# With legal abortion, should men have to pay child support? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 15, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315 "2003-05-15T00:38:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/61 "2003-05-16T07:40:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Since no one else has answered this simple, yet oh so hard question, then Philly Style, what do you think the laws should be on this issue, to make things as fair as possible? This is the real issue. The reason women have options and men do not, is not because women have the moral right to choice, and men don’t. The reason is that there is not yet a good option for men. So what can be done? I am not in the camp of those who say all men should be able to opt out of child support, because if they could I believe there would be more children depending on the state. However, how about this for a law: If a man has a vasectomy, then he can tell a woman up front that he does not want a child, and if despite the vasectomy a child is born, then he does not have to pay. The reason this would work is that vasectomy babies are rare, and it would not be too much of a burden on the state. Especially since it would cause more men to have vasectomies, which might actually save money for the state in the end. Idealistically, a man who used a condom would have this same choice. However, in that case you have problems because condoms fail more often and it could turn into a he-said, she-said, about whether or not a condom was actually used. So what is needed is another form of birth control for men, perhaps a pill for men, that a man can prove he is taking, and then in the rare cases that it fails, the man has the choice to raise the child or not. So women would always have a choice, and men would have a choice if they were responsible in the first place (using birth control). This is the most fair solution I can think of, and I don’t think it is unworkable. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/62 "2003-05-16T11:02:36Z")
> [@](#): > > I am not in the camp of those who say all men should be able to opt out of child support, because if they could I believe there would be more children depending on the state. Several people have brought up this argument. I posit that if economic concerns are such a factor in a moral debate, that we should possibly investigate potential plans to sell such unwanted children as slaves and/or organ donors. After all, this would both preclude anyone being forced to pay for the children, thus side-stepping this entire issue. Well shoot, it was funny when Swift said it. Anyway, I don’t think that claims that the men should pay so the state doesn’t have to have any moral weight. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/63 "2003-05-16T11:44:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Several people have brought up this argument. I posit that if economic concerns are such a factor in a moral debate, that we should possibly investigate potential plans to sell such unwanted children as slaves and/or organ donors. If you are just speaking of ideals and abstractions, then you can ignore economics. But I was proposing actual laws, and thus I have to take economic concerns into account. I don’t think it is unreasonable to require that a man use birth control if he does not want to be stuck with an unwanted child to support. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/64 "2003-05-16T13:00:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pravnik \* > **A hypothetical: a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want the child, but doesn’t want to pay for an abortion, either. She sloughs the child off on the father, who she is not married to. The court orders the mother to pay child support to the father. Is the court “stealing” from the mother?** No, because the mother is putting the responsibility for her “private concern” on a second party. > [@](#): > > _Who made the decision to bring the child into the world? Who took on the voluntary decision to raise a child? Who has to live with the consequences of someone elses choice? The court, in the legal vernacular, doesn’t give a rat’s fat ass. Once a child is here, the court has one concern, and one concern only: the “best interest of the child.” Stop speaking in terms of “the mother’s rights” and “the father’s rights.” That’s not the law. If they can be both be ascertained, both parents have a duty to support the child. Period. Neither parent has any rights which outweigh the best interest of the child. Period. That’s the law. Don’t like it? Don’t (expletive deleted for being crude)._ You connot be serious. If that was the case, courts would immediately remove some children from the custody of their biological mothers. Especially the ones who waddle into court with two kids in tow, each with different biological fathers, and six-months pregnant by a third biological father. But no, the courts, fearful of feminist backlash, would never consider such a move. While being sold as a bill of goods described as “what is in the child’s best interest”, child support payments are also designed to allow birth mothers, who have little or no education or job skills, (much less the ability to properly raise a child) the means of keeping the children that they choose to bring into the world without the benefit of marriage. Compounding the problem, the welfare entitlements and court ordered child support payments that come with an illegitimate child are offering some young ladies the opportunity for a lifestyle they otherwise could not afford. Aiding the status quo, social service agencies operate under the theoretical agenda that, for some mystical reason, a child is naturally better off with a biological parent, despite the almost daily evidence of children who would obviously fare much better with loving adoptive parents. Meanwhile, America’s illegitimacy rate is among the highest, if not the highest, in the industrialized world and childless couples are relegated to searching overseas for adoptable children. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/65 "2003-05-16T13:14:00Z")
Again, you are assuming that men pay child support and women do not. This isn’t true. Men and women have a coequal duty of support for their children. The situation I described isn’t merely a hypothetical; it happens daily. When it comes to child support, courts don’t care about the rights of the parents, or liberalism, or conservatism, or feminism, or whose choice it was to have the child. They care about the best interest of the child. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/66 "2003-05-16T13:21:27Z")
I dont understand why any man would not want to pay to support his child. If any man is mentally incapable of realizing this, then yes, he should be forced to pay. People who are incapable of supporting themselves, making their own decisions, feeding themselves, clothing themselves, etc are taken into cutsody, their money is put in control of the state, and it is used to do what he cannot mentally do for himself. I see no difference if a man was similarly mentally incapable of feeding, clothing, etc his children. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/67 "2003-05-16T13:22:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **I concur with catsix, and perhaps even Razorsharp (except for the whole liberal-bashing thing).** Well, you can’t deny that the liberal ideology is very much culpable. The evolution of child-support into a “right of the child” is a fairly recent phenomenon. In years past, if a woman gave birth to a child outside of the institution of matrimony, that child was considered hers. (It was considered a “private” concern as echoed in Roe v Wade.) If she was independently wealthy, she may have made the “choice” to raise her child by herself. If she was indigent, she would likely resort to putting her child up for adoption so as to not to be burdened with raising a child alone. If she was a teenager, she would probably make the “choice” to put her child up for adoption so as to continue her life’s goal unencumbered with the burden of raising her child. No, the child did not have a “right” to support from it’s biological parents. This was how society recognized illegitimacy for the first one-hundred seventy-five years of America’s history. Prior to the mid-1960’s, illegitimacy was relatively rare. Private charities, in conjunction with society’s “safety-net” programs, lent support where it was needed. Then society was delt a liberal “one-two punch” with the “sexual revolution”, which was to put women on equal footing with men with regards to sex, and President Johnson’s “Great Society” programs that had the effect of rewarding illegitimacy. This “one-two punch” caused an explosion of illegitimate births. As state treasuries were becoming drained as a result of the sky-rocketing welfare costs, state legislators began to scramble for solutions. Not wishing to stir-up the hornet’s nest of feminism and alienate the “women’s vote”, state legislatures concocted the “Deadbead Dad” villian and, through a legislative sleight-of-hand, came up with the concept of a child’s “right” to support. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/68 "2003-05-16T13:26:23Z")
Put another way: why should the law favor the desires of the parents over the best interest of the child? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/69 "2003-05-16T13:35:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > **You connot be serious. If that was the case, courts would immediately remove some children from the custody of their biological mothers. Especially the ones who waddle into court with two kids in tow, each with different biological fathers, and six-months pregnant by a third biological father. But no, the courts, fearful of feminist backlash, would never consider such a move.** No, they wouldn’t consider such a move because they can’t and won’t terminate the parent-child relationship except for neglect, abuse, drug addiction, or other serious grounds. Courts are sensitive to the psychological trauma potentially caused by yanking children away from their birth parents. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/70 "2003-05-16T13:40:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > \*\*The evolution of child-support into a “right of the child” is a fairly recent phenomenon. In years past, if a woman gave birth to a child outside of the institution of matrimony, that child was considered hers. (It was considered a “private” concern as echoed in Roe v Wade.) If she was independently wealthy, she may have made the “choice” to raise her child by herself. If she was indigent, she would likely resort to putting her child up for adoption so as to not to be burdened with raising a child alone. If she was a teenager, she would probably make the “choice” to put her child up for adoption so as to continue her life’s goal unencumbered with the burden of raising her child. No, the child did not have a “right” to support from it’s biological parents. > \*\* That’s because until recently, it was impossible to determine paternity scientifically. The law had no choice but to presume children in wedlock to be the child of the husband, and children out of wedlock to be the child of the mother alone. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/71 "2003-05-16T14:08:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Put another way: why should the law favor the desires of the parents over the best interest of the child? Why shouldn’t it? Why are the interests of the child so sacred? > [@](#): > > I don’t think it is unreasonable to require that a man use birth control if he does not want to be stuck with an unwanted child to support. Well, I do. Conversely, I don’t think it is unreasonable that if a child cannot be fed without taking from someone unwilling to give, it should starve, as people have a right not to be stolen from, but not to not starve. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/72 "2003-05-16T14:31:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*A revision by Razorsharp \* > \*\*I dont understand why any woman would not want to give her child life. If any woman is mentally incapable of realizing this, then yes, she should be compelled by the state to give birth to the child that is the result of her choice to engage in a behavior that has the potential to result in the creation of life. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/73 "2003-05-16T14:37:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pravnik \* > \*\*No, they wouldn’t consider such a move because they can’t and won’t terminate the parent-child relationship except for neglect, abuse, drug addiction, or other serious grounds. Courts are sensitive to the psychological trauma potentially caused by yanking children away from their birth parents. \*\* “…despite the almost daily evidence of children who would obviously fare much better with loving adoptive parents.” ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/74 "2003-05-16T14:57:45Z")
> [@](#): > > **pravnik** said: > Again, you are assuming that men pay child support and women do not. This isn’t true. Men and women have a coequal duty of support for their children. The situation I described isn’t merely a hypothetical; it happens daily. Do you have any numbers on how many men vs. how many women are ordered to pay support, how much that support is and who defaults more often? From what I’ve read, it’s nowhere near equal. > [@](#): > > **Susann** said: > I dont understand why any man would not want to pay to support his child. Because just like a woman who chooses not to have a kid, if he chooses not to have one, he has no kids to support. > [@](#): > > **robertliguori** said: > Well, I do. Conversely, I don’t think it is unreasonable that if a child cannot be fed without taking from someone unwilling to give, it should starve, as people have a right not to be stolen from, but not to not starve. I think this sums up my point. No one has an absolute right to someone else’s money for their own survival, even if they are a ‘little kid’ and it makes people feel sorry for them. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/75 "2003-05-16T15:08:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Susanann \* > \*\*I dont understand why any man would not want to pay to support his child. If any man is mentally incapable of realizing this, then yes, he should be forced to pay. People who are incapable of supporting themselves, making their own decisions, feeding themselves, clothing themselves, etc are taken into cutsody, their money is put in control of the state, and it is used to do what he cannot mentally do for himself. I see no difference if a man was similarly mentally incapable of feeding, clothing, etc his children. \*\* I dont understand why any woman would not want to give her child life. If any woman is mentally incapable of realizing this, then yes, she should be compelled by the state to give birth to the child that is the result of her choice to engage in a behavior that has the potential to result in the creation of life. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/76 "2003-05-16T15:17:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pravnik \* > \*\*That’s because until recently, it was impossible to determine paternity scientifically. The law had no choice but to presume children in wedlock to be the child of the husband, and children out of wedlock to be the child of the mother alone. \*\* Then why is it that men, who were once considered to be the fathers of children born within the bonds of matrimony, are still required to pay child support, even after DNA tests reveal that the children are not their biological children, but the result of the mother’s infidelity? See, DNA is used as a convenience when it suits the state, and ignored when it suits the state. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/77 "2003-05-16T16:02:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > **Then why is it that men, who were once considered to be the fathers of children born within the bonds of matrimony, are still required to pay child support, even after DNA tests reveal that the children are not their biological children, but the result of the mother’s infidelity?** They have four years to do so. After that, they have voluntarily assumed the legal identity of that child’s father, just as if they had adopted it. They are estopped from disclaiming paternity. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/78 "2003-05-16T16:07:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*Do you have any numbers on how many men vs. how many women are ordered to pay support, how much that support is and who defaults more often? > > From what I’ve read, it’s nowhere near equal.\*\* Of _course_ it’s not equal. Men pay child custody more often, and in greater amounts. They have custody much less often, and generally have greater earning power. Nevertheless, in the situations where the father has custody and the woman has the abilty to pay, courts don’t hesitate to assess child support on mothers. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/79 "2003-05-16T16:11:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > **Why shouldn’t it? Why are the interests of the child so sacred?** Because the state has a strong public interest in making certain that the basic physical needs of children are cared for, and no interest in whether or not your obligation to support your children strikes you as “fair” or not. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/80 "2003-05-16T17:25:29Z")
**catsix** replied to me: \*How about the person who wanted to have the kid pay for the kid? Nobody should be forced to shoulder more than half the cost of a kid and often half or more of their take home pay so that they can financially support someone else’s decision to be a single parent. Did these people never learn the premise of ‘If you wanted it, you take care of it.’? Someone who has made it crystal clear that they don’t want a kid shouldn’t be forced to pay the way for someone who did want a kid and either can’t afford it or just feels entitled to get free money from someone else.\* As I said, I’ve got absolutely no problem with this reasoning, considered in the light of a **personal moral obligation**. IMHO, if you want to raise a child, the only right thing to do is either to find a partner who also wants to be a parent, or else undertake to support the child yourself with whatever government assistance (and **voluntary** assistance from family and friends) you can obtain. But as I also said, I don’t agree that we ought to make this moral obligation into a legal obligation. There are plenty of things that I think are morally necessary that I **don’t** want the government to declare as legally necessary. When it comes to practical legal obligations, if it’s a choice between extracting child support from an unwilling father and letting a child be malnourished or homeless because the mother can’t adequately provide for it—well, too bad, daddy. _No one has an absolute right to someone else’s money for their own survival, even if they are a ‘little kid’ and it makes people feel sorry for them._ Sez you. As **pravnik** pointed out, there is in fact a widespread and long-standing social consensus—backed up by governmental mandate—that children **do** have the right to a decent basic maintenance at the expense of adults. The question is simply how we as a society will legally assign financial responsibility for the support of a given child when there aren’t enough volunteers who are both willing and able to provide it on their own. There are some moral obligations that I **do** want the government to adopt as legal obligations, and “Adults are responsible for the survival and decent support of children” is definitely one of them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315.md?page=5)