Male responsibility in teenage pregnancy

In Nation States, I stumbled on this interesting option on how to deal with teenage pregnancy/sex ed:

Sad fact is, it's the girls that carry the blunt of the problem when this happens, if only for biological reasons. Boys seem to have the option to just walk away and wash their hands. So the incentive boys would have to use protection (besides morals, which can't be accounted for) should be socially enforced. I don't think it needs to be military service specifically, but I think something should be done.

The problem with that, however, is that the male would also be incentived to pressure the female (I am talking biological sexes, social genders can be in whatever combination) into aborting. However, it's her body and her risk, whether she aborts or gives birth, and current consensus is that this gives her full power over which option will be taken.

So, should this idea, or something close to it, be implemented? Is it better than the status quo?

Note: We shall not discuss if abortion is ethical in and of itself. That is already covered by other threads.

And they do.

Now, if the girl was over 18 she wouldn't get much sympathy from me because it's her own choice (she could have said no, I don't care how much the guy pressured her as long as he didn't use force). But for people under 18, that's obviously a different matter. If the male is over 18, then he is to be blamed obviously, if he's below 18, it is again a different matter, but I think the responsibility should be equal between both genders. You can make arguments why either gender should take more responsibility (male because he's the proactive one, female because she's the one that's gonna carry the child) but in the end, you shouldn't have it inherently worse because of what gender you are.

So, neither should the girl carry all the responsibility, nor should the man be sent into a labour camp in Siberia to finance his soon-to-be child.

I do, however, agree on the part that eductation about this matter should be shifted more towards boys than it is at this point in time.

edited 4th Dec '11 6:03:53 AM by Excelion

First off, we need to counteract the notion that virginity is "shameful" for guys. It's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" right now, with most of the "damned if you do" not being until/unless the girl involved gets pregnant. If we are going to try to pressure teenage boys out of sex, we need to reduce the pressure on the other side.

Some will still seek sex, no doubt; wanting sexual pleasure is still a major incentive too, obviously; but still, one less major incentive on the other side will probably help reduce teen pregnancy significantly. Changing attitudes is key here.

My opinion on this law is largely irrelevant, because it's basically totally unenforceable...

This statement makes the implication that only men are ever proactive about sex, that women are never proactive about sex, that men are never not proactive about sex, and that the initiator of sex is always the man and not the woman.

if a person genuinely believes in these things, they are wrong. If a person bases their stance upon these things, they are still wrong.

A girl who chooses to have sex and then gets pregnant is a victim of nature and of poor luck, not of men.

The boy who too chooses to have sex and then has a girl pregnant is too a victim of nature and of poor luck. The unfortunate difference here is that because of how nature works, the girl takes the full consequence, and the boy doesn't.

The fact remains that when faced with this problem, a man can easily run away while a woman can't, by virtue of their sexes. However, when all willing participants are equal in mind, they must also be equal in the consequences they face, or at least as equal as possible, so the man must aid the woman through the events that follow (whether it ends with abortion or with parenthood), whether he willingly chooses or he is forced.

It is a very complex issue, however, and my stance on it is yet incomplete. At what point should one parent be allowed to walk out on the other?

edited 4th Dec '11 10:06:47 AM by annebeeche

I would say that we shouldn't legally stop a person from leaving their former partner with a pregnancy.

We should, however, make them pay child support.

edited 4th Dec '11 10:30:03 AM by USAF713

As someone who got a divorce and saw a massive improvement in his life, I have to say that legally forcing people to stay together simply because there's a child involved disgusts me on many levels. It also won't really help anything, because that kid's going to grow up in one hell of a loveless household.

However...if you play, you pay. If you make a child, you're responsible for it. This means child support if you don't want to be physically present for that child's upbringing. Don't want to have kids? Play safe, or don't play at all.

I was considering adding a word like "usually" to it, but I kind of left it like that.

We know, sweeping generalizations, but males are expected to act that way, women are expected to act the other, and there are incentives both material and social for that. Leveling the playing field will remove some of those incentives. It might take time, but in a couple of generations you'd find males to be as shy and prudish as females, not accounting for individual variations.

Drunk Scriblerian: I agree, actually. My mother and father were very unhappy when they were married, and all three of us were better off when they got divorced and my dad went his own way.

But until a fetus is born or aborted, that's not something a woman can escape from, so I find it unfair that a father has the opportunity to escape the problem.

After the child is born, however, anything can happen as long as it's in everyone's interest, including the child (that is, the child is getting the care and attention it needs with minimal stress)

edited 4th Dec '11 10:43:56 AM by annebeeche

I agree completely, but unfortunately there's not much we can do about that pesky detail. Biology's a bitch like that. This is the main reason why I think women should be the ultimate arbiter of the abortion question (It's their responsibility, so it really ought to be their decision), but that's a big can of worms that's probably better discussed in one of the umpty-million abortion threads.

Male responsibility? Up to the male.

@OP: We already have child support, you know. I'm also fairly certain that, in the US at least, it still applies to teens.

Now, if you're advocating forcing them to stay in a relationship, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

edited 4th Dec '11 11:15:24 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

Forcing them into the military. Not only no but fuck no. Last thing we need is some 16 year old smuck who doesn't want to be there in the military. They are still working on learning the whole being an adult thing.

maybe if there was more explaining about what to do to not get pregnant while doing it instead of the whole "abstinence, accept no substitutes!!!" thing...*stops himself*

Child Support. Yes. You make it, you bought it. Man up.

Forcing the Father to go into the Military? Hell, sounds like a very crazy combination of Draft and forced work. Were ultimately only the kids end who don't have parents who can clean up after them...

"Don't have Sex or you'll get shot at"...maybe a Slogan for some of those hardliner abstinence campaigns?

Also, the Girl does sound somewhat as if the tries to shift her share of the blame (and lets face it...what ever it is...it always requires two people to make a baby) to the boy because "everybody" knows men are always wanting sex no matter what the girl wants. Honestly? The cause of teenage pregnancy are teenage boys? Double Standard ftw.

edited 4th Dec '11 5:28:26 PM by 3of4

Well, when it comes to issues of Child Support, teenage preganancies make for a fairly unique case, because if the boy involved is also a teenager, it's possible that he isn't financially independent - i.e. possibly still being supported by his parents, or with a casual or part-time job - which changes things a bit from the standard imagined child support scenario.

We could solve this problem by having discounts for abortions below the age of 18. However it is simply a falsehood that the male gets away. What about child support?

Both parents should have an equal responsibility for the child, so whatever money the father manages to earn should be sent to the girl (well, leave him enough to actually live). However, the quote in the OP just sounds like a girl trying to push complete responsibility nto the boy, which is wrong.

Ages would make a difference. If one of the two was under the age of consent then the one over has greater responsibility.

Pretty much this. Barring any unfortunate accidents that happen during sexual intercourse (broken condoms and contraceptives in general not working as intended [and no, "not pulling out in time" is not an unfortunate accident]), you've taken the risk and the consequences that come with that risk.

Honestly, any man in general who walks out on a woman is a shitty person.

edited 5th Dec '11 2:39:06 AM by MrDolomite

With amendments, this is the anti-abortion argument, in a nutshell. If the folks who usually pitch this argument didn't also advocate a woman's "right to choose", I could respect their consistency, if nowt else.

edited 5th Dec '11 5:24:41 AM by MRDA1981

edited 5th Dec '11 5:54:30 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

More like, why should a kid who hasn't finished studying provide for their children? Shouldn't the (grand) parents take over that role until the kids are old enough to pay for the child? I've seen people advocating that a parent should help and support their children even against the law, I've seen horrible things justified in the name of feeding one's family, and I don't see why "providing for your children's children so that your children can have an education and a good life" should be an exception.

This is especially the case if the kids are both underage: they're not supposed to be responsible for their own decisions and mistakes yet, their parents are.

Grandparents should not be obligated to care for the child. If their kid's really young they probably will have to, and sometimes they didn't raise the kid right and are therefore partially to blame, but that's not always the case.

My nephew lives with us (me and my parents). We all love him, and my parents would not give him up for the world, but that doesn't change the fact that my sister is a selfish person who got pregnant at seventeen and couldn't be bothered looking after the result, and has therefore robbed them of twenty more years of their lives. They've accepted it, but it should never have been their responsibility.

Oh, and the father didn't do anything to help for a while, but now does pay regular maintenance and sees my nephew once a week. My sister pays less now.

Sorry for the slight rant.

edited 5th Dec '11 6:41:08 AM by ArlaGrey

You mean your sister didn't take over once she got a steady job?

I don't believe she's ever had a job for that long. She doesn't want one. And she doesn't want to look after her child. Sure, she comes to see him, but she doesn't want to have to raise him.

The point was, you can't just say that a teenager's child is automatically the responsibility of the grandparents, that isn't fair.

edited 5th Dec '11 7:11:09 AM by ArlaGrey