# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/301 "2009-02-16T22:37:23Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Roe v Wade isn’t about overcoming unfairness. It’s an albeit imperfect recognition of individual automony over one’s own body, and the right to privacy. Look at the string of cases it comes from. When the Supreme Court is petitioned to hear a case, the plaintiff must provide an issue of a Constitutional violation for the Court to judge. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the attorneys for Norma McCorvey (Roe) relied on “privacy” as their issue. But actual privacy was not really being addressed in Roe v. Wade. The real issue at hand was that the State of Texas had a law that forbade physicians, who also happen to be licensed by the State of Texas, from performing a particular elective medical procedure. A procedure that is also explicitly prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath. The Texas law prohibiting elective abortion was no more a violation of anyone’s right to privacy anymore than a state law that prohibits gambling. Furthermore, the very act of having to enlist a state-licensed practitioner to perform the procedure should have negated any perception of a privacy issue. So, as illustrated, the issue of a privacy violation was more or less an excuse put forth by plaintiff’s counsel that was used to justify the Supreme Court hearing the case, and being sympathetic to the politics of the day, the Court agreed to hear the case under that pretext. Being that the Court agreed to hear Roe under a false pretext, the Court, in effect, circumvented its defined parameters, and enacted a provision that granted relief to a woman’s biological condition. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/302 "2009-02-16T23:18:52Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > But actual privacy was not really being addressed in Roe v. Wade. The real issue at hand was that the State of Texas had a law that forbade physicians, who also happen to be licensed by the State of Texas, from performing a particular elective medical procedure. A procedure that is also explicitly prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath. Plenty of medical procedures are explicitly prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath, though. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/303 "2009-02-17T00:17:28Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > When the Supreme Court is petitioned to hear a case, the plaintiff must provide an issue of a Constitutional violation for the Court to judge. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the attorneys for Norma McCorvey (Roe) relied on “privacy” as their issue. > > But actual privacy was not really being addressed in Roe v. Wade. The real issue at hand was that the State of Texas had a law that forbade physicians, who also happen to be licensed by the State of Texas, from performing a particular elective medical procedure. A procedure that is also explicitly prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath. > > The Texas law prohibiting elective abortion was no more a violation of anyone’s right to privacy anymore than a state law that prohibits gambling. Furthermore, the very act of having to enlist a state-licensed practitioner to perform the procedure should have negated any perception of a privacy issue. > > So, as illustrated, the issue of a privacy violation was more or less an excuse put forth by plaintiff’s counsel that was used to justify the Supreme Court hearing the case, and being sympathetic to the politics of the day, the Court agreed to hear the case under that pretext. > > Being that the Court agreed to hear Roe under a false pretext, the Court, in effect, circumvented its defined parameters, and enacted a provision that granted relief to a woman’s biological condition. “As illustrated” - that is laughable. You make a huge logical step - that control over one’s own body, and relationships between oneself and one’s doctor are “no more a violation of … pivacy” than a gambling ban. I guess that’s why gambler-bookie communications are considered privileged under American law. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/304 "2009-02-17T01:38:59Z")
> [@](#): > > The real issue at hand was that the State of Texas had a law that forbade physicians, who also happen to be licensed by the State of Texas, from performing a particular elective medical procedure. A procedure that is also explicitly prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath. Actually, the Hippocratic Oath prohibits a physician from giving a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. The Oath also prohibits a physician from removing kidney or bladder stones. And let’s not forget that the Oath starts off by swearing to several ancient gods, shall we? I believe, though I am not going to search for it now, that the old pessaries that were meant to induce abortions were compounded of such wholesome things as camel dung. And the old laws against abortions were put in place because of the MATERNAL death rate, that is, the lawmakers were more concerned with the health of the woman involved. The old Hippocratic Oath was meaningful in its time. The more updated oaths will have various differences, which are relevant to OUR time. Here is a link to the first modern HO that I found: [NOVA | Doctors' Diaries | The Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html) Notice that it makes no specific mention of abortion, though it was written in 1964. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/305 "2009-02-17T02:37:08Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > You weren’t doing that, either. I generally do. But when I start getting responses that force me to scroll up and down trying to figure out what the heck the person is responding to, I start posting in kind. > [@](#): > > No, that was my point. There’s no data, so you have no evidence for your claim. There is no data that you are willing to accept is all. Its out there, it just isn’t being gathered by the census bureau or whoever you would be willing to believe. > [@](#): > > We all pay for our actions in many ways. I have two kids…supporting them financially is part of the responsibility I have, but it’s not nearly the whole shebang. There’s cost to my time, my emotions, etc. etc. Since you chose to do that, it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what this means. Women have the advantage of being able to opt out of a pregnancy. > [@](#): > > And men who fall for the equivilant line are too stupid to be having sex at all, but they do. What equivilant line is that? > [@](#): > > You don’t think that raising a baby that you might not be 100% ready for is paying consequences? Or giving a baby up for adoption? These things are not easy to do, but many women do them because they made a mistake and they want to live up to the obligation that created. Oh please. You want me to feel sorry for women who _chose_ to remain pregnant and then _chose_ to keep the baby? If it’s such an awful thing, why do so many women choose to do it? > [@](#): > > Some women don’t believe in abortion, and it’s not a choice for them. Which is why we have adoption. If they don’t “believe” in that either, then its their choice - why should anyone else have to pay for her choice to not “believe” in abortion or adoption? > [@](#): > > 18 seems reasonable. OK, so what about all the babies sired by those under 18? Why is there some magical age when a man is supposed to be mature, educated and responsible enough to accept your view that intercourse means he might have to pay to raise a baby? > [@](#): > > Except that we haven’t established what percentage of women do that. Why would it matter what the percentage is? If handing women money for having babies results in some of those kids being abused or beaten to death, wouldn’t looking into the idea of paying women to have babies be a good idea? You know, “in the best interests of the children”. > [@](#): > > If US society believed that, we wouldn’t have over a million abortions a year in this country. What does that have to do with it? Abortion, the morning after pill and any sort of permanent birth control has been under attack for years. Whether or not the people who believe these things are the work of the devil (or whatever it is they believe) are in the majority overall is immaterial given the effect they have had. > [@](#): > > You have a mighty strange notion of personal responsibility…what else is it when someone avoides something they want to do because they believe it might have bad consequences for someone else and/or for themselves? I never asked anyone else to solve a problem for me…as you say, it was _my_ choice…my _personal_ choice, based on my sense of responsibility. I wouldn’t have an abortion, and while I could give a baby up for adoption, it’s not something that I would relish doing…I’m sure it’s not the easiest thing in the world. And that’s exactly the point…I did this so I wouldn’t have to face the potential consequences. I don’t want to FORCE guys to do anything, other than live up to the consequences of the choices they make. Again, it was your choice and you are free to make all of the choices you want that don’t seriously affect anyone else. Advocating no intercourse unless someone is trying to make a baby is affecting others. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/306 "2009-02-17T03:05:27Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > So it doesn’t matter whether the guy makes any attempt to be responsible or not.? And yet my characterization of you placing all the responsibility on the woman is incorrect? I don’t really view putting on a condom as birth control, due to it’s low success rate. If that is the only birth control going on, it would appear to me that the woman is looking to get pregnant or completely without a clue. > [@](#): > > Since I clearly supported limiting public support to single moms up thread I obviously can wrap my mind around it. Limiting public support to single moms. Not to the children, just taking even more away from the adults. > [@](#): > > Once again your exaggerations only serve to distort the point rather than clarify. > A baby is a citizen who cannot defend or provide for themselves so it makes total sense that our society and our laws take that into consideration. The rights of the parents are also considered as is the responsibility of those who engage in activities that have obvious and known consequences. It is only exaggerations to you because you simply cannot understand the other side. We have all kinds of citizens who cannot defend or provide for themselves, yet children, particularly babies, are the ones we throw the most money at by far. For some reason, the US has become absolutely baby crazy and it seems we cannot have enough taxpayer funded programs to support children. As for obvious and known consequences, that just isn’t true. Intercourse does not always result in pregnancy, and pregnancy doesn’t always result in a baby. If society wouldn’t pay women to have babies, far far more women would be on some sort of reliable birth control until they are actually financially capable of raising a baby. It all boils down to whether or not each individual woman wants a baby, not anything that men are doing. > [@](#): > > Your problem is while you continue to rant in general terms you can’t provide a realistic alternative with specifics and then defend it. It isn’t realistic to suggest a course of action and then not take responsibility for all the consequences. That’s how reality works. Each decisive course has both positive and negative consequences. So far your suggestion strikes me as a net negative. If it was limited to a cap on public support fr single Mom’s I’d agree. Suggesting men be released from all financial responsibility for the children they help create doesn’t strike me as realistic or a net positive. Shrug. First you say I can’t come up with an alternative, then you insist that I have to make one _you_ think is reasonable. > [@](#): > > I agree to an extent. We have to set \*\*realistic \*\* limits and guidelines. I don’t your suggestion qualifies. You want to be more demanding of women and make no demands on men who willingly and knowingly participate. I fail to see any way that releasing men from all concerns about unwanted children will result in fewer kids in broken homes. It will probably have the exact opposite effect. Men paying child support allows women and kids to get off support. I have already addressed this, over and over. > [@](#): > > I reject this as a legitimate question as phrased. > I know a young lady who gave up her first child for adoption. She finished school and is now married with another child from that union. I respect and admire that. I know others who kept their children and accepted temporary support while they worked to get off support so they could better provide for their kids. I respect and admire that. Women who pop out babies to up their support check I don’t respect . Not just for that reason {although it’s enough} but because they also tend to be lousy parents > I don’t see requiring a sire to pay his share as selfish. I see it as justice and expecting an adult to be responsible. Why in the world would you respect and admire someone who made the choice to be supported by the taxpayer? Just because it involved a baby? > [@](#): > > But the solution has to be based on reality and the probable or observed consequences of any law. Your proposal makes thing less balanced rather than more balanced. I have already addressed this, over and over. > [@](#): > > Completely false. I hold both parties responsible and have said so repeatedly. That includes the women. Yet you say that you respect and admire a woman who chose to make a choice to be supported by the taxpayers. That is _not_ holding the woman responsible at all. > [@](#): > > Two teenage boys agree to play with a handgun. One accidentally shoots the other. Are both partly responsible? Is the shooter not responsible because he didn’t want to shoot the other. “Whoops my mistake. Guess I’ll go eat now” > and btw, since he’s not responsible he’s more than willing to play with a gun again next week with someone else , especially if his unique biology means he can’t be the one that gets shot. Hardly qualifies to be included in this thread. > [@](#): > > How does that not qualify? Because I suggested he knew? There is a difference between husband and father. A woman looking for a husband indicates she is not looking to get pregnant until she is married. If she decides to “oops” him to get him to marry her, as far as I’m concerned is deserves whatever happens. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/307 "2009-02-17T06:36:27Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I don’t understand this. In my hypothetical, the woman isn’t on the Pill. She’s on nothing, so however effective the birth control pill is is totally irrelevant. I just don’t see why, “I’m willing to take responsibility for our hypothetical child” is more or less stupid than “Don’t worry, I’m on the pill.” They’re both deliberately misleading their partner. > > Anyway, if the two people are in a relationship to the point where they are very committed, shouldn’t she be able to believe him if he says that he will help support any child conceived from the union? Why the double standard? She should be able to believe him, provided he actually said that. However, even if he did say that, it doesn’t fall to her alone to decide when they are going to start having children. So if she gets pregnant and he doesn’t want it right then, or the reality of it makes him realize that he never wants kids, or maybe never with her, why should she be able to say “tough, you’re gonna pay”? Having children, when, how many and all of that is not something that couples discuss daily or even monthly (except, I supose, those who are having trouble conceiving). People change their minds - why should it only be that the woman is allowed to make the decision of when they are _both_ going to have a child to pay for? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/308 "2009-02-17T07:15:07Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Are you saying that you believe over 50% of accidental pregnancies are not accidental at all? I have trouble believing that most accidental pregnancies are actually accidents. Female birth control is very effective, so except for those women who cannot tolerate any of the 99% ones, how is it that they are “accidentally” getting pregnant? I also think that the “accidental” label is put on pregnancy when they weren’t actively trying but weren’t doing anything much to prevent it either. > [@](#): > > And scrolling back to read it again way to much effort? {makes mental note} Scrolling around thru all of the posts you have made recently trying to find the relevant one is yes, quite a bit of effort. > [@](#): > > I think limiting welfare payments to single Moms is a better balanced solution than eliminating them and encouraging men to be more irresponsible. Women will continue to get pregnant even without forced child support. While I agree it would cut down on pregnancies in certain areas, I think by encouraging men to be irresponsible and allowing them an easy way out, it would fail to cut down on the number of unwanted or unintended pregnancies in any significant way. > > Babies are born to the poor, the careless, the irresponsible, and the ignorant. Unless we want to start enforcing some kind of selective breeding, or forced adoption we have to deal with it. I support finding a balance between encouraging responsibility, and offering some kind of support for those in need. We already do this, any time kids are taken away by CPS. Children are already living in horrid circumstances, so I really don’t think that phasing out all of the money that women get for having children is really going to make that much difference to the children. They can still get health care thru Medicaid and I believe that food stamps are not age based. Education is free. Plus, it isn’t just welfare that I mean when I say paying women to have children, I also mean forced child support when the parents weren’t married, tax credits, maternity leave and everything else that comes with getting pregnant and popping out kids. This business of trying to pretend that they not only can but _deserve_ to have it all has got to stop. > [@](#): > > Fair enough. It is an assumption. Do you have any statistics to show me I’m wrong or just the opposite assumption? I tend to think most unwanted pregnancies are caused by irresponsibility rather than women trying to trap men. I’m open to any statistics that show otherwise. In fact I made the effort to look for some. I doubt there are any - why would any woman admit she had tricking a guy into getting her pregnant? OTOH, there are message boards, websites and chats devoted to ways to “oops” a man. > [@](#): > > Since states vary in support laws according to your theory you’d expect states with strict child support enforcements to have higher out of wedlock birth rates so the woman can get paid. > In fact the opposite appears to be true according to [this site](http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/01/18/mens-rights-myth-women-trick-men-into-fatherhood-so-they-can-collect-child-support/) > “So what do studies comparing how weak and strong child support laws effect single motherhood find? It’s men, not women, who have their incentives changed by child support laws. The stronger child support laws are, the lower the rate of single motherhood.” It definitely isn’t just unmarried women who oops their mate into creating a pregnancy. > [@](#): > > Woman bear the physical burden of childbirth and the emotional and parental burden of the 18 year commitment as well as their share of the economic burden if their partner is unwilling. Compare that as a deterrent to unwanted pregnancy to men who face just the 18 year financial commitment. The difference is it is a burden that the woman chooses for herself. The man has no choice. > [@](#): > > Still you propose freeing men from even that much responsibility. The stats show it’s a bad idea. If men are forced to bear the responsibility of their actions they will make more effort to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. sounds fairly simple and sensible doesn’t it? You mean based on the above? On one cite? > [@](#): > > There’s already an unavoidable biological difference. It’s not the same as proposing an intentional enforced inequality as you are doing. > > So men can say, “I want intercourse but I don’t want a baby” and that ends their responsibility, while women shoulder the rest. Again, horribly one sided and guaranteed to promote a new generation of irresponsible men. I’ve already addressed this, over and over. > [@](#): > > No woman don’t have “all the power” They have different choices based on different biology. They have _the choice_ and men have _no_ choice when it comes to whether or not a pregnancy becomes a child. > [@](#): > > Apparently your desire to win the argument gives you selective reading comprehension. If you’d taken vacation in context it was obvious. Rather than a European vacation or a week at Disney world we’d vacation at the local state park for hiking, camping, or sight seeing. Not all that difficult to grasp actually. It would have been much easier if you had said state park to go camping rather than just go to a park. > [@](#): > > Since circumstance of birth and income seems to work for kids in a family with Moms and Dads why should it seem as an inequity that it works that way for kids out of wedlock? That doesn’t even make sense. Because some parents are smart enough to actually have enough money to raise a kid before they have it, you think that all single mothers should have that much money to raise their kid? > [@](#): > > The Dad’s that pay more usually have a lot more left over for themselves as well. Any cites on that? > [@](#): > > I rejected your use of the word **sticking**. Repeating this is irrelevant and unnecessary. If you are going to complain about my use of a word, you could at least quote where it was used so I know what you are talking about. > [@](#): > > Would you acknowledge he likely knew a pregnancy and a possible child was one possible outcome of his conscious choice. Of course. So? > [@](#): > > I’ve attacked your position and the style of your posts, rather than you personally. It doesn’t mean I don’t understand your position just because I criticize it and strongly disagree. It doesn’t mean I don’t understand because I don’t find it reasonable or all that logical. I see. Telling me, such as in this post here, that my “desire to win the argument gives (you) selective reading comprehension” isn’t rude? > [@](#): > > You haven’t acknowledged or seriously responded to several of my key points. Instead you repeatedly accuse me of positions I clearly don’t hold. It’s an unoriginal tactic that does nothing to support your argument. Simply because you don’t take my views seriously doesn’t mean that I am not responding to your points. As for me accusing you of positions you don’t hold, in your very next post you admit that you did that to me. > [@](#): > > Wrong question. Of the teens having sex , and/or getting pregnant, how many do you think don’t know how babies are made. That’s the relevant question to the point you attempted to make. Unfortunately the facts don’t help your position. Actually, that is only part of the relevant question - I think there are plenty of teens that don’t know exactly how females get pregnant, due to the lack of sex ed these days. You know, those that believe that pulling out prevents pregnancy, or that girls can’t get pregnant prior to their first period or during certain “magic” days. The other part of that question is how aware are teens of what a pregnancy and baby really mean - all they ever see are movies like Juno and whatever that TV show with the pregnant teen girl is called. It’s all happily ever after and they just aren’t mature enough to know that it’s fantasy. Noone ever shows them what hell a baby with colic is, what diapers smell like and how many they will have to change, how demanding toddlers are, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/309 "2009-02-17T13:20:59Z")
> [@villa](#): > > “As illustrated” - that is laughable. You make a huge logical step - that control over one’s own body, and relationships between oneself and one’s doctor are “no more a violation of … pivacy” than a gambling ban. I guess that’s why gambler-bookie communications are considered privileged under American law. At least you admit that it is a logical step. Privileged communications aside, the comparison I was making was a state law prohibiting abortion was a violation of privacy in the same regard that a state law against gambling is a violation of one’s right to privately gamble their own money. As for privileged communications, that would fall under confidentiality. There’s a difference between confidentiality and privacy. When one enlists a state-liscensed and board-regulated practitioner to perform a proceedure, one leaves the realm of privacy. For example, if someone accidently shoots themselves in the foot and seeks medical attention, the attending physician is required to report that to the proper authorities. No privacy. If the only relief one can find for migraine headaches is marijuana, federal law prohibits the physician from prescribing that particular treatment. No privacy. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/310 "2009-02-17T14:58:02Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > At least you admit that it is a logical step. Privileged communications aside, the comparison I was making was a state law prohibiting abortion was a violation of privacy in the same regard that a state law against gambling is a violation of one’s right to privately gamble their own money. Sighs. It’s too big a jump to have coherent logic. I know the comparison you were making. And it’s wrong. > [@Paleface](#): > > As for privileged communications, that would fall under confidentiality. There’s a difference between confidentiality and privacy. When one enlists a state-liscensed and board-regulated practitioner to perform a proceedure, one leaves the realm of privacy. > > For example, if someone accidently shoots themselves in the foot and seeks medical attention, the attending physician is required to report that to the proper authorities. No privacy. > > If the only relief one can find for migraine headaches is marijuana, federal law prohibits the physician from prescribing that particular treatment. No privacy. All you have shown is something no one denies - that privacy is not absolute, even in the medical arena. That doesn’t show anything else, though. There is a right to freedom of religion, but not to sacrifice a virgin to the moon goddess. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/311 "2009-02-17T16:59:23Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > She should be able to believe him, provided he actually said that. However, even if he did say that, it doesn’t fall to her alone to decide when they are going to start having children. So if she gets pregnant and he doesn’t want it right then, or the reality of it makes him realize that he never wants kids, or maybe never with her, why should she be able to say “tough, you’re gonna pay”? > > Having children, when, how many and all of that is not something that couples discuss daily or even monthly (except, I supose, those who are having trouble conceiving). People change their minds - why should it only be that the woman is allowed to make the decision of when they are _both_ going to have a child to pay for? Well, if he said “Let’s not use a condom, I want to have kids/I’ll be there for you if there are any kids,” and then she gets pregnant, he basically is just deciding for both of them what they’re going to do if he gives her the ultimatum of “Abort/put it up for adoption because I’m not supporting it.” That’s just as unfair as a woman who lies about being on the pill. If you’re against one sided decisions, why not just be against them both? Why so biased in favor of the man? ---
**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/312 "2009-02-17T18:10:25Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > The old Hippocratic Oath was meaningful in its time. The more updated oaths will have various differences, which are relevant to OUR time. Here is a link to the first modern HO that I found: [NOVA | Doctors' Diaries | The Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html) Notice that it makes no specific mention of abortion, though it was written in 1964. The “old Hippocratic Oath”?? OK, I see… it’s a “living” oath. Kinda like the Constitution is a “living document”. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/313 "2009-02-17T18:48:38Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Well, if he said “Let’s not use a condom, I want to have kids/I’ll be there for you if there are any kids,” and then she gets pregnant, he basically is just deciding for both of them what they’re going to do if he gives her the ultimatum of “Abort/put it up for adoption because I’m not supporting it.” That’s just as unfair as a woman who lies about being on the pill. > > If you’re against one sided decisions, why not just be against them both? Why so biased in favor of the man? Probably because I’ve never known any couple in a committed relationship who uses a condom by itself for birth control. To me, responsible adults use a condom to prevent STDs and something far more reliable to prevent pregnancy. So I suppose that when anything is framed with using or not using a condom, I wonder why the hell the woman isn’t on the Pill or an IUD. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/314 "2009-02-17T18:50:32Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Probably because I’ve never known any couple in a committed relationship who uses a condom by itself for birth control. To me, responsible adults use a condom to prevent STDs and something far more reliable to prevent pregnancy. So I suppose that when anything is framed with using or not using a condom, I wonder why the hell the woman isn’t on the Pill or an IUD. Ah. Well, condoms have always been pretty reliable for me, plus the last time I was on the pill, I had nasty side effects. That’s why I’ve often primarily used condoms. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/315 "2009-02-17T19:28:59Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > So I suppose that when anything is framed with using or not using a condom, I wonder why the hell the woman isn’t on the Pill or an IUD. Because the ones that work well aren’t often easy on the body? Men aren’t the only ones who are reluctant to use invasive birth control methods. Hormonal birth control can have nasty side effects. Not just weight gain, mood swings and minor things like that, but nastier things like strokes and possibly cancer, though they debate the link every other year. IUDs are often hormonal as well, and even with those that aren’t, most doctors are reluctant to give IUDs to women who haven’t had children yet. Some doctors will, but they’re in the minority. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/316 "2009-02-18T02:04:08Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Ah. Well, condoms have always been pretty reliable for me, plus the last time I was on the pill, I had nasty side effects. That’s why I’ve often primarily used condoms. You have never gotten pregnant while using condoms as your sole method of birth control? And I assume, you aren’t celibate? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/317 "2009-02-18T02:22:51Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You have never gotten pregnant while using condoms as your sole method of birth control? And I assume, you aren’t celibate? 😃 I’ve been having regular sex since…oh, last July, with only condoms, and nothing bad has ever happened. I’m not so good with meds in general. Plus, if I do get a broken one, there’s always Plan B. For me, the side effects weren’t as bad as the cancer, but rather were yeast infections and no sex drive. And that’s as much as I’m prepared to divulge! ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/318 "2009-02-18T03:01:25Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > Because the ones that work well aren’t often easy on the body? Men aren’t the only ones who are reluctant to use invasive birth control methods. Men aren’t the ones that are going to get pregnant. Neither are men the ones that have the choice to use one of several highly effective birth control methods. > [@](#): > > Hormonal birth control can have nasty side effects. Not just weight gain, mood swings and minor things like that, but nastier things like strokes and possibly cancer, though they debate the link every other year. IUDs are often hormonal as well, and even with those that aren’t, most doctors are reluctant to give IUDs to women who haven’t had children yet. Some doctors will, but they’re in the minority. I’m well aware of all of this. I finally got my tubal at 33, and that only because the Pill had effectively driven me insane - well, taking it for 15 straight years had. Doctors are not only reluctant to give women who have never had children an IUD, you basically have to force them into sterilizing such women. However, all of this is still better than getting pregnant at a time when one cannot afford an abortion, much less to raise a child. I would have _never_ trusted a condom by itself as a method of birth control. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/319 "2009-02-18T03:03:25Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I’ve been having regular sex since…oh, last July, with only condoms, and nothing bad has ever happened. I’m not so good with meds in general. Plus, if I do get a broken one, there’s always Plan B. > > For me, the side effects weren’t as bad as the cancer, but rather were yeast infections and no sex drive. And that’s as much as I’m prepared to divulge! I guess that kind of makes it different - you are willing to use Plan B! ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/320 "2009-02-18T04:56:24Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > The “old Hippocratic Oath”?? OK, I see… it’s a “living” oath. Kinda like the Constitution is a “living document”. I meant that I doubt that many modern doctors take the old Oath, they take a newer version instead. Do you seriously believe that doctors swear “I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.” today? EVERY MD or OD that I’ve gone to will take a knife in hand if s/he believes it necessary to treat the patient. Now, a doctor might refer a patient to a specialist, but I don’t know of ANY doctors who will refuse to lance a boil or trim off a bit of excess tissue. The old Oath is frequently used on plaques and such, but I’d be VERY surprised to find a modern doctor who took an oath to “Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052.md?page=17)