# 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:** 14
**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, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/261 "2009-02-13T06:49:44Z")
> [@villa](#): > > You were wrong (though I don’t believe it was an accidental misunderstanding) because you see things as direct opposites. My point was, and this is God knows what time I have said it, that if you want to be absolutely certain you bear no responsibility for a child, you have a way of ensuring that. There are other alternatives, that come with greater or lesser chances of avoiding a child. Balance the risks. Stop running whining that you should be allowed to do whatever you want and not face any consequences of that action. ME??? HA! I’m a 50+ woman who had a tubal almost 20 years ago and would have an abortion in a heart beat. _I_ have all the control, yet I very much see the male side in this, probably because I don’t view children as the be all and end all of humanity. As for direct opposites, you are completely unable to see anything other than your own narrow view of the subject - if a man has sex, he must be ready to pay for it even tho he has zero say in the matter. > [@](#): > > No - I take balanced precautions based on the situation. And accept, that if that does not work out as I intend, I have responsibilities I don’t run away from. Because that is what being a grown up involves. So, being grown up to you also includes allowing people to push their choices off onto others? > [@](#): > > The difference is bloody obvious. I don’t intend to have a car accident, but I drive my car. Why? Because the utility of driving outweighs the negative utility of an accident multiplied by the probability of that accident. I also drive carefully. I don’t drive drunk. > > So when I have sex, I take precautions. They don’t always work. If I hit ice on the road, and drive into the side of another car, I accept responsibility. I don’t run away crying claiming that I didn’t want to hit someone, and that I shouldn’t have to pay for it. Again, you base the precautions on your view of the risks. I drive faster on a dry, empty road than in rush hour during a rain storm. If you have an auto accident, you generally do not end up paying for the majority of it yourself. It is also extremely rare for you to be involved in an accident where you had all of your recourses taken away from you. This example doesn’t wash. > [@](#): > > So if I am having sex with someone, the precautions I take will be determined my analysis of the situation. If I don’t know the girl that well, I am going to wear a condom, in the full knowledge that it may fail. If it fails, and a child results, it isn’t the kid’s fault that the rubber broke. And the kid deserves my support. Again - that’s part of being a grown up. No, it’s not. Part of being a grown up is being responsible for oneself. If you wanted to offer to help support any baby that resulted from any pregnancy that you might have created, that’s fine. But it is completely irresponsible of a woman you don’t “know that well” to _expect_ you to pay for a choice _she_ is making, that choice being that she is going to keep the baby. It isn’t a kid until she makes the decision and carries that pregnancy to term - expecting you to pay for it is almost as bad as that woman expecting the state of California to support her first six kids and now probably the current eight. It amazes me that you are so willing to throw money away on children you had zero say in having, out of women you barely know. And, that is all I have for you. It appears that you are completely unable to see any side other than your own and you are getting emotional and rude on top of it. Enjoy. ---
**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, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/262 "2009-02-13T07:20:52Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Your “fair” solution would completely release men from any responsibility. No, again, I have never said that. I have been very clear that I am talking about men saying as soon as the pregnancy is discovered that they don’t want the baby. I fail to see how anyone can think it fair for the woman to just ignore him and go ahead and create this long term financial burden on him against his will. And that doesn’t even get into the women who expect that he will suddenly turn into a loving father just because she wants him to. > [@](#): > > I find it bizarre that you seem to advocate women’s rights {seems is the correct term} No, I do not in any way advocate what passes for that these days. > [@](#): > > and now use women earning less to support your argument that men are financially oppressed. If men do make more then paying child support must not be some horrible burden. “More” doesn’t mean he has enough money to be paying child support. > [@](#): > > I’m not ignoring anything. Biological reality is not an inequality that the courts can fix. It’s a fact of life. That’s we call it that. Yes you are ignoring something - the fact that we can rise above our biology and use our brains on problems. > [@](#): > > She doesn’t find someone else. They already found each other. I meant someone other than herself. > [@](#): > > Are you listening to yourself? Did you think about that last sentence as you typed it? Of course - how can it be anything other than a completely selfish decision if a woman decides to keep a baby she cannot afford to raise and the father doesn’t want at all? > [@](#): > > Not everyone is so cavalier attitude about abortion or adoption. So women should suck it up concerning those choices but men shouldn’t have to concerning intercourse or birth control. When it comes to birth control, men don’t _have_ those choices. > [@](#): > > So no woman should have a child they can’t afford on their own, but men should be able to wave off parental responsibility as they please. Did I say that? No. I am saying that if the man doesn’t want the kid and he says so as soon as the pregnancy is discovered, then he shouldn’t be stuck with her decision to have the baby. Perhaps you are assuming I am meaning all men in all situations? Of course not. As much as I dislike children, I’m not even advocating this in a situation when there are actually children, only during early pregnancy. > [@](#): > > btw unless you have some serious cites your calling it a completely selfish decision on her part doesn’t cut it. _Cites?_ Good lord, how can it be anything but selfish? Any time a woman decides to have a baby it is a completely selfish decision. > [@](#): > > How the hell did you get that out of a sentence about responsible humans. Do you think a woman keeping a child is avoiding responsibility? Ludicrous. Foisting a good deal of the financial burden off on someone else is hardly responsible. > [@](#): > > What choices do men have other than never having intercourse unless they want to create a pregnancy?I’m not sure why sex without risking pregnancy isn’t a reasonable suggestion. There are lots of fun sexual possibilities that do not risk pregnancy. That would give both genders the chance to suck it up, maybe at the same time. But choices? Several. Vasectomy which are sometimes successfully reversed. If they can’t reverse it they can just **suck it up** and adopt or not have kids. Why isn’t this a viable and perfectly fair option given your attitude about women? Being much more cautious about who they have sex with and what birth control is being used. Discussing the abortion option before they have sex. Dating women who enjoy non vaginal intercourse. Some of these things are not 100% effective but I’m pretty sure if followed unwanted pregnancies would go waaayyy down. I doubt your last sentence, but anyway… Are you willing to go the rest of your life without intercourse? I assume the answer is no, so how many weeks/months/years do you think it would be reasonable to go without? Vasectomies are not a viable option for young men or for those who want children in the future, so how long are you telling these guys they should go without? I wish that sucking it up and adopting or not having kids was an option for people, but obviously for almost everyone, it isn’t. Are you really aware of what you are proposing here? > [@](#): > > Yes I’m aware women can and do trick men and get pregnant on purpose. Just as I’m aware of how men can and do lie to get sex. The relevancy of those facts is marginal in this discussion. Women tricking men into fatherhood is _very_ relevant. It boils down to no matter what he does, unless he’s sterile he can end up siring children because women hold all the cards. > [@](#): > > I’ll point out that while you keep painting men paying child support as some horrendous burden they have to bear, lot’s of men pay regularly and do fine. They don’t live in squaller or eat PB sandwiches daily. Because the formula is based on their income it’s usually something they can handle with few serious problems. In comparison you treat a woman’s choice about her body and her baby and the babies welfare as if it’s no big deal and pale in comparison to this grave injustice to men. Huh. So as long as the man isn’t starving, it’s ok with you to take his money? > [@](#): > > Oddly enough not every case is the same. Go figure. It has nothing to do with any case, it has to do with “best interests of the child” meaning a tenement in one case and a McMansion in another. Why does the second child have some right to a better life than child one? > [@](#): > > I don’t even think that’s happening. I reject your characterization as ridiculous. You honestly believe that every man paying child support wanted to have that child(ren) at the time it was conceived? Wow. > [@](#): > > ever heard of alimony and property settlements? That has nothing to do with anything I said. ---
**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, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/263 "2009-02-13T07:23:58Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Why so 1 sided. I’m sure you’re aware that some men lie and plot to get sex with little regard for the woman. What long term financial burden is forced onto a woman because of that? > [@](#): > > At least that’s what the Iraqi children are saying. Sheesh. Fine - _US_ children. > [@](#): > > Name one person who assumed that. You. > [@](#): > > remember , they could do a whole lot more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than they are evidently doing. Already addressed this. ---
**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, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/264 "2009-02-13T14:54:33Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, again, I have never said that. I have been very clear that I am talking about men saying as soon as the pregnancy is discovered that they don’t want the baby. Since that is the consequence of your supposedly fair proposal, you have said that. You just won’t admit it. > [@](#): > > I fail to see how anyone can think it fair for the woman to just ignore him and go ahead and create this long term financial burden on him against his will. And that doesn’t even get into the women who expect that he will suddenly turn into a loving father just because she wants him to. Precisely because she can’t create the burden alone. He did it. He knew the possibilities when he did it. > [@](#): > > “More” doesn’t mean he has enough money to be paying child support. Since they use a formula based on his income in most cases that’s exactly what it means. > [@](#): > > Yes you are ignoring something - the fact that we can rise above our biology and use our brains on problems. {Dang, a good bit of sarcasm came to mind but since I don’t know you it would seem rude rather than humorous} . Do you think our great legal minds haven’t considered your proposal on this issue? There are good reasons why it’s been rejected. As oft repeated in this thread. The courts deal with the reality of biology as it is in trying to find the best balance of rights and welfare and consequences for choices. They’ve decided you’re incorrect. I agree with them. > [@](#): > > I meant someone other than herself. I know. So did I. > [@](#): > > Of course - how can it be anything other than a completely selfish decision if a woman decides to keep a baby she cannot afford to raise and the father doesn’t want at all? Why must you go to extremes to prove your point. Even if a Mom can get by on her own that doesn’t absolve the biological father from responsibility. There are a lot of emotions and factors in the decision to have an abortion or give up your child for adoption. Selfishness might be a factor but calling it completely selfish is a ridiculous extreme. > [@](#): > > When it comes to birth control, men don’t _have_ those choices. They don’t have exactly the same choices but they have sufficient choices. You expect women to suck it up and make a responsible choice concerning their pregnancy and the child but the real choices available to men are just to much to ask. It’s incredibly one sided. Please answer this since; Why aren’t the sexual alternatives to risking pregnancy a perfectly valid and responsible alternative? Men don’t have to go without sex to avoid any possibility of pregnancy. > [@](#): > > Did I say that? No. I am saying that if the man doesn’t want the kid and he says so as soon as the pregnancy is discovered, then he shouldn’t be stuck with her decision to have the baby. Perhaps you are assuming I am meaning all men in all situations? Of course not. As much as I dislike children, I’m not even advocating this in a situation when there are actually children, only during early pregnancy. I know what you meant and that is what you’re proposing. You’re ignoring the real life consequences of what you’re proposing. Let’s say a man is dating a woman whom he realizes is looking for a husband rather than just casual fun. What would be the responsible thing for him to do? Under your scenario he can continue to get what he wants and the minute she says “I’m pregnant” intentionally or not, he just bails because he just wanted the sex. You’re suggesting we force women to become more responsible by allowing men to be less responsible. I don’t see that as fair, equal , or containing any long term benefit. > [@](#): > > _Cites?_ Good lord, how can it be anything but selfish? Any time a woman decides to have a baby it is a completely selfish decision. already addressed. Your cure for this supposed selfishness is to encourage even more selfishness in men than already exists. > [@](#): > > Foisting a good deal of the financial burden off on someone else is hardly responsible. Placing it on the person who willingly and knowingly contributed is not foisting. > [@](#): > > I doubt your last sentence, but anyway… Then you’ve lost touch with reality. I was a young horny guy once and I’m positive I could have been much more responsible. > [@](#): > > Are you willing to go the rest of your life without intercourse? I assume the answer is no, so how many weeks/months/years do you think it would be reasonable to go without? Why this fixation that men somehow need and deserve intercourse? As a more mature man than I once was I am more aware of the complications and potential problems involved with intercourse. Even as a much younger man when my girlfriend stopped taking the pill because of a reaction to the the formula we found perfectly acceptable alternatives to satisfy each other rather than risk pregnancy. We thought it was the responsible thing to do. > [@](#): > > Vasectomies are not a viable option for young men or for those who want children in the future, so how long are you telling these guys they should go without? I wish that sucking it up and adopting or not having kids was an option for people, but obviously for almost everyone, it isn’t. Are you really aware of what you are proposing here? Perfectly aware. I’m proposing that guys being held responsible for children they help create fosters a more responsible and just society in the long run even though the occasional injustice occurs. The alternative {your suggestion} would be worse and was in the past. I’m proposing that if guys took a more proactive role in birth control the rate of unwanted children would go down dramatically. I acknowledge that woman have an equal responsibility to be just as proactive. Your proposal eliminates the need and the motivation for men to be proactive. > [@](#): > > Women tricking men into fatherhood is _very_ relevant. No more relevant than men lying and manipulating to get sex and then bailing on her when she becomes pregnant. I’m sure you’re aware this happens \*at least \* as much as men being tricked. Should the man that says “I really love you baby, it’s you and me forever” still be able to ditch his responsibilities when she gets pregnant? > [@](#): > > It boils down to no matter what he does, unless he’s sterile he can end up siring children because women hold all the cards. No No No No it doesn’t. Please answer my question about no risk sexual alternatives. I’m also suggesting that a responsible man who is an equally concerned partner in birth control will be concerned about what birth control the woman is using and might discuss her attitudes about abortion and adoption before he does the deed. I’m suggesting that’s the kind of responsibility we should be promoting. Your proposal promotes the opposite among males so it’s not a realistic solution. > [@](#): > > Huh. So as long as the man isn’t starving, it’s ok with you to take his money? Again with ridiculous extremes. I didn’t even hint at that. When I was paying child support I drove an older car {oh god poor me life is sooo cruel} I took less fancy vacations, the local mountains rather than Europe or Mardi Gra. {The emotional scars still linger} I didn’t own a motorcycle or snowmobile or boat {the resentment still lingers} What I got in return for that incredible burden was a wonderful {if sometimes turbulent} relationship with three wonderful human beings. Other Dads pay their child support and still go to Europe and drive a BMW or Benz, own an unnecessary pleasure vehicle, etc. so stop painting unwanted child support as some extreme burden that is usually isn’t. > [@](#): > > It has nothing to do with any case, it has to do with “best interests of the child” meaning a tenement in one case and a McMansion in another. Why does the second child have some right to a better life than child one? It has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with circumstance. > [@](#): > > You honestly believe that every man paying child support wanted to have that child(ren) at the time it was conceived? Wow. I obviously don’t believe it and never suggested it. Address the substance and stop avoiding details with this waste of bandwidth. > [@](#): > > That has nothing to do with anything I said. Oh but it does. People consciously enter into a relationship knowing the potential. when the relationship ends they and their lawyers decide who is responsible for what and who gets what. If one party says, “but I don’t want a divorce” or “I don’t want to pay alimony or give up any property” they don’t get to have their way unchallenged. Rather than just repeating the same arguments why not selectively address specific details and questions asked. There are a couple already in this post but here’s another. Since you think abortion or adoption are such obvious and responsible choices for women why isn’t a vasectomy {which are sometimes reversible} or adoption an equally viable alternative for men? Have a vasectomy if you know you’re not ready for parenthood and you want sex involving risk of pregnancy. Later you can have it reversed or just adopt. That sounds very simple and responsible doesn’t it? ---
**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, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/265 "2009-02-13T14:55:47Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You. This is a falsehood Can you show the post where I indicated the responsibility was not shared by women. ---
**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, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/266 "2009-02-13T15:47:11Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > There are two different aspects of child support being discussed here - whether a man who never wanted children should have to pay at all, and how much any man who did want them should have to pay. If you weren’t so bent on trying to make me out as some kind of villian, you would have noticed the context my comment was in. I’m not making you out as a villian…I’m just trying to understand your point of view. You were the one who treated the two as equivilant in your post. > [@](#): > > Plenty of women who are willing to have an abortion when _they_ don’t want a child. Not as many women who never want any ever. Right…so? The guy should only sleep with women who currently don’t want a child as much as he currently doesn’t want a child. Plain common sense right there. > [@](#): > > You’d think wouldn’t you? I don’t know if it is because the men are thinking with their small heads or if they are just unable to fathom that sort of deceit - probably both. Right, men never lie to get sex and then dump the woman with any “problem” he might have helped create. Men are never THAT deceitful. And if they are so immature that they are only thinking with their small heads, then they are too immature to be having sex at all. > [@](#): > > If life is fair to anyone, it is fair to children… I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Children all over this world starve to death before they are 3 years old due to the simple accident of where they were born. Even in our country, where no one has to starve to death, some children are born in loving families, and some children are _beaten to death by their own mothers_. Don’t give me life is fair to children. If there’s anyone in the world who life is unfair to, it’s the little ones who make no choices for themselves. > [@](#): > > Why is it that so many people assume that the man must be the irresponsible one if an unwanted pregnancy occurs? Gee, that’s funny, I even capitalized the “both” and the “and” in my statement, to emphasize the fact that I think BOTH men AND women need to be more responsible, and you still didn’t get it. Amazing. > [@](#): > > Make men think twice about getting pregnant? Remember, they have almost no control over the situation, other than giving up sex. They have plenty of control over it, if they act like responsible grownups. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/267 "2009-02-13T15:51:52Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Sorry - I was snappy. I am glad you think the system is fair - as in your later post. It just surprised me to see you say you thought it was unfair, while not knowing what it was. As it turns out, it seems you support the system as is (though I would be the first to agree there are unfair things that are involved in the way the system is implemented…) I was just looking to understand the whole thing. This is why I don’t like those infinisplit discussions where every line is dissected and replied to individually. One can quickly lose sight of the big picture and get all heated up because of a minor detail. And why I try to reset the discussion every once in a while by posting where I stand without it being a reply to anyone. I did start from the premise that it was wrong, but only because it is a common complaint, and the easiest position to understand. I don’t find the system perfect as I understand it now, but it is fundamentally good, even if it does have details that could be improved. Thanks again for your time and effort. ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/268 "2009-02-13T18:03:09Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > ME??? HA! I’m a 50+ woman who had a tubal almost 20 years ago and would have an abortion in a heart beat. _I_ have all the control, yet I very much see the male side in this, probably because I don’t view children as the be all and end all of humanity. I could have sworn you previously in the thread said something along the lines of “I wouldn’t want to be one of those guys…” My bad. I don’t view children as the be all and end all of life either. I view living up to one’s responsibilities as one of the most important things, even if that is inconvenient. > [@curlcoat](#): > > As for direct opposites, you are completely unable to see anything other than your own narrow view of the subject - if a man has sex, he must be ready to pay for it even tho he has zero say in the matter. I can see your view. I think it is appalling, but I can see it - I cannot fail but see it. And again, you keep redefining what people say when you think it suits your argument. All I have said is that if a man has sex, he has to face the potential consequences. Just like if any adult does anything. > [@curlcoat](#): > > So, being grown up to you also includes allowing people to push their choices off onto others? Nope. But it also does not include allowing the consequences of my actions to be pushed onto an innocent child. > [@curlcoat](#): > > If you have an auto accident, you generally do not end up paying for the majority of it yourself. It is also extremely rare for you to be involved in an accident where you had all of your recourses taken away from you. This example doesn’t wash. You pay for your responsibility. Maybe a system of pregnancy insurance could be developed for those who wish to fuck and run. > [@curlcoat](#): > > No, it’s not. Part of being a grown up is being responsible for oneself. If you wanted to offer to help support any baby that resulted from any pregnancy that you might have created, that’s fine. But it is completely irresponsible of a woman you don’t “know that well” to _expect_ you to pay for a choice _she_ is making, that choice being that she is going to keep the baby. It isn’t a kid until she makes the decision and carries that pregnancy to term - expecting you to pay for it is almost as bad as that woman expecting the state of California to support her first six kids and now probably the current eight. It amazes me that you are so willing to throw money away on children you had zero say in having, out of women you barely know. Yes - responsible for myself. As an adult. And the consequences of my actions. Not running away. Not leaving a child, who does NOT carry the same responsibilities, to bear the costs. I didn’t have zero say. I had 100% control over the decision to play my part. If the woman involved is someone I barely know, I take more precautions. Pretty simple. > [@curlcoat](#): > > And, that is all I have for you. It appears that you are completely unable to see any side other than your own and you are getting emotional and rude on top of it. Enjoy. Trust me, my heart won’t break if you don’t reply. I can see plenty of other sides, though I don’t have to like them. ---
**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, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/269 "2009-02-13T18:09:44Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > I was just looking to understand the whole thing. This is why I don’t like those infinisplit discussions where every line is dissected and replied to individually. One can quickly lose sight of the big picture and get all heated up because of a minor detail. And why I try to reset the discussion every once in a while by posting where I stand without it being a reply to anyone. > > I did start from the premise that it was wrong, but only because it is a common complaint, and the easiest position to understand. I don’t find the system perfect as I understand it now, but it is fundamentally good, even if it does have details that could be improved. > > Thanks again for your time and effort. You are more than welcome. It’s not a perfect situation, but in a perfect world it would not be necessary to have ac child support system as people would voluntrily take responsibility for their own actions - though this thread shows abundantly how far from that world we are. There is much that needs to be changed, but it is with the application of the law, not the law itself from what I see. Custody law in particular is implemented very badly. But the standard is there - best interests of the child. If you want to know more about child support, I think every state has a web site with a calculator that permits you to see how much you would pay. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/270 "2009-02-13T19:09:16Z")
> [@villa](#): > > If you want to know more about child support, I think every state has a web site with a calculator that permits you to see how much you would pay. Nah, you couldn’t pay me enough to do without my two kids and my wife. ---
**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, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/271 "2009-02-13T20:37:04Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Since that is the consequence of your supposedly fair proposal, you have said that. > You just won’t admit it. No, that is just what you have decided to believe. > [@](#): > > Precisely because she can’t create the burden alone. Except she does, when she makes the decision to not abort or adopt. > [@](#): > > {Dang, a good bit of sarcasm came to mind but since I don’t know you it would seem rude rather than humorous} . Do you think our great legal minds haven’t considered your proposal on this issue? There are good reasons why it’s been rejected. As oft repeated in this thread. The courts deal with the reality of biology as it is in trying to find the best balance of rights and welfare and consequences for choices. They’ve decided you’re incorrect. I agree with them. I don’t know why you are wincing away from rudeness this one time. The major reason why our “great legal minds” don’t consider this proposal (it’s not “mine”) boils down to think of da chyldren. Our “great legal minds” and our politicians are bent on continuing to pay people to have children for some reason. > [@](#): > > Why must you go to extremes to prove your point. You are saying you don’t think choosing to have a baby when the father doesn’t want it _isn’t_ a selfish decision? > [@](#): > > There are a lot of emotions and factors in the decision to have an abortion or give up your child for adoption. Selfishness might be a factor but calling it completely selfish is a ridiculous extreme. What is extreme about it? Do you think that emotional decisons cannot be selfish? Or is it that you just cannot see opting to have a baby, no matter what the circumstances, to be a selfish thing to do? > [@](#): > > Please answer this since; Why aren’t the sexual alternatives to risking pregnancy a perfectly valid and responsible alternative? Men don’t have to go without sex to avoid any possibility of pregnancy. Men, and women, seem to like intercourse you know. You are suggesting that unless they want to have a child, they should _never_ engage in it. > [@](#): > > I know what you meant and that is what you’re proposing. You’re ignoring the real life consequences of what you’re proposing. > Let’s say a man is dating a woman whom he realizes is looking for a husband rather than just casual fun. What would be the responsible thing for him to do? > Under your scenario he can continue to get what he wants and the minute she says “I’m pregnant” intentionally or not, he just bails because he just wanted the sex. You’re suggesting we force women to become more responsible by allowing men to be less responsible. I don’t see that as fair, equal , or containing any long term benefit. From this example you obviously don’t know what I am proposing. However, if you were to add into your example the fact that she didn’t tell him she was _actively_ looking for a husband, and since he wasn’t “stepping up to the plate”, she decided to “give him a nudge” by getting pregnant. Do you think it fair, or even all that intelligent, for her to trap him like that? > [@](#): > > already addressed. Your cure for this supposed selfishness is to encourage even more selfishness in men than already exists. Actually, my cure for that is to quit paying women to have babies. > [@](#): > > Placing it on the person who willingly and knowingly contributed is not foisting. I am not talking about men who willingly and _knowingly_ got a woman pregnant and you know it. > [@](#): > > Then you’ve lost touch with reality. I was a young horny guy once and I’m positive I could have been much more responsible. Which has what to do with lowering the unwanted pregnancies rate? > [@](#): > > I’m proposing that guys being held responsible for children they help create fosters a more responsible and just society in the long run even though the occasional injustice occurs. _Occasional?_ > [@](#): > > I’m proposing that if guys took a more proactive role in birth control the rate of unwanted children would go down dramatically. Probably, but the ways they can be are unrealistic and/or unreliable. > [@](#): > > No more relevant than men lying and manipulating to get sex and then bailing on her when she becomes pregnant. I’m sure you’re aware this happens \*at least \* as much as men being tricked. Should the man that says “I really love you baby, it’s you and me forever” still be able to ditch his responsibilities when she gets pregnant? If she is dumb enough to believe that without any real commitment… > [@](#): > > No No No No it doesn’t. Please answer my question about no risk sexual alternatives. > I’m also suggesting that a responsible man who is an equally concerned partner in birth control will be concerned about what birth control the woman is using and might discuss her attitudes about abortion and adoption before he does the deed. > I’m suggesting that’s the kind of responsibility we should be promoting. Your proposal promotes the opposite among males so it’s not a realistic solution. I’ve already answered this - women who want babies OMG RIGHT NOW lie. It has nothing to do with being in a committed relationship or Mr Right, it is all about finding a sperm donor who appears to have enough money to support their baby. Or even worse, they will wait until they are married and have their children, then show how they never really cared for the man. Discussing birth control, abortion and adoption with such women is useless - and there is no real way to tell if any given woman is like this. > [@](#): > > Again with ridiculous extremes. I didn’t even hint at that. When I was paying child support I drove an older car {oh god poor me life is sooo cruel} I took less fancy vacations, the local mountains rather than Europe or Mardi Gra. {The emotional scars still linger} I didn’t own a motorcycle or snowmobile or boat {the resentment still lingers} What I got in return for that incredible burden was a wonderful {if sometimes turbulent} relationship with three wonderful human beings. Speaking of extremes, gee it’s wonderful that you could afford a car and vacations before and during paying child support. You are aware that you are not the only man to have paid aren’t you? And that there are many men who don’t make that kind of money? > [@](#): > > It has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with circumstance. So, no one has any rights, it is just “give the kid as much as we can”? > [@](#): > > I obviously don’t believe it and never suggested it. Address the substance and stop avoiding details with this waste of bandwidth. I asked if you thought it wasn’t loony to stick someone with 18+ years of debt against his will, you said you didn’t think it was happening, I asked if you really believe that all men who are paying child support wanted the child at the time of conception. Which of those don’t you believe and never suggested? Since this _is_ the substance of my beliefs on the subject, it really does appear you are just pouring your bias on this and not actually reading what I am saying. > [@](#): > > Oh but it does. People consciously enter into a relationship knowing the potential. when the relationship ends they and their lawyers decide who is responsible for what and who gets what. If one party says, “but I don’t want a divorce” or “I don’t want to pay alimony or give up any property” they don’t get to have their way unchallenged. > Rather than just repeating the same arguments why not selectively address specific details and questions asked. Division of property is a one off thing, not an 18 year commitment. Plus it is highly likely that both parties paid into the property over the period of the marriage, so division is the logical and fair thing to do. Alimony I know nothing about - when I divorced my first husband all I got were his debts and when I left a long term boyfriend I left him the house and property as otherwise he would have been homeless. Do women even get alimony still these days? > [@](#): > > There are a couple already in this post but here’s another. Since you think abortion or adoption are such obvious and responsible choices for women why isn’t a vasectomy {which are sometimes reversible} or adoption an equally viable alternative for men? > Have a vasectomy if you know you’re not ready for parenthood and you want sex involving risk of pregnancy. Later you can have it reversed or just adopt. That sounds very simple and responsible doesn’t it? I wonder how many times I will bother to repeat myself to you - I’ll try it a different way. Vasectomy is essentially permanent, no matter what the reversal doctors want you to believe. Giving up a baby for adoption or having an abortion doesn’t mean that a woman can never have a baby again - it doesn’t affect her reproductive parts at all. Me personally, I think all men should have vasectomies and all women have tubals until the population gets down to something approaching what the planet can deal with, but of course that is a completely unpoplar idea. So, since I recognize that people are going to have babies anyway, I think those who have the final say in the matter - the women - should start taking on more responsibility for that action. No more of this paying them to reproduce, either by the government or by men who never wanted the child. And that is it for you unless you can actually debate the subject and not just try to force me into your narrow box. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/272 "2009-02-13T20:46:37Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Incidentally, if you think that having to support children by themselves would make women think twice about having those children, why doesn’t the fear of having to support children they don’t want make men think twice about it, too? You think at the very least there’d be fewer of them begging women to have sex without a condom. ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/273 "2009-02-13T20:49:38Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I’m not making you out as a villian…I’m just trying to understand your point of view. You were the one who treated the two as equivilant in your post. No, what you quoted was a response to only one aspect, not both. > [@](#): > > Right…so? The guy should only sleep with women who currently don’t want a child as much as he currently doesn’t want a child. Plain common sense right there. Yup. Problem with that is the difference between the number of women who want children and the number of men who do. > [@](#): > > Right, men never lie to get sex and then dump the woman with any “problem” he might have helped create. Men are never THAT deceitful. And if they are so immature that they are only thinking with their small heads, then they are too immature to be having sex at all. I don’t get why men lieing to get sex has anything to do with child support. Yes, men can be deceitful and immature - heck, legitimately immature boys are siring children [as here](http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2233878.ece) , most likely due to the lack of sex ed (I don’t know how things are in the UK regarding that). Why are those two being allowed to keep that baby? > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Children all over this world starve to death before they are 3 years old due to the simple accident of where they were born. Even in our country, where no one has to starve to death, some children are born in loving families, and some children are _beaten to death by their own mothers_. Don’t give me life is fair to children. If there’s anyone in the world who life is unfair to, it’s the little ones who make no choices for themselves. See my response to this in a previous post. However, I will note that maybe if we quit paying women to have babies, fewer might get beaten to death. > [@](#): > > They have plenty of control over it, if they act like responsible grownups. OK, just to be clear, you too are advocating either a vasectomy or no intercourse except when trying to create a baby? ---
**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, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/274 "2009-02-13T21:05:38Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, what you quoted was a response to only one aspect, not both. No, it wasn’t, they were both mentioned in the same post…I only quoted part of it. Here is the whole thing: [QUOTE=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? [/QUOTE] I bolded for you the pertinent part…apparently, whatever the circumstance was isn’t important to you…whatever they are, it’s just punishment for the man. > [@](#): > > Yup. Problem with that is the difference between the number of women who want children and the number of men who do. What is the difference? > [@](#): > > I don’t get why men lieing to get sex has anything to do with child support. It has everything to do with it. What if he says “hey baby, I don’t want to use a rubber…I love you, and if anything happens, I’ll be there for you 100%.” > [@](#): > > Yes, men can be deceitful and immature - heck, legitimately immature boys are siring children [as here](http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2233878.ece) , most likely due to the lack of sex ed (I don’t know how things are in the UK regarding that). Why are those two being allowed to keep that baby? Not sure how that’s relevant. > [@](#): > > See my response to this in a previous post. However, I will note that maybe if we quit paying women to have babies, fewer might get beaten to death. You keep making these wild assumptions/assertions with nothing whatsoever to back them up. Either way, the point is there’s no fairness where the kid is concerned. > [@](#): > > OK, just to be clear, you too are advocating either a vasectomy or no intercourse except when trying to create a baby? OK, sure. Worked for me, and I lived to tell about it. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/275 "2009-02-13T22:39:10Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Ill answer the rest later, but this is just flat out wrong… > > 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 concede that I dont know all the laws in all of the states. It was my impression that a woman can drop off a baby at a place that would accept them, such as a government building, and be rid of it. Certainly where I live, a single mom has that right. I’m not sure of the exact laws if there is a father willing to keep the child in the picture. Perhaps you can enlighten me > [@villa](#): > > 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. Sorry, but I dont believe I was ignoring anything. I’m pretty sure that no one has yet given me a good reason why children should have the right to live in non-poverty standards, which is why I think you’re not advocating orphanages as the obvious choice. If that’s not what you’re advocating, why not? The other question I have is what rights has the father deprived of the child if he refuses to fund him for the next 18 years and wants instead to give him to the mother or an orphanage? I’m not talking about abandoning him in the middle of the forest, but simply renouncing responsibility prior to birth. Also, this part stuck out to me: > [@](#): > > she has control over whether she wishes to risk having a child. My question is, when does the father have an equivalent right? > [@curlcoat](#): > > None of them represent any of the things that I value. They may not, but dont you think they are at least valid representation? You cannot say you have no representation if you simply disagree with your rightful representatives. Your claim of taxation without representation is erroneous ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/276 "2009-02-14T07:22:26Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, it wasn’t, they were both mentioned in the same post…I only quoted part of it. Here is the whole thing: > > I bolded for you the pertinent part…apparently, whatever the circumstance was isn’t important to you…whatever they are, it’s just punishment for the man. All you have done here is prove that I was only talking about one aspect of the discussion in this thread - i.e., the amount of child support assigned seems to have nothing to do with “the best interests of the child”. > [@](#): > > What is the difference? There are far more women who feel their lives will not be complete if they don’t have children than there are men who feel that way. > [@](#): > > It has everything to do with it. What if he says “hey baby, I don’t want to use a rubber…I love you, and if anything happens, I’ll be there for you 100%.” Oh, _that_ lie. Well, in that particular case, the woman is too stupid to be raising a kid anyway. > [@](#): > > Not sure how that’s relevant. It seems that everyone here is assuming that babies are all sired by men who are fully mature mentally and therefore should know prior to having sex that a baby might result and therefore should be responsible for raising it. The father in the link was an extreme example, but there are quite a few babies being sired by teenagers these days. At what age do you think that male humans are mature enough to be held responsible for a pregnancy they don’t want? > [@](#): > > You keep making these wild assumptions/assertions with nothing whatsoever to back them up. What part of that do you think is a wild assumption or assertion? > [@](#): > > Either way, the point is there’s no fairness where the kid is concerned. I know that. Makes no sense. > [@](#): > > OK, sure. Worked for me, and I lived to tell about it. Which one? Vasectomy or no intercourse except when trying to create a baby? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/277 "2009-02-14T07:37:54Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > They may not, but dont you think they are at least valid representation? You cannot say you have no representation if you simply disagree with your rightful representatives. Your claim of taxation without representation is erroneous No, I really don’t think that I am being represented at all. Politicians seem to be only concerned with children, to the point that “family” now means “those with children”; they seem to be bent on making the responsible pay for the irresponsible; they seem bent on eliminating the middle class; they seem bent on removing my right to continue to do my lifes work/obsession. I haven’t voted in years because there is no point - there is never a candidate who wants to do anything but support “families” with my money. As I get older and am now fully disabled, them taking my money becomes more of an issue - will there be anything left for me to live on if I have the gall to live another 30 years, as is the average lifespan? Who is it that is representing me? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/278 "2009-02-14T15:19:51Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, that is just what you have decided to believe. Your proposal has clear implications of consequences beyond your vision of fairness. When a society makes laws they have to consider the likely unintended consequences as well as the specific issue the law is addressing. Allowing men to wave away their responsibilities when they discover their lover is pregnant and also encourages them to not care whether she gets pregnant or not. It would encourage a mindset of more irresponsible behavior among men because all they have to do is say “I don’t want it it’s all yours” Now they don’t have to be concerned about birth control at all since they have this handy out. That means it they have essentially zero responsibility and it’s all on the female. Nice fairness there. It’s your proposal, you can’t just pick the consequences you like and ignore the rest. Well, you can, but it’s a disingenuous argument. Answer this. Is a man who wears a condom more responsible than a man who doesn’t? should a man who doesn’t wear a condom be held responsible while a man who does has taken preventative measures, and shouldn’t be? > [@](#): > > Except she does, when she makes the decision to not abort or adopt. A decision she would never have to make if not for his contribution. He is already responsible at that point, and of his own free will, fully aware of the possibilities. > [@](#): > > I don’t know why you are wincing away from rudeness this one time. The major reason why our “great legal minds” don’t consider this proposal (it’s not “mine”) boils down to think of da chyldren. Our “great legal minds” and our politicians are bent on continuing to pay people to have children for some reason. It’s their job and responsibility to think of the children. When they weigh the consequences of laws they try to balance good and bad outcomes. No choice will solve everything. Provide too much support and people will abuse the system and become dependent sloths. Provide to little and more children/citizens suffer. For many years the system was essentially as you suggested. Men could not be held legally responsible and could abandon their lover and the child at will. We as a society decided to offer support to dependent children and then, to encourage responsible behavior in men, hold them responsible for the children they helped create. It’s not a perfect system but IMO far superior than your proposal which takes us backwards in encouraging responsibility. > [@](#): > > You are saying you don’t think choosing to have a baby when the father doesn’t want it _isn’t_ a selfish decision? It may be. I’m saying the issue is far more complex than “completely selfish” > [@](#): > > What is extreme about it? Do you think that emotional decisons cannot be selfish? Or is it that you just cannot see opting to have a baby, no matter what the circumstances, to be a selfish thing to do? Again it may be. I think you’re oversimplifying in the extreme. The laws have to realistically consider the complex variables. Ultimately any decision to keep a child comes down to “I want this child because” which I’m certain you would call selfishness regardless of the details. The emotions involved in abortion or adoption, maternal instinct, the feelings surrounding the thought of “my baby” vary greatly in women. The law cannot realistically dissect the emotional state of every woman and decide whether her reasons are good enough. {neither can you btw} It’s her body and her baby until someone proves she’s unable or until she says so. > [@](#): > > Men, and women, seem to like intercourse you know. You are suggesting that unless they want to have a child, they should _never_ engage in it. False. You’re suggesting men should be able to engage in intercourse without accepting the possible consequences. I’m suggesting that responsible humans make the most responsible choices possible and consider all the options available. If \*both \*men and women did that there would be less unwanted children. I’m also suggesting that people are also responsible for the unintended consequences of their choices. Someone up thread used the analogy of firing a gun into a crowd. If the man had no intent of hurting anyone is he not responsible? > [@](#): > > From this example you obviously don’t know what I am proposing. However, if you were to add into your example the fact that she didn’t tell him she was _actively_ looking for a husband, and since he wasn’t “stepping up to the plate”, she decided to “give him a nudge” by getting pregnant. Do you think it fair, or even all that intelligent, for her to trap him like that? Ten please clarify because you haven’t so far. Are you saying only men in under _certain conditions_ should have the option of waving off responsibility? It sure hasn’t seemed like that so far. work calls. ---
**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 14, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/279 "2009-02-14T19:42:40Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > All you have done here is prove that I was only talking about one aspect of the discussion in this thread - i.e., the amount of child support assigned seems to have nothing to do with “the best interests of the child”. You are making no sense. You put both of those things in the same paragraph, and called it punishment for the man. > [@](#): > > There are far more women who feel their lives will not be complete if they don’t have children than there are men who feel that way. And your evidence for this is…? > [@](#): > > Oh, _that_ lie. Well, in that particular case, the woman is too stupid to be raising a kid anyway. I guess men AND women pay for their own stupidity, then. > [@](#): > > It seems that everyone here is assuming that babies are all sired by men who are fully mature mentally and therefore should know prior to having sex that a baby might result and therefore should be responsible for raising it. The father in the link was an extreme example, but there are quite a few babies being sired by teenagers these days. At what age do you think that male humans are mature enough to be held responsible for a pregnancy they don’t want? Whatever age they are when they are having sex, I guess. > [@](#): > > What part of that do you think is a wild assumption or assertion? All of it. You assume that women have these children to get the child support, and then you assume that these women don’t really want the children at all, and then you assume that this is why the children get beaten. You have no evidence for ANY of that. > [@](#): > > I know that. Makes no sense. WHAT makes no sense? That life is unfair to children? > [@](#): > > Which one? Vasectomy or no intercourse except when trying to create a baby? Seeing as I’m female, I guess the latter. ---
**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 14, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/280 "2009-02-14T19:49:56Z")
All my arguing with **curlcoat** I think is giving a false impression of my beliefs on this issue. I think that advocating that men get off scot-free is misguided at best. I believe that the more people (men and women) are forced to deal with the consequences of their decisions (regarding anything, not just sex), the more responsible they will tend to be. I also think that men get screwed a lot in these situations. Certainly, I think custody arrangements should be more fair, I think that more of them should involve a clause that says the mother has to live close to the father so he has access to the kids, and I think that the men should have some assurance that the money is indeed spent on the kids. There are ways to try to make it as fair as possible to all concerned, and in my mind, what’s best for the kids comes first, and secondly, the desires of both parents should be taken into account equally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052.md?page=15)