# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/141 "2009-02-10T23:34:17Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Ironically, our current child support laws are the exact opposite of Victorian values. During the Victorian era the common law rule was that so long as you weren’t married you could bang all the chicks you wanted, impregnate them all, and never pay _any_ of them a dime of support. Child support was only due to children born in wedlock, those born out or wedlock were doomed to Oliver Twistesque urchinhood. Child support for children born out of wedlock is didn’t come aroung until the last forty years or so. The irony is not lost on me. Still Victorian though > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You said it was somehow an imposition on people’s “rights” to force them to be financially responsible for their offspring. I asked you what “rights” you imagined were being impinged on. You now admit that there aren’t any rights being impinged on. We’re getting somewhere. > > Now, you’ll have to explain why it’s “unfair” for men to be responsible for their own sperm. I see you cut off my quote at a strategic point. Oh, how wonderfully smart you are to take people out of context and make them seem like they’re wrong! I just know that whoever reading this would **never** think about reading the rest of that paragraph! :rolleyes: As to your other question, this will be the third time I’ve explained it and I’m sure you’ll miss the point yet again but: \*\*I want to make sure men have as much right to opt out of the responsibilities of a child as women. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2009, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/142 "2009-02-10T23:37:41Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Because he’s definitely going to know that there is a baby, and where it was taken to be dropped off, no questions asked. Right? If he doesn’t know, then what difference does it make? > [@](#): > > Right, because the father’s going to have the ability to get the kid away from the mother to drop it off at the hospital? It happens. It’s not like the guy has to kidnap the baby. Sometimes the guy is just the one who gets designated to make the drop. > [@](#): > > She can it without him being involved. He’d never even have to know there was a kid. If he doesn’t know, then what difference does it make? > [@](#): > > The same ability does not exist for a man. So what? Blame biology. > [@](#): > > If he finds out. And how’s she going to be on the hook for child support when she can drop the kid off and not even be asked _her name_? DNA. She won’t be criminally charged, but we actually do have the ability to determine whether or not she’s the mother. > [@](#): > > The answer there is pretty simple. The one who wants the kid can have it - without attaching the wallet of the one who does not. Nope. Not an answer. Not wanting responsibility is not an excuse to be relieved of it. They decided they were fine with taking financial responsibilty for any potential child as soon as they decided to put their sperm inside a baby incubator. Nobody forced them to have vaginal intercourse with a fertile woman. > [@](#): > > You’d definitely see a decrease in the number of women who say they’re on the pill when they aren’t, and those who use a pregnancy to trap a man. Go ahead and jump on me for that, but it does happen. Any guy who falls for that has only himself to blame. It’s no different than falling for a Nigerian scam. It’s his own stupidity and orresponsibility that put him in that position. Too bad. It’s not about him and the woman. It’s about the rights of the baby. I don’t care if he got scammed. Having to pay child support is nothing but a moron tax. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/143 "2009-02-10T23:41:00Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Completely, yes. But it is not what I am asking about right now on that post #125. That’s about safe haven laws. Both parents can agree to surrender the child and not be responsible for the expenses. But if one wants to surrender the child and the other does not, then they are both stuck in, which makes no sense. So they can either keep or surrender the baby but only if they both want the same thing. Why should the decision of one be tied to the decision of the other? Again, this is not a biology issue. Either man or woman could be B. Because the court will determine that it’s not in the best interest of the child, whereas it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the rights of the sort of parents who drop their babies off at fire stations. Say a child is put up for adoption; a court will approve an adoption after a lengthy home study to make certain that the adoptive parents are emotionally and financially able to take care of a child, and rule that the best interest of the child is met if parental rights are created in the adoptive parents and terminated as to the birth parents. When you have just one parent wanting to escape parental obligations and the other claiming that that parent’s financial support is necessary to raise the child, the argument that terminating the first parent’s rights is in the best interest of the child just because they want out is not nearly so strong. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/144 "2009-02-10T23:45:06Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The irony is not lost on me. Still Victorian though > > I see you cut off my quote at a strategic point. I addressed the only part that was relevant. The rest was noise. > [@](#): > > As to your other question, this will be the third time I’ve explained it and I’m sure you’ll miss the point yet again but: \*\*I want to make sure men have as much right to opt out of the responsibilities of a child as women. \*\* They already do. All they have to do is not put their sperm in somebody else’s uterus. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/145 "2009-02-11T00:08:17Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I mentioned orphanages in my original post. Those are not the best solutions, but its a solution. It also has the benefit of not intruding upon the father’s rights. No child loses his rights by growing up poor, otherwise we’d be rounding up poor people’s kids and forcing them into adoption by wealthier parents. There are always conflicting rights. Forcing a child into an orphanage because a mother can’t afford to raise it and the father who can afford support chooses not to hurts the major rights of two (the kid and the mother) in exchange for a relatively smaller right of the cheapskate father. I say cheapskate because if a father really cannot afford to pay it is a different story. > [@](#): > > That may be the ideal to you, but to me, its better for taxpayers to shoulder a burden than to violate the rights of an individual, or in this case, the potential rights of 50% of the population. I see this no different than prison. Taxpayers shoulder the burden even though we could just violate individual rights by putting a very cheap bullet into every convicted criminal’s brain. Its not a great scenario to have large free public housing for criminals but its the path of least violation of individual rights We similarly violate rights with speeding tickets and such. They, like unwanted impregnation, are easy to avoid. I know there is a chance of a pregnancy happening despite precautions, but a friend of mine got a speeding ticket at 3 am in the middle of nowhere Texas - probably a less likely event than a condom breaking. We as men have to be ready to take our medicine. I know it is unfair that women get the last say in keeping or not keeping the baby - but that’s nature. My wife thinks it is unfair that I didn’t have the opportunity of being pregnant. Someone who really, really does not want the possibility of having to pay can either abstain or get an agreement (assuming the agreement is valid in his state.) It sucks, but that’s life and the well being of the kid comes before a guy’s beer money. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/146 "2009-02-11T00:31:52Z")
I’ve kinda been in this situation myself - fell pregnant while using multiple forms of birth control, and ex-BF wanted me to have an abortion, but I didn’t. He said he’d have no problems having an abortion. I pointed out that his lack of a womb might make having an abortion somewhat difficult. His mother had talked to him about abortion, so he thought he knew everything about it. What he didn’t seem to understand is that abortion is _not_ easy for most (nearly all?) women. It’s medically dangerous as well as emotionally distressing. I did consider adoption, but, for reasons that I’d rather not go into here, abortion was out of the question. I think that this men can never really understand the woman’s feelings about abortion (or pregnancy), just as women can never fully understand the man’s. There’s a great biological divide we can’t cross. As it happens, I’ve never pursued him for child support. Part of the reason for me not pursuing him for money is that he really didn’t want this child, but that’s my personal decision, and I’m glad that I could change my mind one day if I really had to. We both knew that pregnancy was a possibility when we had sex. Unless the woman has had a hysterectomy, a tubal ligation, has the menopause several years previously, or is already pregnant, pregnancy is always a possible outcome. There’s nothing in the least bit Victorian about that. Wrong subject - it’s biology, not history. > [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > As I’ve stated every other time this has come up, I’ll support an ‘opt-out’ clause for fathers as soon as birth control and abortion are free and accessible. Birth control and abortion are completely free in the UK, but it doesn’t change my POV at all. This is partly because, as I said above, abortion is never an easy option. Even birth control is much more burdensome for women than it is for men. Condoms are the same for both (diaphragms are similar), but then there’s the pill, IUDs and tubal ligation (much more difficult and dangerous than vasectomies). Hell, when it comes to fertility, even, men have it easier. Women have to have periods every month, and men just produce sperm. Biology really isn’t fair at all - but it’s not human choices that made it so. > [@ratatoskK](#): > > And to those who say the man shouldn’t have sex if he doesn’t want to care for a child – Get with it! Birth control can and does fail, and sex is not only for the purpose of procreation, although it is a side effect. Well, yes, birth control can fail. Everyone who has sex knows that. Therefore you shouldn’t have sex if you’re not willing to accept the potential repercussions of the birth control failing. Like you say, the pregnancy is a side-effect, but it’s one you know might happen. An analogy that I’m sure will be shot down quickly, as all analogies inevitably are, but I’ll give it a crack anyway: when you get in your car, do you expect to have a crash? No. But can it happen? Yes, even if you’re really careful. What happens if you skid on ice and crash into someone else’s car - do you refuse to pay up because you didn’t set out to crash into their car? > [@Sapo](#): > > Ok, so there is a way for the parents to opt out of their child rearing responsibilities, even after the child is born. Why is it important that both parents agree to this? Why can’t one parent opt out of it while the other assumes the whole of it? (and this applies the same to either parent, so it is not a matter of man vs woman) > > If A+B want baby: A pays 50%, B pays 50%. > If A+B don’t want baby: Neither pays for baby. > If A wants baby and B doesn’t want baby: > Both pay for baby.? Why? > > It would make more sense this way: > > If A wants baby and B doesn’t want baby: > B doesn’t pay for baby. > If A still wants baby at 100%: A pays for 100% baby. > If A doesn’t want baby at 100%: Neither pays for baby. > > Or you could alternatively have the State pick up B’s 50%, either way. > > Why must B’s decision be dependent on A’s? And again, please note that B could just as easily be the woman. Because, when the child is placed up for adoption, it gets a new set of parents. It still has A and B, they just have different real names. If one parent simply opts out, the child is still short a parent. It only has A. The law, and the principles behind it, are about the child’s rights, not the parents. B _can_ opt out of all aspects of parenting except the financial, of course. I understand you, and others, thinking that the current situation seems a little unfair to men who don’t want to be parents even in a financial sense. But it’s the best we can do right now, and it’s hardly fair on the potential mother either, who has the ‘options’ of either abortion (which isn’t exactly a fun ride), or pregnancy, childbirth and probably life-long parenting. Tough shit for either gender - we can’t change the way it is. Like I said, it’s biology which made this unfair situation, not the law. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/147 "2009-02-11T01:55:02Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > The law, and the principles behind it, are about the child’s rights, not the parents. Everything we have been saying can be reduced down to this one sentence. People supporting the “rights” of fathers to financially abandon their offspring talk a lot about the rights of the mother and compare them to the rights of the father. They have been remiss in considering the rights of the child. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/148 "2009-02-11T03:41:49Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Well, sure, obviously people have sex for pleasure or out of professional obligation, but since we’re talking about sex that does result in pregnancy it’s a moot point. Actually, quite a few folks were talking about recreational sex that accidentally resulted in a pregnancy. > [@](#): > > If you read down, most people with support obligations can and do make payments. About three out of every four people with support obligations make at least some payments, for an average of $4300 yearly. Almost half make all payments, averaging about $5800 yearly. Among those making no payments whatsover, a certain proportion of them can pay but refuse or are incarcerated, so the number of parents who are completely unable to make any payments due to financial circumstances beyond their control is some smaller proportion yet. The minimum wage support obligation in my state for a single child is about $150 to $200 monthly, and most people can come up with it. Well, it’s good that most folks in your state can come up with an extra $10 to $200 a month but that is beside the point. What you seem to not know or are ignoring is that if the father is living below the poverty line, or if he cannot be found, or if he is unknown, the court isn’t going to assign monthly support. Which brings us back to my unanswered comment that this doesn’t seem to address my question regarding children that are going hungry were sired by men who don’t have money. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/149 "2009-02-11T03:43:27Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > That may be the ideal to you, but to me, its better for taxpayers to shoulder a burden than to violate the rights of an individual, or in this case, the potential rights of 50% of the population. I see this no different than prison. Taxpayers shoulder the burden even though we could just violate individual rights by putting a very cheap bullet into every convicted criminal’s brain. Its not a great scenario to have large free public housing for criminals but its the path of least violation of individual rights You think it is better to violate the rights of the many rather than violate the rights of the individuals? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/150 "2009-02-11T03:45:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Now, you’ll have to explain why it’s “unfair” for men to be responsible for their own sperm. Sperm by themselves do not create pregnancies. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/151 "2009-02-11T03:50:25Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > Birth control and abortion are completely free in the UK, but it doesn’t change my POV at all. This is partly because, as I said above, abortion is never an easy option. The problem with this is you are coming from your own personal opinions here. Abortion is not such an issue for many women as it is for you. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/152 "2009-02-11T03:52:02Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Everything we have been saying can be reduced down to this one sentence. People supporting the “rights” of fathers to financially abandon their offspring talk a lot about the rights of the mother and compare them to the rights of the father. They have been remiss in considering the rights of the child. What specific rights does the child have? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/153 "2009-02-11T04:24:12Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Actually, quite a few folks were talking about recreational sex that accidentally resulted in a pregnancy. The reason for the sex has no relevance. Pregnancy is an assumed and informed risk of sex, just like breaking a leg is an assumed risk of hangliding. Whining that you only wanted to hanglide for fun does not mean you don’t have to pay your own medical expenses. You don’t have a right to have sex without assuming responsibility for potential pregnancies. > [@](#): > > Sperm by themselves do not create pregnancies. So what? Pregnancies can’t be created WITHOUT sperm, and every male is responsible for the disposition of his own sperm. Every choice to ejaculate in a baby incubator is an informed decision to accept responsibility for a pregnancy. > [@](#): > > What specific rights does the child have? The right to be supported by the people who created it. If you make a baby, then that baby is YOUR burden, not mine, not the state’s. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/154 "2009-02-11T04:42:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The reason for the sex has no relevance. Pregnancy is an assumed and informed risk of sex, just like breaking a leg is an assumed risk of hangliding. Whining that you only wanted to hanglide for fun does not mean you don’t have to pay your own medical expenses. You don’t have a right to have sex without assuming responsibility for potential pregnancies. Huh. So that 99% effectiveness of the pill, not to mention tubals and just plain infertility don’t exist in your world? And all the women there who “fall pregnant” carry them to term? > [@](#): > > So what? Pregnancies can’t be created WITHOUT sperm, and every male is responsible for the disposition of his own sperm. Every choice to ejaculate in a baby incubator is an informed decision to accept responsibility for a pregnancy. Sorry hon, I am not a baby incubator - there is far more to me than the fact I happen to have a uterus - and I would _never_ force responsibility on any man for any pregnancy that might accidentally come my way. I really don’t get why it is that so much responsibility is being foisted off on the men when they really have no reliable options for birth control other than not having intercourse. > [@](#): > > The right to be supported by the people who created it. If you make a baby, then that baby is YOUR burden, not mine, not the state’s. That doesn’t answer the question. What specific rights do you think babies have? Not just “supported” but to what level? And why? (FWIW, I agree that any baby that a woman decides to have and keep should be her burden and not the state’s, but I don’t think it should be a burden on the sire if he never wanted it. Nor do I undertand why the burden must be put on the sire no matter what the financial status of the mother is.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/155 "2009-02-11T05:14:29Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Huh. So that 99% effectiveness of the pill, not to mention tubals and just plain infertility don’t exist in your world? And all the women there who “fall pregnant” carry them to term? I don’t know what this has to do with anything I said. No birth control is 100% effective, so every guy is assuming a risk when he has vaginal intercourse. The _motive_ or the sex could not be less relevant. > [@](#): > > Sorry hon, I am not a baby incubator - there is far more to me than the fact I happen to have a uterus - and I would _never_ force responsibility on any man for any pregnancy that might accidentally come my way. I really don’t get why it is that so much responsibility is being foisted off on the men when they really have no reliable options for birth control other than not having intercourse. Sorry to break it to you, but if your body incubates babies, then you’re a baby incubator. Whatever else a woman may be is irrelevant to the fact that spern and eggs make babies, and no sperm can get on an egg without the sperm owner allowing it. And men assume no more responsibility than women. Why should women assume MORE? How is THAT fair? And a guy has many sexual options besides ejaculating in a vagina. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t answer the question. What specific rights do you think babies have? Not just “supported” but to what level? And why? it’s not what I “think”, it’s what the law says. I don’t know the individual statutes. The “why” is because they can’t support themselves. Who else should support them, if not the people who made them? > [@](#): > > (FWIW, I agree that any baby that a woman decides to have and keep should be her burden and not the state’s, but I don’t think it should be a burden on the sire if he never wanted it. Why should it make the slightest difference what he “wanted?” How does that absolve him of responsibility for a financial and moral burden that he voluntarily created? If a woman can’t support a baby by herself, then who takes up[ the slack in your ideal world? The taxpayer? Please explain why innocent taxpayers should have more accountability for chidren than their own fathers? Do you really think that the all responsibility for children should be enforced only on women, and that men should be legally free to abandon their own children? ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/156 "2009-02-11T05:44:33Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > The problem with this is you are coming from your own personal opinions here. Abortion is not such an issue for many women as it is for you. Neither of us could provide any cites for this, so we’re going on general perceptions of the world around us. Based on my perceptions of the world, I’d say that it’s very likely that many women (if not most) find abortion traumatic. Abortion in the sense of ‘woman who knows she’s definitely pregnant terminates said pregnancy via an operation,’ just in case you want to nitpick. I’d also say that it’s usually less traumatic if the pregnancy is terminated early on. This is not the case for every woman in the world ever, but it is for many, if not most. If you want to deny that, then you’re living on a different planet to me. Was the rest of my post invisible, btw? Curlcoat, I now know that you think the state should not be obliged to provide for children, and neither should the fathers. That leaves the mothers. Mothers have all the responsibility. Paging Dr Freud! ---
**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 11, 2009, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/157 "2009-02-11T06:15:34Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > It is my personal opinion that, **where abortion is available** , if one parent wants the abortion and the other does not, the former should not be financially responsible. In three states, that’s a single location (per state). [One](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202424.html) abortion provider for you’re _entire_ state, if you’re in Mississippi, North Dakota or South Dakota. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/158 "2009-02-11T07:04:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t know what this has to do with anything I said. No birth control is 100% effective, so every guy is assuming a risk when he has vaginal intercourse. The _motive_ or the sex could not be less relevant. It is entirely relevant. If the man has no desire at any time to create a baby with this woman, then his intentions should be relevant to any discussion on who is stuck paying to raise it. > [@](#): > > Sorry to break it to you, but if your body incubates babies, then you’re a baby incubator. Nope, sorry. In no way am I a baby incubator. Should it ever happen that I become pregnant, that business would be gone ASAP. It is extremely anti-woman to state that simply having a uterus must make her a baby incubator. I really did think that we had gotten past this but aparently there are still plenty of people out there that just see us as walking wombs and nothing else. > [@](#): > > And men assume no more responsibility than women. Why should women assume MORE? How is THAT fair? Biology (and the law) ain’t fair. The woman has the final decision (as she should) as to whether or not she is going to remain pregnant. She also has the final decision as to whether or not she is going to keep the baby and the man has NO say in that, yet he is required to pay? If the woman decides she wants to take on this expensive project for 18+ years without having to consult the man, why in the world is he forced to help her pay for it? > [@](#): > > it’s not what I “think”, it’s what the law says. I don’t know the individual statutes. The “why” is because they can’t support themselves. Who else should support them, if not the people who made them? I’ll try one more time then I’ll assume you are just ignoring the question. For one thing, the law does not specify at what level any given baby is required to be financed. What I want to know is why it is that the man is required to pay a large amount of his income no matter what the financial status of the woman is? Why is it that there is no oversight as to what she spends the child support on? Why are there so many laws forcing men to pay money to women who don’t really need it, yet hundreds of thousands of children are born into squalor and are ignored? Are the babies of fathers that the law can run down and force to pay more important than the babies of the seriously poor? > [@](#): > > Why should it make the slightest difference what he “wanted?” How does that absolve him of responsibility for a financial and moral burden that he voluntarily created? That is the crux of it right there. Who says he voluntarily created this pregnancy? All the man has is a condom, which is a pretty crappy method of birth control even if it doesn’t have a hole in it. Perhaps the woman didn’t voluntarily create the pregnancy either, but she _did_ voluntarily decide to maintain it and to keep the child. > [@](#): > > If a woman can’t support a baby by herself, then who takes up[ the slack in your ideal world? The taxpayer? Please explain why innocent taxpayers should have more accountability for chidren than their own fathers? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I _ **agree** _ that taxpayers shouldn’t have to raise these kids? > [@](#): > > Do you really think that the all responsibility for children should be enforced only on women, and that men should be legally free to abandon their own children? Any man that didn’t want the kid from the first moment they find out the woman is pregnant, yes. I don’t see why men should be held financially accountable for a decision they had no input on. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2009, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/159 "2009-02-11T07:21:21Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > Neither of us could provide any cites for this, so we’re going on general perceptions of the world around us. Well, actually, there are quite a few sites and message boards devoted to women who were relieved to be able to get an abortion and were not traumatized at all. Particularly not in any long term way. Women who do not view a clump of cells as a baby are not likely to be traumatized by abortion, and there are far more of those sorts of women out there than you seem to think. > [@](#): > > I’d also say that it’s usually less traumatic if the pregnancy is terminated early on. Which someone had a cite earlier that showed that most are terminated early. I’d even venture to say that later terminations are probably due to something wrong with the fetus and so the termination was done by someone that actually wanted a baby. So they would be traumatized by the loss of something they wanted, not the actually procedure itself. > [@](#): > > If you want to deny that, then you’re living on a different planet to me. Obviously. You live on planet baby and I live on planet everything else that women can do. You think that for all women, abortion is never an easy option - I know that isn’t true. You also seem to think that all medical procedures are dangerous (but having a baby isn’t?) > [@](#): > > Was the rest of my post invisible, btw? No, why? It was a story about your personal experience and how you are glad that you can still stick the sire of your child(ren) for support any time you want to. > [@](#): > > Curlcoat, I now know that you think the state should not be obliged to provide for children, and neither should the fathers. That leaves the mothers. Mothers have all the responsibility. Apparently you are not reading all of my posts. If the mother goes against the wishes of the father and keeps the baby, then the mother should take on the full responsibility for that unilateral decision. If nothing else, in this seriously over populated earth, we really should quit paying women to have kids, particularly single ones. > [@](#): > > Paging Dr Freud! Freud? At best he misunderstood women, at worst he hated them. I’m quite sure he’d be all for keeping women chained to kitchens and cribs - is that what you are calling him for? ---
**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 11, 2009, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052/160 "2009-02-11T07:32:58Z")
The only way anything even remotely similar to this is going to happen is if the US makes birth control/pre-natal care/abortion facilities free (or extremely cheap) and accessible, and offers new mothers generous maternity leave from jobs they can return to (with the law on their sides), free health care, affordable daycare and schooling. Until then, the gov’t will be happy to blame deadbeat dads for the missing $200 a month that would have kept the kids away from a life of crime (the kids who were, of course, wanted miracles who had to be protected and saved… until they actually had the gall to be born). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-abortion-and-child-support/485052.md?page=9)