# 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:** 9\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/161 "2003-05-22T19:56:18Z")
**Rs:** \*See, if the birth-mother wishes, she can assume all responsibilities by raising “her” child by herself. Some women make that “choice” so as to be unencumbered with the presense of the “biological father”. \* 😕 Not true. If the father wants parental rights and responsibilities, he is legally entitled to them. The mother is not legally allowed to shut the father out of parenthood against his wishes just because she “wishes” to be “unencumbered” by him. Again, let’s not mix up what people are legally **allowed** to do and what they may be able to **get away with** doing. Yes, if a man never learns that he fathered a child due to the mother’s secrecy, he might be unfairly cheated out of fatherhood. But the law doesn’t condone that: the law says he **does** have the right to be a father to that child. The only **practical** way for a man to safeguard that right is to make good decisions about his sex partners and to keep in sufficiently close touch with them that he knows whether or not they have a child that might be his. Armed with that knowledge, he **can’t** legally be cheated out of his paternal rights. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/162 "2003-05-22T20:11:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > \*\*No, that too, is arbitrarily decided by the birth-mother. See, if the birth-mother wishes, she can assume all responsibilities by raising “her” child by herself. Some women make that “choice” so as to be unencumbered with the presense of the “biological father”. There is no law that requires a birth-mother to identify the biological father of a child. The state shows no concern for the biological father’s “rights”, nor the childs “need” for its biological father. \*\* **Kimstu’s** right: that’s not correct. If the man wishes to claim the child as his own and he can establish paternity, a father has many rights as to the child, generally the following: right of custody; duty of care and upbringing; duty of support; duty to manage the child’s estate; right to consent to marriage, medical treatment and military service; right to represent the child in legal actions; right to the child’s services and earnings, right to recieve and disburse funds for the child’s support and benefit, and the right to inherit from the child. The mother cannot legally divest him of these rights, and they extend to every parent and child regardless of the marital status of the parent. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/163 "2003-05-23T10:37:56Z")
I remember a controversial court case a frew years back, where a woman put her kid of for adoption without telling the birth father (they had a tiff). The kid was happy in his adoptive home. But, a while later, the birth parents got together, and the birth dad decided he wanted his kid back, since he’d never signed the adoption papers. And lo and behold, after much heartache in the courts, he got the kid back. Because he had that right. > [@](#): > > _Razorsharp wrote:_ > > In the instance where no definable or sustained relationship exists between the birth-mother and the biological father, it can reasonably be assumed that the biological father would not object to an adoption. No, it the hell can’t be assumed. How do we know what is in each man’s mind? Some guys have always wanted kids and will want to keep a kid that they fathered. I daresay that there are a lot of men like that—that once they know that they have produced offspring, they will want to be part of that offspring’s life. I think you do the male sex a disservice to assume that just because they didn’t have much to do with the mom (other than to have sex with her) that they will not want to know their own kids. For a woman to knowingly conceal the fact that the man has fathered a kid is wrong. And if he finds out later (after the kid is adopted) a lot of heartache can come of it. I remember that court case I cited above—it was horrible. The adoptive parents loved that kid and he loved them. They were his parents in every sense of the word. And then after some significant length of time, a “stranger” suddenly comes in the picture, insisting that the kid was his. And it wasn’t as if it was the bio-dad’s fault because he wanted his kid back (even though the whole thing was horrible, and I felt horrible for the kid and the adoptive parents). The bio dad was never was given a choice as to whether he wanted a kid or not. He was never told that he had a kid. Man—that whole thing was a mess. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/164 "2003-05-23T12:49:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > **I remember a controversial court case a frew years back, where a woman put her kid of for adoption without telling the birth father (they had a tiff).** Your “red herring” is not analogous to my contention because in the case you site, there existed a definable relationship. > [@](#): > > **How do we know what is in each man’s mind? Some guys have always wanted kids and will want to keep a kid that they fathered. I daresay that there are a lot of men like that—that once they know that they have produced offspring, they will want to be part of that offspring’s life. I think you do the male sex a disservice to assume that just because they didn’t have much to do with the mom (other than to have sex with her) that they will not want to know their own kids.** You’re right, some guys have always wanted kids, and have had no “choice” but to stand aside while the “mother” aborted the child that they, at one time, had both planned for. I find it hypocritical that you now are putting yourself in the noble role of a defender of a man’s “rights”, of course, you are only doing so when it fits with your personal ideology. You seem to care less when it comes to a man’s rights when it interferes with the ideological correct version of “freedom of choice”. > [@](#): > > **For a woman to knowingly conceal the fact that the man has fathered a kid is wrong.** Yes, it is wrong, but it’s not illegal and it does happen. Society even condones it, so long as the mother is financially independent, but that is where it ends. Once the “mother” runs into financial hardships and needs assistance, then, and ONLY then, is there a concern for the biological fathers obligation to his child. There hasn’t been a case where a “mother” was incarcerated for denying a biological father his “rights” to know his child. On the otherhand, there have been men incarcerated for refusing to financially assist the “mother” with her unilateral and private “choice”. And feminists say that “men just don’t get it”. What a joke. ---
**Author:** ![deborak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc348/32.png) [@deborak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deborak)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/165 "2003-05-23T15:14:17Z")
**Razorsharp** , may I ask why you are using the word “mother” in quotes? Is there a problem? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/166 "2003-05-23T16:04:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > \*\*Once the “mother” runs into financial hardships and needs assistance, then, and ONLY then, is there a concern for the biological fathers obligation to his child. > > There hasn’t been a case where a “mother” was incarcerated for denying a biological father his “rights” to know his child. > > On the otherhand, there have been men incarcerated for refusing to financially assist the “mother” with her unilateral and private “choice”. \*\* I’m not sure I understand you there. Are you saying that a man cannot claim any interest in a child so long as the woman is financially independent, and that only men are jailed for interference with custody and visitation, and for failure to pay child support? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/167 "2003-05-23T19:21:00Z")
**Rs:** \*Once the “mother” runs into financial hardships and needs assistance, then, and ONLY then, is there a concern for the biological fathers obligation to his child. \* Not true. Consider just two [high-profile cases](http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/adoption/98jan1.shtml) about bio-fathers’ rights, just in relation to adoption disputes: > [@](#): > > 1. […] Fifty-seven days after the birth of the baby, [bio-father] Otakar learned of the pending adoption proceedings by the Does. He immediately filed his objection to the adoption. […] The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the father had made various attempts to locate the child during the first 30 days of the child’s life, all of which were frustrated or blocked by the actions of the mother. […] The father’s parental rights had thus been improperly terminated, and any discussion of the best interests of the child was premature. […] The court further noted that it was over three years since the birth of the baby. If anyone was to bear fault, the fault should be placed first on the mother, who fraudulently tried to deprive the father of his parental rights, and second on the adoptive parents and their attorney, who proceeded with the adoption despite their knowledge that a biological father existed who had not been informed of his baby’s existence. The adoptive parents should have, when Otakar entered his appearance, relinquished the baby. An appeal to the United States Supreme Court was denied. > > 2. […] In her accompanying affidavit, [mother] Cara stated she had lied about who the father was, and that the true biological father was Dan Schmidt. Dan filed an affidavit of paternity and sought leave to intervene in the adoption proceeding, claiming that he had just learned he was the baby’s father, that he opposed the adoption, and that without his consent the adoption proceeding must be dismissed. In December 1991, the district court ruled that blood tests established Dan Schmidt’s paternity and that because he did not know of the child’s existence until after Cara had placed her he could not have abandoned her, and thus his parental rights could not have been terminated without his consent. It is widely recognized that a biological father **does** have parental rights even if the mother doesn’t want him to be involved. **Razorsharp** ’s claim that the courts always ignore the claims of fatherhood unless they are seeking child support is simply false. _There hasn’t been a case where a “mother” was incarcerated for denying a biological father his “rights” to know his child._ Cite? There have certainly been cases where biological fathers have been awarded monetary damages by the courts for being unfairly deprived of parental rights: [Adopted boy’s dad awarded $7.8 million](http://deltabravo.net/custody/adopt.htm) > [@](#): > > A state Supreme Court ruling Wednesday orders a Cabell County woman, her parents, brother, and lawyer to pay $7.8 million to the father of a child given up for adoption without the father’s consent. Like I keep saying: once a child is born, the official parental rights **and** responsibilities are pretty much symmetrical for men and women. If the courts are not enforcing the obligations fairly for both sexes, that’s where our outrage ought to be directed, not dissipated on useless grievances about how unfair it is that only women get to have abortions. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2003, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/168 "2003-05-24T04:49:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Razorsharp wrote: > > You’re right, some guys have always wanted kids, and have had no “choice” but to stand aside while the “mother” aborted the child that they, at one time, had both planned for. I find it hypocritical that you now are putting yourself in the noble role of a defender of a man’s “rights”, of course, you are only doing so when it fits with your personal ideology. You seem to care less when it comes to a man’s rights when it interferes with the ideological correct version of “freedom of choice”. Huh? Where did you get all that? Are you confusing me with someone else? I detect more than a little misplaced hostility here. Please copy and paste where I wrote that I advocated “choice”. I stay away from the abortion threads like the plague, but when pressed, I will confess that I lean more towards pro-life. I think there are times when abortion is understandable (extreme distress of the mother), but speaking personally, abortion gives me the heebie-jeebies. I feel that it is terrible for a man to be denied knowledge of their kids because of something I witnessed in my own family. There was a situation where a female relative was willing to let her boyfriend walk away and not be responsible for his own child; she’d raise the kid by herself. He was vehemently against the notion. He said, “Hey—I don’t want a kid of mine walking around somewhere without me knowing them and them knowing me.” And he meant that. It would have been a horrible thing for him to be denied access (or knowledge) of his own kids. He wanted kids, badly. I daresay that he’s not the only man that feels that way. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315/169 "2003-05-25T00:36:32Z")
**Razorsharp** : > [@](#): > > See, if the birth-mother wishes, she can assume all responsibilities by raising “her” child by herself. Some women make that “choice” so as to be unencumbered with the presense of the “biological father”. There is no law that requires a birth-mother to identify the biological father of a child. The state shows no concern for the biological father’s “rights”, nor the childs “need” for its biological father. JIC that had anything to do with my own situation as I outlined it, I would like to make it clear that my daughter’s biological father _is_ aware of her existence, and has a contact address for me, but since he has decided not to make contact, I am not going to force him. If he were to desire visiting rights, and I denied them to him, then he could take me to court. I would have to prove that he shouldn’t have access to his daughter; the burden of proof would lie with me. He has many rights as a father, should he decide to utilise them. I agree that a twelve-year-old boy, or a man who only consented to oral sex, or a man who had sex whilst unconscious, should not be expected to support an unwanted child. Those are cases where the law was applied badly - but that doesn’t mean the law itself is bad. > [@](#): > > There hasn’t been a case where a “mother” was incarcerated for denying a biological father his “rights” to know his child. So, if we can find no cases where a mother was jailed for refusing to grant a father his court-awarded rights, then that means the system is anti-fathers? (Or perhaps that when a father has gone so far as to get a court to award him visiting rights, few mothers deny him?) OTOH, if we were to find a case where a mother had been jailed for refusing the father visiting rights, then that would prove that mothers really are as mean to fathers as you suggest. What’s the name for that kind of argument? Unfalsifiable? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-legal-abortion-should-men-have-to-pay-child-support/175315.md?page=8)