# Paternal Responsibility **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708 "2012-03-24T20:24:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/181 "2012-03-27T17:18:11Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > That’s why we force drivers (in the US, at least) to have insurance - so that in the event that something happens, as many of the costs as possible can be placed on the responsible parties, whether or not they deliberately created the accident. That isn’t how insurance works. The costs are _shared_ by all people paying dues to the insurance agent. The child-support equivalent would be to force the driver to pay, and if he couldn’t, force withholding of his salary in the amount that he could, and if he couldn’t do that, well, tough shit. Insurance is actually a good case for not making individuals pay. > [@](#): > > Why is it so hard to accept that similar measures might just have to be the case if the result of sex is an unexpected baby? Because the status quo is totally unrelated to that kind of measure. > [@](#): > > How many times does the same point have to be repeated? Until someone comes up with a proposal that actually bears some relationship to the events and aims in question. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/182 "2012-03-27T17:19:39Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > I believe it should be possible to turn lead into gold and for everybody to live in peace and harmony in houses made of pure gold. You’re comparing the laws of physics, to the laws of human society. One is unchangeable (to the best of our knowledge), the other is completely in our control to change. > [@](#): > > Just because something _should_ be possible doesn’t mean it actually is possible or even practical. My suggestion is 100% _possible_. I believe it may even be practical. The arguments against it’s practically are just 2 in number: 1) There are not enough adoptive parents looking to adopt. 2) We don’t want the state to pay to have these rights extended to men. Both of these are somewhat reasonable arguments. > [@](#): > > Driving my car _ **should** _ be a safe and uneventful action. But I accept the small risk that a random mechanical failure or the actions of another driver (or even my own actions) could lead to the injury or death of other people or myself. People in this thread are conflating \*responsibility \*with _consequence_. The _consequences_ of you driving on the road may include getting hit by a drunk driver who runs a red light. That’s a consequence that you have to bear for the risk that you are taking. The _responsibility_ for that accident, however, is not yours to bear, but the drunk driver’s instead. When it comes to responsibility it’s _his_ choice that is relevant, _not yours._ ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/183 "2012-03-27T17:28:34Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > The problem with that argument is that “the state” is the rest of us. You’re saying that if you don’t want to provide for your own child, then I should? What if I don’t want to, either? Because I don’t. > > I want you, the parents (yes, I know you’re not actually in this situation - “you” is not “you” specifically) to support the child. You want me, a complete stranger to support the child. You don’t want to support the child. Neither do I. Why does your desire not to support your own child trump my desire not to support a child that has nothing to do with me? I want the people that wanted the brat to be born to support the brat. Cause a woman not to get an abortion when abortion is the most sensible, rational decision that should be made about an unwanted pregnancy, prepare for 18 years of paying for her offspring. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/184 "2012-03-27T17:51:51Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > My suggestion is 100% _possible_. I believe it may even be practical. The arguments against it’s practically are just 2 in number: 1) There are not enough adoptive parents looking to adopt. 2) We don’t want the state to pay to have these rights extended to men. Both of these are somewhat reasonable arguments. There’s a far more serious flaw in your argument. You are actually proposing that in some circumstances the government take children away from parents who want to keep them (and are not abusing them in any way). I’m not sure there’s a word to describe how I feel about such a suggestion but “ill-considered” is one of the milder ones. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/185 "2012-03-27T17:58:06Z")
> [@lavenderviolet](#): > > The kids in foster care are generally kids who have been taken from abusive and neglectful parents, NOT kids who were voluntarily put up for adoption by a birthmom. > There is a lot of resistance to transracial adoption among black people who think black kids should only grow up in black families and white people who are racist to some degree, but in spite of that, INFANTS of all colors that are placed for private adoption do find homes. Adoption agencies don’t dump the kids in foster care because they can’t find a home if the birthmother voluntarily relinquished the kid. Sure, infants do. But, realistically, how often are women getting pregnant on purpose, against the father’s will, having babies, and immediately coming for child support? _Not all that often._ In fact, that’s pretty rare. What usually happens is that the guy sticks around for the first few months, or a year or so, and then decides partying is more fun than playing house, and bails. _Then,_ she comes after him for support (that he doesn’t want to pay). So, these “babies” who are going to be taken from their moms because their deadbeat dad doesn’t want to pay support are realistically going to range in age from several months to several years. And now, guess what? **No one wants to adopt them.** That’s actually the real issue here. The situation **Borzo** brings up is incredibly rare. Much more common, in fact, is controling MEN sabotaging the birth control of their girlfriends in order to get them pregnant and force them into a commitment they may not want. THAT happens fairly often. But women sucking the sperm out of used condoms and using it to get pregnant so they can live off that SWEET $300 a month child support from unwilling men is pretty uncommon. I would be willing to talk about/consider changing the laws to help men who became fathers due to REAL ACTUAL (court provable!) fraud and/or rape. I do not think that it is right for men to be forced to pay support in those instances, and I support the law being changed to reflect that. These situations are extremely rare, but they do occur. But guys who are irresponsible sexually, have babies, and then later decide they don’t want to pay support? Sorry, no. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/186 "2012-03-27T18:00:31Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > That isn’t how insurance works. The costs are _shared_ by all people paying dues to the insurance agent. The child-support equivalent would be to force the driver to pay, and if he couldn’t, force withholding of his salary in the amount that he could, and if he couldn’t do that, well, tough shit. Ok, so maybe not the best example. But the concept behind it is still similar - the idea that there should be a mechanism in place so that society at large does not pay for the mistakes of every individual. In this case, maybe the costs get spread to the local insurance pool, which would be smaller than the pool of tax-payers but still larger than the individual. > [@Borzo](#): > > One is unchangeable (to the best of our knowledge), the other is completely in our control to change. Well, I did mention something about people living in peace and harmony and such. I’m reasonably sure that’s a societal thing, too. Impractical but not impossible. > [@Borzo](#): > > People in this thread are conflating responsibility with consequence. And if a passing glint of light happens to distract you long enough to run a red light and crash into another car? Or remember when you were a teenager and not yet a good driver? What if you make stupid mistake and get into a wreck? You’re still responsible, even if you did not deliberately cause the accident. In the case of consensual sex, you still have to accept the responsibility for dealing with potential pregnancy, just as I have to accept that, even in the case of an unintentional accident, I might be responsible for creating a car accident. Sure, I get to pass some of the costs onto the other people in my insurance pool, but I’m still going to personally face higher premiums and potentially civil/criminal charges. It doesn’t matter if I wanted that result or not. By choosing to get behind the wheel, I accept both the responsibility and consequences of my actions. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/187 "2012-03-27T18:12:03Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > There’s a far more serious flaw in your argument. You are actually proposing that in some circumstances the government take children away from parents who want to keep them (and are not abusing them in any way). I’m not sure there’s a word to describe how I feel about such a suggestion but “ill-considered” is one of the milder ones. - If the parents (or single parent) are broke, drug addicts, or negligent, etc etc… no matter how much they want to keep their children, the state should take them away regardless. The childrens’ well-being is more important than the parents desire to maintain possession of their children. - If the parents (or single parent) DO have enough resources to take care of the child, they should keep the children. I don’t see why this is unreasonable. The state should only take children away from parents that are unfit and/or lack the resources to raise and support a child. You could argue that unfit parents - that are unfit because they are broke - could be given child support from the state/government. If they are otherwise loving, and caring, this is an adequate solution. In fact - this is the solution that I personally support. People however are cheap and want lower taxes. They don’t really want a tax-funded insurance policy that helps out poor parents. They say things like “If you can’t afford a child, then don’t put your penis into other people’s vaginas!” Unfortunately, I’m not really sure how you get poor people to stop having babies. You could license parents or something… but I’m not sure how that would work since the government wouldn’t be allowed to force sterilization onto women, or force abortions, or perform infanticide. I don’t think anyone would ever suggest such solutions anyways. The government could perhaps put in some realistic incentives to prevent poor people from having babies… but I haven’t thought much about what those realistic incentives could be. If I can think of some, I’ll post them. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/188 "2012-03-27T18:15:17Z")
> [@](#): > > By choosing to get behind the wheel, I accept both the responsibility and consequences of my actions. Except the person behind the wheel of the other car involved in the accident has the option of hammering out the dent or suing you for damages for the next 18 years, even though you were equally at fault. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/189 "2012-03-27T18:20:14Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > - If the parents (or single parent) are broke, drug addicts, or negligent, etc etc… no matter how much they want to keep their children, the state should take them away regardless. The childrens’ well-being is more important than the parents desire to maintain possession of their children. > > - If the parents (or single parent) DO have enough resources to take care of the child, they should keep the children. > > I don’t see why this is unreasonable. The state should only take children away from parents that are unfit and/or lack the resources to raise and support a child. > > You could argue that unfit parents - that are unfit because they are broke - could be given child support from the state/government. If they are otherwise loving, and caring, this is an adequate solution. In fact - this is the solution that I personally support. > > People however are cheap and want lower taxes. They don’t really want a tax-funded insurance policy that helps out poor parents. They say things like “If you can’t afford a child, then don’t put your penis into other people’s vaginas!” > > Unfortunately, I’m not really sure how you get poor people to stop having babies. You could license parents or something… but I’m not sure how that would work since the government wouldn’t be allowed to force sterilization onto women, or force abortions, or perform infanticide. I don’t think anyone would ever suggest such solutions anyways. > > The government could perhaps put in some realistic incentives to prevent poor people from having babies… but I haven’t thought much about what those realistic incentives could be. If I can think of some, I’ll post them. Parents who are broke are not necessarily unfit. It could just be a temporary situation. Perhaps there’s been a layoff. Yet you would take their children away permanently. Heck there was a period in my life when my dad’s business went bankrupt. We were broke. Thank goodness I was allowed to stay with my parents while we recovered. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/190 "2012-03-27T18:25:12Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > Sure, infants do. But, realistically, how often are women getting pregnant on purpose, against the father’s will, having babies, and immediately coming for child support? _Not all that often._ In fact, that’s pretty rare. What usually happens is that the guy sticks around for the first few months, or a year or so, and then decides partying is more fun than playing house, and bails. _Then,_ she comes after him for support (that he doesn’t want to pay). So, these “babies” who are going to be taken from their moms because their deadbeat dad doesn’t want to pay support are realistically going to range in age from several months to several years. And now, guess what? **No one wants to adopt them.** > > That’s actually the real issue here. The situation **Borzo** brings up is incredibly rare. Much more common, in fact, is controling MEN sabotaging the birth control of their girlfriends in order to get them pregnant and force them into a commitment they may not want. THAT happens fairly often. But women sucking the sperm out of used condoms and using it to get pregnant so they can live off that SWEET $300 a month child support from unwilling men is pretty uncommon. I 100% agree that once a man says “Okay, I’ll be a father” - that’s it, they are committed for life (or at least 18 years). And that’s the way it should be. Once a man says “Okay, I’ll help support the child”, the woman then starts making decisions based on the man’s decision. Once that snowball has started rolling, _that’s it._ If a woman gives birth - instead of terminating the pregnancy - based on the man’s statement the he will help with the child, he’s should be bound to that. It should be a legally binding contract. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/191 "2012-03-27T18:34:12Z")
So can we all agree that men have the right to have an abortion just like women do? That solves the discussion neatly, I think. Any man is perfectly welcome to have an abortion. /still python ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/192 "2012-03-27T18:34:44Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Parents who are broke are not necessarily unfit. It could just be a temporary situation. Perhaps there’s been a layoff. Yet you would take their children away permanently. > > Heck there was a period in my life when my dad’s business went bankrupt. We were broke. Thank goodness I was allowed to stay with my parents while we recovered. Only newborns born to unfit parent(s) would be given up for adoption. PERSONALLY, I’d prefer the state to support the family and newborn instead (if their only issue is lack of money, but are otherwise fit to parent)… But I used the adoption option to appease those that insist on lower taxes and no insurance for poor parents: _If there’s no money for poor families with newborns, there’s always the option of adoption._ Their response is that “nobody wants to adopt newborns, especially black and latino newborns”… but I have yet to confirm/refute that claim. Once a child is older, the only option would be state support. No one will adopt a 7-year old, and even if they did, it wouldn’t be good for the child. I’d never suggest such a thing. Once a child is born, or even once a fetus passes 3 months, the father should be bound to financial and other support for the child. There is no way a father should be able to abandon a 7-year old merely because he doesn’t want it anymore - that would make no sense, and isn’t at all what I’m advocating. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/193 "2012-03-27T18:36:02Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > I believe it should be possible for a man or a woman to have consensual sex without also having to consent to having a legal parental obligation to a potential future child. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point. It **is** possible! That has already been established! If you use a condom, plus the woman is on birth control, plus you use good judgment in choosing a partner, you have virtually eliminated the potential to have a “potential future child.” Add in a vasectomy, and you’re even closer! What you are asking for is to be able to have RISKY consensual sex, and still be shielded from those consequences. Just as you cannon be protected from STDs in that situation, neither can you be protected from the possibility of pregnancy. But, it is certainly possible to have sex with women and not worry about paying child support later. The VAST majority of men manage it. > [@](#): > > A mother or father should be able to discharge their parental duties whether or not an abortion happens. Once a child is born, the parents are equal in their ability to discharge their parental duties. When a fetus is gestating, anyone who is the host of said fetus may choose to no longer carry that pregnancy. The fact that only women are capable of gestation is the fault of biology, and an inherent unfairness in our species. Most often, this unfairness falls on the female, but occasionally the males get the short end of the stick. Life isn’t fair. > [@](#): > > This is an unfair and malicious statement that seems to be directed at single moms, implying that all women who choose to have a baby against the father’s will are random skanks. You could be in a loving, long-term marriage, with a partner - and still end up in the same situation. Really? You honestly believe there are a lot of men in “loving long term marriages” who’s wives are having kids against their will and then, what, divorcing them and suing for child support? Really? Because I’ve never heard of this phenomenon. > [@](#): > > For someone who claims to know a lot about biology, you seem a bit confused. The man didn’t make the baby, the woman did. The only woman who had a baby without a man’s help was The Virgin Mary. And she didn’t exist. So… it seems _you_ are are the one in need of remedial biology lessons. > [@](#): > > False. I don’t understand why you have such a hard time reconciling the fact that it is possible to have consensual sex without actually wanting to make a baby. In fact, I’m willing to go out on a limb here and suggest that in the western world most people have consensual sex - while at the same time - are not wanting to have children result from that sex. Birth control pills & condoms are VERY popular. You know why? Because people want to have sex, but do not want to have children. Yep! And then, because of their planning, they _don’t have any children_! It’s like magic! Take precautions and you won’t have unplanned children. Oh, wait, no that’s the opposite of magic. > [@](#): > > The \*woman \*is the driver that crashes into the preschool. The man is merely a \*passenger \*in the same car. The man judged the female driver to be sober when he got into the car. Could the man have done a better job of assessing the woman’s sobriety? Sure. Is he legally responsible for the crash? Mostly no. This is a poor analogy in many respects, but where it works is this: _The man in this crash is still injured._ So, the lesson here is- Don’t hop into a car (or a bed) with a woman you don’t know and haven’t judged carefully. The consequences of such an action could be huge. > [@](#): > > Could the man have gotten out of the car once he realized the the woman was drunk behind the wheel? Our current laws are very clear: NO! > > Why does the law not allow someone to escape from a vehicle when it turns out that the driver is drunk and may potentially cause harm? The law absolutely allows you to get out. GET OUT OF THAT CAR/BED SIR! YOU ARE RIDING WITH/FUCKING A CRAZY PERSON!! Do not ejaculate! Stop now!! What you want is for the law to magically heal your wounds after the crash. And, no, the law cannot/should not/will not do that. Once the crash has occurred, no law can fix your broken leg or whatever. Just as, once you have irresponsibly deposited your genetic material into someone, no law can take it back. The time for good judgment is BEFORE the crash, BEFORE your orgasm. Getting into cars or beds indiscriminately may result in unwanted consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/194 "2012-03-27T18:36:35Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > - If the parents (or single parent) are broke, drug addicts, or negligent, etc etc… no matter how much they want to keep their children, the state should take them away regardless. The childrens’ well-being is more important than the parents desire to maintain possession of their children. They already are. The state takes your children away if you mistreat them. > [@](#): > > - If the parents (or single parent) DO have enough resources to take care of the child, they should keep the children. Assuming they’re not abusive in some way - they already do. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/195 "2012-03-27T18:38:44Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > It **is** possible! That has already been established! If you use a condom, plus the woman is on birth control, plus you use good judgment in choosing a partner, you have virtually eliminated the potential to have a “potential future child.” Add in a vasectomy, and you’re even closer!. The vasectomy is the “right” he’s asking for. The right to have sex with no consequences. Luckily for him, the right already exists. Oh man, this thread was easy to solve. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/196 "2012-03-27T18:42:43Z")
Women can get IUDs, thus abortions are unnecessary. Someone phone Planned Parenthood! ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/197 "2012-03-27T18:47:39Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > Only newborns born to unfit parent(s) would be given up for adoption. PERSONALLY, I’d prefer the state to support the family and newborn instead (if their only issue is lack of money, but are otherwise fit to parent)… But I used the adoption option to appease those that insist on lower taxes and no insurance for poor parents: _If there’s no money for poor families with newborns, there’s always the option of adoption._ Their response is that “nobody wants to adopt newborns, especially black and latino newborns”… but I have yet to confirm/refute that claim. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what was said. EVERYONE wants to adopt newborns, _especially_ white ones. Unfortunately, there is no epidemic of women giving birth to babies the father immediately rejects. The abandonment comes months or years later. This is because women aren’t stupid, and they know child support is a very small sum, so if they are certain the fathers aren’t interested they either don’t have the baby, don’t keep the baby, or decide to truly raise it alone, and do not ask for support. ---
**Author:** ![perfectparanoia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a5b964/32.png) [@perfectparanoia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perfectparanoia)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/198 "2012-03-27T18:50:58Z")
Borzo, let’s pretend for a moment that abortion was illegal (or, better, didn’t exist). What would you think about the current state of affairs then? Would it be different if women didn’t get a last chance to decide not to be a parent? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/199 "2012-03-27T19:29:32Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Women can get IUDs, thus abortions are unnecessary. Someone phone Planned Parenthood! Look, the question of abortion has no relation to the question of whether noncustodial parents should be required to support their children. We can criminalize abortion, or make it legal, that’s a choice we can make as a society. But the fact that a woman can sometimes legally kill her unborn baby rather than carry it to term doesn’t let you off the hook for supporting your kids. Say it with me. The legality or illegality of abortion is a separate issue from whether you should be required to take care of your kids. Don’t want abortion to be legal? Fine. Want abortion to be legal? Fine. You still have to take care of your kids, and if you don’t want to, the rest of us taxpayers are going to ask the cops and the courts to seize the money from you, because otherwise we’d have to pay for it ourselves. And you’re the father. Don’t want to be a father? Don’t inject your sperm into the vaginas of random strangers. Get a vasectomy. Wear a condom. Don’t sleep with women who aren’t on birth control. Don’t sleep with women unless you’ve had a discussion with them about what would happen if there was an accidental pregnancy. The more of these things that you do, the less likely it is that you’ll become a father when you don’t want to. I can say that if you explain clearly to a woman that if she accidentally gets pregnant you’ll have nothing to do with any resulting kids, and would refuse to support any such kids without a court order, and her choices were either abortion or single motherhood, the likelihood of that woman getting pregnant by you will be drastically lowered. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/200 "2012-03-27T19:36:45Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Look, the question of abortion has no relation to the question of whether noncustodial parents should be required to support their children. > > We can criminalize abortion, or make it legal, that’s a choice we can make as a society. But the fact that a woman can sometimes legally kill her unborn baby rather than carry it to term doesn’t let you off the hook for supporting your kids. > > Say it with me. The legality or illegality of abortion is a separate issue from whether you should be required to take care of your kids. > > Don’t want abortion to be legal? Fine. Want abortion to be legal? Fine. You still have to take care of your kids, and if you don’t want to, the rest of us taxpayers are going to ask the cops and the courts to seize the money from you, because otherwise we’d have to pay for it ourselves. And you’re the father. > > Don’t want to be a father? Don’t inject your sperm into the vaginas of random strangers. Get a vasectomy. Wear a condom. Don’t sleep with women who aren’t on birth control. Don’t sleep with women unless you’ve had a discussion with them about what would happen if there was an accidental pregnancy. The more of these things that you do, the less likely it is that you’ll become a father when you don’t want to. > > I can say that if you explain clearly to a woman that if she accidentally gets pregnant you’ll have nothing to do with any resulting kids, and would refuse to support any such kids without a court order, and her choices were either abortion or single motherhood, the likelihood of that woman getting pregnant by you will be drastically lowered. Do you have a newsletter? Because, seriously, I’ll subscribe to it. (Well, until I get bored of the current topic and start thinking about Batman). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708.md?page=11)