born the child’s welfare enters into it and must be weighed. > btw, the economic formula of who pays how much is based on income not gender so your “same or more” reveals a bias. You assume it’s the same or more because of past gender inequality. The gender inequality is still there since it is mostly the females who get custody and females generally make less money than males. And you are ignoring the gender inequality regarding whether or not a pregnancy turns into a baby needing support. > [@](#): > > Yes it does and the courts don’t agree with you. It’s about responsibility and consequences for actions. How can it possibly be right for a woman to decide she must have a baby, and then go forth to find someone else she can force to pay for it? How is that about responsibility and consequences for actions? > [@](#): > > Gee judge I never wanted to run over that pedestrian with my car. Why should I pay? Well sure I had a few drinks but I wanted a buzz. I don’t see what that has to do with it? You are equating sex with driving drunk? > [@](#): > > well piffle and WTF > This is just incorrect bullshit. Both men and women make irresponsible choices but and we expect them to accept the consequences. The alternative and the hope is that by there being consequences for actions they will make more responsible choices. A man can say no to sex or suggest an alternative to the risk of pregnancy because of a lack of sufficient birth control by the woman just as a woman can insist on a condom. What you’re suggesting is they shouldn’t even have to worry about it at all. Not in the slightest and I really have no idea what makes you think that, except maybe you don’t understand the realities of birth control? You do know that a condom by itself is not a very good birth control method, right? And that a condom is the only birth control a man can use himself, if he wants to have kids at some time in the future? So, in order to ever have intercourse, the man needs to trust that the woman is on the pill, using an IUD, whatever, if he doesn’t want sex to turn into a pregnancy, right? Still following? OK, leaving aside those women who poke holes in condoms, save used condoms and lie about their own birth control status, no birth control method is 100%. So, no matter how responsible a man is, there is still a chance that he is going to end up creating a pregnancy he doesn’t want. At that point, he has no options - either the woman has an abortion or she has a baby. Since he has zero choice in that, I don’t think he should be forced to pay support. If the woman cannot afford to raise the baby on her own, she should suck it up, quit being so selfish, and either abort or adopt it out. Because it is an entirely selfish decision on her part - no one needs to have any children, particularly if they cannot afford to pay for them. > [@](#): > > I’m suggesting men be responsible for the consequences of their choices planned or unplanned, because that’s what responsible humans should do. So it’s ok with you that these women be completely irresponsible? > [@](#): > > Because of the choices men have it’s impossible for me to give complete control over to women. What choices do men have other than never having intercourse unless they want to create a pregnancy? > [@](#): > > btw, paying child support is a far, far cry from actually raising a child. Um, yeah. So? > [@](#): > > Utter nonsense. I’m in no way suggesting men only have sex to procreate. If you’re in a relationship you can plan birth control together. If you pick someone up at a party there are other alternatives for both parties. What you’re suggesting is more in line with the Victorian era. It also reminds me of the old south where masters could have sex with slaves and completely deny and ignore any offspring simply because there were so few potential consequences. Yeah, let’s bring that sexual attitude back. Boy you are unaware of the realities aren’t you? Try Googling “how to oops a man”. > [@](#): > > You also seems to be suggesting that since abortion is a viable option the woman’s conscience and feelings are irrelevant. If she can’t choose abortion for reasons of her own then that’s her tough luck and the child’s as well. What happened to adoption? Yes, her feelings are irrelevant if she cannot afford to raise the baby on her own and the sire doesn’t want it - why would her feelings be more important than his? ---
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/232 "2009-02-12T23:22:36Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Men have that right. It’s called a vasectomy. Oh, ok, you are advocating that men not have sex until they want to have children? > [@](#): > > And stop trying to dress yourself up as a protector of women’s rights by supporting the “right” of men to abandon their children. It’s as implausible as King Herod claiming to be a feminist because he ordered the death of all first born male children in Bethlehem, presumably to institute a gynocracy there. I am far from a protector of what is currently view as women’s “rights”. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/233 "2009-02-13T00:22:36Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Oh, ok, you are advocating that men not have sex until they want to have children? No. You are making that up. Hardly surprising. What I said is that men have a way of ensuring they don’t have children. Abstinence is one way. A vasectomy is pretty close to a second way - I understand they are not 100% successful. But we all take lots of actions every day that have a risk of an outcome we don’t want. We balance the risks and the benefits. And if we cause consequences by our voluntary actions, we are held responsible. So if you are the slightest concerned with accurately portraying what I am advocating, it would be “men should not have sex until they are willing to accept the risk of pregnancy as determined by the type of sex engaged in and the method of contraception, if any, used.” But saying that was what I advocated wouldn’t fit into your bizarre view of responsibility. > [@curlcoat](#): > > I am far from a protector of what is currently view as women’s “rights”. That’s the truth. So stop with the claims that those who seek to require men to take responsibility for their actions are anti-women. You are about as convincing an advocate for women as Katie Roiphe. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/234 "2009-02-13T00:35:09Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > OK, leaving aside those women who poke holes in condoms, save used condoms and lie about their own birth control status, no birth control method is 100%. So, no matter how responsible a man is, there is still a chance that he is going to end up creating a pregnancy he doesn’t want. Rather than debating the topic at hand, perhaps people who feel strongly about this should be demanding [male birth control](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15937201/) hit the market (in addition to advocating for cheap and accessible female birth control, including abortion, which I assume is something you already support). ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/235 "2009-02-13T02:25:49Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Why does she get that right? There are tons of kids out there without cars or college funds, why is it “right” to suck money out of the father for these things that aren’t _necessary_ to keep the kid alive and healthy? You missed the point. The courts decide through a formula based on both parents income how much the absent parent should pay. That responsibility doesn’t vanish when if she remarries or her boyfriend moves in. Even if the step parent is well off they have zero parental responsibilities financially. I’m saying \*\*if \*\* it turns out that Mom no longer _needs_ Dad’s money for the essentials that doesn’t mean Dad isn’t still responsible for his share. If the essentials are covered willing by Step Dad purely out of good will then Dad’s money \*might \* be used for a college fund rather than nail polish and spa treatments. Either way Dad’s financial responsibility doesn’t end if Mom marries well. OTOH if Mom gets a big promotion and is now making much more than Dad he can petition the court for a change in support. > [@](#): > > I think if I was stuck with child support, I’d do the same thing! We had an informal agreement. I think a court might have felt differently. > [@](#): > > Except it isn’t just the minors’ welfare if the mother is allowed to take money she doesn’t need to raise these kids. It looks more like punishment to the father for daring to have had sex, or daring to have not been happy in his marriage or whatever the circumstances are that led to him not living with the children. There is no law that says that children must have cars or go to college - why do the courts force fathers to pay for things like this? Yes it is the minors welfare for the reasons I just explained. If a Dad earns 30K a year he pays X amount based on his and her income. Obviously there won’t be a ton of extras on that kind of income. If Sounds like he should have had a vasectomy at some point… Whoever it is that decides how much aid to kids tax money goes to the poor children. This is what I don’t get - it’s ok for poor people to have kids and raise them in squalor, but if a couple decides to not raise their children in one home, suddenly these children “deserve” all these extras, no matter what it does to the one paying support? And the big one - whether he wanted those kids or not in the first place? Works for me! We have lots of graffiti they could be cleaning off/painting over here too! 😉 Is NJ still capped? [/QUOTE] ---
**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:** [February 13, 2009, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/236 "2009-02-13T02:34:20Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Why does she get that right? There are tons of kids out there without cars or college funds, why is it “right” to suck money out of the father for these things that aren’t _necessary_ to keep the kid alive and healthy? > > I think if I was stuck with child support, I’d do the same thing! > > Except it isn’t just the minors’ welfare if the mother is allowed to take money she doesn’t need to raise these kids. It looks more like punishment to the father for daring to have had sex, or daring to have not been happy in his marriage or whatever the circumstances are that led to him not living with the children. There is no law that says that children must have cars or go to college - why do the courts force fathers to pay for things like this? So you think if a guy decides he doesn’t like his wife, that terminates his obligation to his children, even if he helped make the decision to have them? The mother now has to solely support herself AND the kids, and he only has to support himself? Sweet! Must be nice to be a man in your world. > [@](#): > > That’s the point. The man has zero say as to whether or not a pregnancy turns out to be a baby. Since he has no say in that, why should he be forced to support a baby if he didn’t want it? You are suggesting he just never have sex unless he wants a(nother) baby? Not necessarily, but it would be smart to only have sex when he is in a stable relationship with a like-minded person, so he can trust that she will be in agreement with him if the inevitable happens. Is that too much to ask? There are plenty of women around who would be just as happy with abortion as an option as he would be…wouldn’t it be smart to hook up with one of those women? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/237 "2009-02-13T02:38:45Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, they really don’t have that right at all. The word “rights” gets thrown around a lot these days, seemingly without regard for what the word actually means. Why should men have that right? OK, then, men have the _same_ right as women to have sex without having to worry about paying thru the nose for the next 18+ years. > [@](#): > > Seems to me what men really have is an obligation to figure out if he & whoever he’s sleeping with are likeminded when it comes to what option they would prefer in the event of a pregnancy. If he doesn’t agree with her preference (since, obviously, she holds the cards in that situation), or he doesn’t know her well enough to ask or feel confident that she won’t change her mind, then maybe he should look elsewhere for some non-Victorian nookie. If women didn’t lie, change their minds or have birth control fail, this would work. > [@](#): > > I doubt that this is what **Diogenes** meant by baby incubator…he was stating a fact of biology, which you’d be hard-pressed to argue with. His point is that pregnancy is an inherent risk of sex…you really shouldn’t participate in ANY leisure activity without understanding and accepting the potential risks, as well as doing whatever you can to minimize those risks. No, **Diogenes** was trying to make a point in a rather gross way - that any fertile woman has at any time the possibility of becoming a baby incubator. Except, misogyny aside, it isn’t true since there are plenty of women that would abort the second they found out they were pregnant. Women are more than walking wombs. > [@](#): > > Personally, I find the argument from **Diogenes** to be a bit bizarre coming from a pro-choicer, because you could change “man” to “woman” and a pro-lifer could use the exact same argument. But he has a point that women have an option men don’t have…it’s just a simple fact of life in the year 2009. The only way to ensure that men and women both have the same chance to decide would be to outlaw abortion, and I’m guessing you wouldn’t be for that, would you? Or, we could quit forcing men to pay for the children they never wanted, which would make it fair. Apparently pro choice doesn’t extend to men. > [@](#): > > I agree that the situation is unfair for men, but life isn’t fair, and children shouldn’t always have to bear the brunt of their parents’ bad decisions…that happens enough as it is. How is any child bearing the brunt of anything if women know up front that noone but themselves are going to be paying to raise their kids, unless they have a partner that also wants children? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/238 "2009-02-13T02:41:38Z")
> [@BlinkingDuck](#): > > My God, what can be cooler than being a father? Being childfree. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/239 "2009-02-13T02:43:42Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > You’re not talking about taxation without representation. You’re talking about taxing for something you disagree with. In fact, you have all the representation everyone else has. A congressmen, a senator, a president, and any number of local state and county and city representatives that has to run for office every few years. None of them represent any of the things that I value. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/240 "2009-02-13T02:53:27Z")
I hit the wrong button on my previous post and didn’t finish. Here’s the rest > [@curlcoat](#): > > Except it isn’t just the minors’ welfare if the mother is allowed to take money she doesn’t need to raise these kids. It looks more like punishment to the father for daring to have had sex, or daring to have not been happy in his marriage or whatever the circumstances are that led to him not living with the children. There is no law that says that children must have cars or go to college - why do the courts force fathers to pay for things like this? Yes it is the minors welfare for the reasons I just explained. If a Dad earns 30K a year he pays X amount based on his and her income. Obviously there won’t be a ton of extras on that kind of income. If Dad earns 100k a year more is expected of him and the kids will have extras. That’s how it works. > [@](#): > > Sounds like he should have had a vasectomy at some point… an example of the court guidelines and that poor men aren’t always at the mercy of the courts and women. > [@](#): > > Whoever it is that decides how much aid to kids tax money goes to the poor children. This is what I don’t get - it’s ok for poor people to have kids and raise them in squalor, but if a couple decides to not raise their children in one home, suddenly these children “deserve” all these extras, no matter what it does to the one paying support? And the big one - whether he wanted those kids or not in the first place? No No and No. Pay attention. It’s a formula based on income and it has nothing to do with extras. Your solution releases men from all responsibility, and places all of it on women from step one. {The point where they decide if they should have sex and know it might make a baby.} Your suggestion releases men from any concern about that at all. They never have to even think about contraception. It’s all on the woman. Yet somehow that seems the better solution to you. I think it’s loony. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052.md?page=13)