# Does HE have to pay for UNWANTED kid? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 12, 2001, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567 "2001-06-12T17:15:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Lucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Lucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucky)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2001, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/121 "2001-06-14T21:25:35Z")
Courier, I’m touched by your concern for the unfairness of the situation. You’re right, it sucks for the guy who took no _personal_ responsibility for birth control and was lied to. It also sucks for the woman who doesn’t take personal responsibility and is lied to by the man who says he will pull out in time, or he will love her forever and never leave, or if she does get pregnant he’ll marry her or any other of the ridiculous things all we gals have had said to us. When this woman gets pregnant, how fair is that? She didn’t want a baby and she doesn’t have the option of simply paying her way out of it–even for 18 years. Be her choice abortion or birth, it’s costing her a whole lot more than it would cost the man. Unfair? You bet. That’s the price you pay for abrogating your responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2001, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/122 "2001-06-14T21:36:43Z")
FYI, Lucky, the OP was a troll. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2001, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/123 "2001-06-14T23:37:17Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ENugent_ > **OK, so now you have two innocent people involved, and you have to be “unfair” to one of them. Should you choose the child who has no other recourse for money, or Mrs. P. who is presumably an able-bodied adult who can go out and get a job?** And > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by minty green_ > **It’s just that I have more concern for the child who is incapable of doing anything himself that would improve his situation, whereas Mr. and Mrs. P are up to their necks in options.** Well, I don’t believe in favoring a child just because it’s a child and it has no other recourse or options—that is simply not impartial IHMO. A little objectivity needs to be injected and the circumstances of each case examined. Sweeping and sentimental generalizations like _the kids wins every time_ don’t digest well with me—I think it begs the question. I wonder if there would ever be a situation or condition were either **Enugent** or **minty green** would rule against the kid. Or do you truly believe that kid really wins every time? Okay, **minty green** at least there is some very small degree of culpability in you scheme. I would have preferred sometime a little stiffer, like 2 days in jail for every month her neglected to tell the father, which would amount to about four months in the pokey for the mother in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2001, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/124 "2001-06-14T23:51:49Z")
Can a 5 year old kid make a living? Can a 10 year old kid get a job? Can a kid drive, or vote? The kid has a lot less options than an adult. You and Mrs. P are “up to your necks in options”. What, exactly, are the options for the kid? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2001, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/125 "2001-06-14T23:58:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > \*\*Can a 5 year old kid make a living? Can a 10 year old kid get a job? Can a kid drive, or vote? > > The kid has a lot less options than an adult. You and Mrs. P are “up to your necks in options”. What, exactly, are the options for the kid? \*\* you’re forgetting the primary position there- the solution **must not** be unfair to Mr. P. all other options are on the table. (isn’t it odd for us to be on the same side??? ) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/126 "2001-06-15T02:31:55Z")
No, **Pyrrhonist** , I honestly cannot think of any circumstances in which an able-bodied father who engaged in consensual sexual activity with a woman, resulting in pregnancy and birth, should be let off the hook. You had a choice. The child didn’t. You can get a job and earn income. The child can’t. It’s really that simple. And **wring** , I suspect you were being sarcastic there, but I just wish to repeat that there is _nothing_ unfair about forcing people to live with the consequences of their actions. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/127 "2001-06-15T02:36:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Lucky \* > \*\* > It also sucks for the woman who doesn’t take personal responsibility and is lied to by the man who says he will pull out in time_\* I otherwise liked your post, **Lucky** but…well…we do all know that even if the man is telling the truth about “pulling out in time” the woman can still get pregnant, right? ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/128 "2001-06-15T03:10:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I honestly cannot think of any circumstances in which an able-bodied father who engaged in consensual sexual activity with a woman, resulting in pregnancy and birth, should be let off the hook. > \*\* You got to love absolutism. There is just no arguing or debating with it. It is like the Gravitational Consent of the Universe—there is just no escape form it where ever you go. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/129 "2001-06-15T03:34:06Z")
Glad you finally understand, Mr. P. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/130 "2001-06-15T04:32:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by deepbluesea \* > **In other words, he accepts that a) pregnancy may result from his actions and b) he will be responsible for any child resulting from that pregnancy.** I do not agree that the man is responsible at all. After all, one could argue that the man’s parents are responsible: they had a child, so aren’t they responsible for the results of their actions, including their own child having a child? Or their parents, or theirs, etc. To assign responsibility, I contend that we find the person who has the final say. We don’t hold grandparents responsible for providing for their grandchildren (although most do in some way or another anyway) because we realize that between the grandparent’s choices and actions (having children) and the grandchild’s birth are other peoples’ choices and actions. > [@](#): > > **So while things are definitely not equal, it’s hard to say with any surety which side has the better deal - reflect, though, guys: if you want that second chance, would you really be willing to go through pregnancy and delivery or else abortion?** If I knew that I was capable of getting pregnant from sex, and I did not want to get pregnant, I would be very, very careful about having sex or just not have it at all. Although I might very much dislike the options I faced after becoming pregnant, I would have to concede that I knew what those options would be beforehand. > [@](#): > > **A man is the one who gets the woman pregnant, and assuming he’s not _completely_ ignorant he knows that sex can lead to pregnancy. He knows the possible results of his actions, and so he should take responsibility for them. Or are you saying that only the woman should be responsible?** Yes, I am saying that only that woman should be responsible. I appologize if I did not make that clear earlier. > [@](#): > > **If you’re saying that, you’re beyond hope.** I’m not being facetious here, I just gotta ask: beyond hope of what? Agreeing with you? Changing my mind? “Redemption” of some sort? > [@](#): > > **The child’s rights trump the father’s rights morally, IMO, because the father did something that resulted in the child’s existence; in so doing, he implicitly accepted responsibility for the consequences.** Keep in mind that the father’s parents also did something that resulted in the child’s existence, as did their parents, etc. > [@](#): > > \*\*He is obligated to help support the child - to the extent that a court determines is appropriate, given his income - because of that responsibility. \*\* I’ve noticed that many are arguing the law here. I just want to clarify that I am not saying that current law agrees with me; far from it. I am saying that where current law disagrees with me on this matter, I believe it to be flawed. In other words, pointing out that I am legally incorrect missed my point because I am arguing what _should_ be the case, not what is currently the case legally. ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/131 "2001-06-15T05:00:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lamia \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Lucky \* > > \*\* > > It also sucks for the woman who doesn’t take personal responsibility and is lied to by the man who says he will pull out in time_\* > > I otherwise liked your post, **Lucky** but…well…we do all know that even if the man is telling the truth about “pulling out in time” the woman can still get pregnant, right? > \*\* Actually I mentioned a similar scenario, guys who say they are infertile or have had vasectomies. I didn’t think of the more common ‘I’ll pull out in time’, though if a woman believes that is an effective form of birth control she really shouldn’t be having sex at all, there are some women so naive that one wonders if they really can give ‘informed consent’. ---
**Author:** ![vorfod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a87d85/32.png) [@vorfod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vorfod)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/132 "2001-06-15T05:36:13Z")
BK: I’d love to hear your justification as to why only the mother should be held responsible - considering both parties were present and active in the act of conception, that one’s a little hard to swallow. As for the parents of the father being held responsible… Don’t buy that one either. If the father is an adult, he is responsible for his actions. I can hardly hold my parents responsible for some of my more stupid acts since I turned 18. (And I wouldn’t really hold them responsible for most of the stupid things I’ve done since the age of about 12!). Bringing up simplistic arguments is not really going to help you in trying to convince anyone of the validity of your arguments (somehow, I doubt solid arguments will help all that much either!). Pyrrhonist: The only argument of your I can possibly see sense in is when a mother turns up years after the fact, kiddie in tow, requesting money. I can see the point that it isn’t fair to the father, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is still a child to be cared for, and that the child’s father should shoulder some responsibility in this. What if the mother had notified the father at birth, or could show a reasonable attempt had been made, so the father was aware he had a child. She at the time let the father know she did not need child support, but that the situation could change in the future. Could you live with that scenario, where the father in the future may be required to financially contribute to his child’s well-being? If the mother made no attempt whatsoever to contact the father, and had therefore taken no responsibility towards the father’s position to this matter, she would forfeit any future child support claims. (Minty, I know what the problem here is - penalising the child due to his mother’s irresponsibility is a particularly stupid idea, but I want to know whether Phyrrhonist would at all consider finding middle ground) Cheers ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/133 "2001-06-15T06:18:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BlackKnight \* > > **If you’re saying that, you’re beyond hope.** > I’m not being facetious here, I just gotta ask: beyond hope of what? Agreeing with you? Changing my mind? “Redemption” of some sort? I cannot speak for anyone else, but since several people have stated that a man who will not take responsibility for his actions is not really a man (or something to that effect) then you fill in the blanks. If you truly don’t see why men should have to be responsible for the lives they bring into the world…well… ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/134 "2001-06-15T09:29:08Z")
Some of you are arguing that since the woman can have an abortion, the man should have no responsibility for the kid. So try imagining that abortion is impossible - for example it is illegal or no medical precedure was ever invented. Do you still think that the man should have no responsibility? By the same reasoning as you are using, since neither the woman nor the man have the ability to terminate in this case, they are equally responsible. Therefore they should both be financially responsible. So what happens when we introduce the possiblity of abortion into the equation? This should only _increase_ options, not _decrease_ them. [ul][li]If we still insist on both having responsibility then all we do is give one of the pair an extra option - the woman’s situation is strictly better than before whilst the man’s is unchanged. For logicians amongst you, note that this is of higher pareto-optimality than the previous situation. It is therefore an improvement to the old status quo.[/li] [li]If we say that the possibility of an abortion negates the man’s responsibility then we have strictly _made the situation worse_ for the woman, compared to the situation where abortion is impossible. The man’s situation, on the other hand, is better. So from the original (equal) status quo we have _reduced_ the optimality of the woman’s position and _increased_ the man’s. Therefore _this_ is the “unfair” option.[/ul]Conclusion: introducing the possibility of abortion is only unilaterally better if we use it to increase _only_ the woman’s options.[/li] As an added corollary note that for many women the situation is as if abortion is impossible anyway. pan ---
**Author:** ![galt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/35a633/32.png) [@galt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galt)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/135 "2001-06-15T10:15:32Z")
I agree with the idea that there are situations where the mother should take the financial burden on herself if she chooses to go ahead with the pregnancy, but this shouldn’t be universal. Consider the following scenario, though: \< man and woman decide to do the nasty \> **Man:** “I don’t want children, how about you?” **Woman:** “Me neither” **Man:** “Well, we’ll use appropriate birth control methods, but what happens if they fail?” **Woman:** “Well, I **really** don’t want children, so in that situation, I would abort the pregnancy.” **Man:** “Ok, I agree with that. Let’s get nekkid!” \< man and woman do the nasty; later, she discovers she’s pregnant \> **Man:** “Well, shit. I guess I’ll give you a ride to the abortion clinic, eh?” [warning: glib oversimplification] **Woman:** “Uh, I’ve changed my mind and want to keep it.” **The Court:** “You entered into an agreement, and you should stick to it or **you** bear the financial responsibility. Either don’t bring this child into the world, like you originally planned, or you support it yourself. Mister Spermypants is off the hook.” \< woman bears financial responsibility \> Obviously, the prior agreement is difficult to prove, but I think this sort of thing should be allowed, sort of like a prenuptial agreement. The talk about “living up to the consequences” of your actions is nice, but it doesn’t really address a situation like the one I’ve described above. In this case, the plan for how to deal with the consequences was made and then not followed through by the woman. There was no deadbeat dad. The woman was not deceived. There was a perfectly rational contingency plan which solves the problem, and both parties agreed to it. However, one party **chose** , after the fact, not to take the available solution. Forcing a woman into an abortion would be a horrible thing, but if she professes beforehand that she would do such a thing (and is able to), and then opts not to later, that is her choice, and should be her burden. Obviously, if she’s unable for some reason, the contingency plan didn’t work, and both parties need to bear the burden. In addition, I don’t want anyone to get the idea that I think abortion is an option which should be taken lightly or viewed as a “silver bullet” solution to a problem. The woman goes through a lot, and feels the effects after the procedure is finished, and she should not be coerced into making this decision. But if she willingly enters into a situation where an abortion might be necessary, then expecting her to actually stick to her word is not coercion. [aside] This hits home for me, because I was once in _exactly_ this situation, with the exception that she turned out to not be pregnant. We had discussed things beforehand, and when The Scare came, she had a change of heart and decided that, despite our earlier discussions, being a mommy might be nice after all. Needless to say, this scared the piss out of me. [/aside] ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/136 "2001-06-15T12:09:53Z")
**Galt:** Doesn’t work that way. Mommy can’t sign away _junior’s_ right to child support, no more than your boss and I can agree to stop paying you for your labor. Say it loud, say it proud, child support is a right of and benefit to the child. **vorfod:** Remember, Pyrrhonist thinks that because a woman can choose abortion, the father is _never_ obligated to accept financial responsibility for the child. The “what if she shows up years later?” argument is a red herring. **BlackKnight:** Re: the grandparents thing. :rolleyes: **Pyrrhonist:** Pots and kettles, man. You’re every bit the absolutist I am. You have already stated that because a woman can choose to have an abortion, no unwilling father should ever be forced to bear the financial costs of raising the child. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/137 "2001-06-15T12:19:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*And **wring** , I suspect you were being sarcastic there, \*\* e-yup. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/138 "2001-06-15T12:33:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vorfod \* > \*\* > What if the mother had notified the father at birth, or could show a reasonable attempt had been made, so the father was aware he had a child. She at the time let the father know she did not need child support, but that the situation could change in the future. Could you live with that scenario, where the father in the future may be required to financially contribute to his child’s well-being? > \*\* I’ve already said that: “A little objectivity needs to be injected and the circumstances of each case examined.” I think this implies, though not explicitly stated, there are cases when the father should be held accountable for child support. There is definitely a middle ground and gray areas. But the absolutism of **minty green** and ilk when the man is inescapably accountable in all circumstances reminds me in many ways of the absolute dogma of some pro-lifers. That is just too much power and authority in one place and in one woman’s decision to act and change her mind at whim. I think many people put kids on pedestals and will wiggle and dance every which way to prevent their idealistic vision of childhood from being tainted and harmed. A kid is not a sacred object to be preserved at all costs. If this means that the irresponsible behavior of the mother could forfeit child support and reduced options for the kid, then that kid is just going to have less. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > \*\* > Conclusion: introducing the possibility of abortion is only unilaterally better if we use it to increase _only_ the woman’s options. > \*\* 😕 Why should it be better if it _only_ increases the woman’s options? Are women better than men? ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/139 "2001-06-15T13:36:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > > \*\* Remember, Pyrrhonist thinks that because a woman can choose abortion, the father is _never_ obligated to accept financial responsibility for the child. The “what if she shows up years later?” argument is a red herring. > \*\* We must have been posting at the same time, **minty**. Or you would have seen that I do belive there is a middle ground. I think you confusing two different arguments. In the first, the “what if she shows up years later” argument, I’ve stipulated the man not responsible when the woman has been negligent in notifying him. In the second, the “opt out with abortion” argument, I’ve stipulated that the man should have a remedy other than 18 years of child support when she decides to bear a child against. There is no red herring there. I don’t ever remember saying that the man is _never_ obligated for financial support. There are clearly conditions that need to be met in either argument one or two. Hardly absolutist. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567/140 "2001-06-15T13:46:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pyrrhonist \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > > \*\*Conclusion: introducing the possibility of abortion is only unilaterally better if we use it to increase _only_ the woman’s options. > > \*\* > > 😕 > > Why should it be better if it _only_ increases the woman’s options? Are women better than men?\*\* Oh good god **Pyrrhonist** , did you understand the post at all or did you only read the conclusion? Let me spell it out for you: In real life as compared to a situation where abortion is impossible:[list=A][li]Requiring child support off the man improves the woman’s options and doesn’t affect the man’s[/li] [li]Saying the man is absolved of responsibility improves the man’s options and _worsens_ the woman’s[/list=A]Since if abortion were impossible the situation would be ENTIRELY fair (or even weighted towards the man, since the woman must carry the child), only scenario A unequivocably _improves_ the sitaution. Therefore it is the only acceptable one.[/li] OBVIOUSLY if there were an option that unilaterally improved the woman’s AND the man’s options that would be better. That is not the case however. Or if you prefer it in mathematical notation, let O[sup]M[/sup][sub]_i_[/sub] be the man’s options under scenario _i_ and O[sup]F[/sup][sub]_i_[/sub] the woman’s options. Then since O[sup]M[/sup][sub]_scenario A_[/sub] = O[sup]M[/sup][sub]_abortion impossible_[/sub] yet O[sup]F[/sup][sub]_scenario A_[/sub] \> O[sup]F[/sup][sub]_abortion impossible_[/sub] we have (O[sup]M[/sup][sub]_scenario A_[/sub], O[sup]F[/sup][sub]_scenario A_[/sub]) \> (O[sup]M[/sup][sub]_abortion impossible_[/sub], O[sup]F[/sup][sub]_abortion impossible_[/sub]) Or, in other words, scenario A is strictly better than the case where abortion is impossible. However although O[sup]M[/sup][sub]_scenario B_[/sub] \> O[sup]M[/sup][sub]_abortion impossible_[/sub] we have O[sup]F[/sup][sub]_scenario B_[/sub] \< O[sup]F[/sup][sub]_abortion impossible_[/sub] which means that the pair (O[sup]M[/sup][sub]_scenario B_[/sub], O[sup]F[/sup][sub]_scenario B_[/sub]) and (O[sup]M[/sup][sub]_abortion impossible_[/sub], O[sup]F[/sup][sub]_abortion impossible_[/sub]) cannot be ordered. Or, to put it another way, scenario B is **not** strictly better than the case where abortion is impossible. The conclusion therefore is that scenario A is the option to choose. pan PS good Lord that was a lot of italics, sups and subs. I hope you lot are grateful 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-he-have-to-pay-for-unwanted-kid/68567.md?page=8)