Girls can choose to abort; in at least some states they can give birth and then choose to leave the baby at a hospital, etc., and just walk away from the responsibility.

Boys on the other hand cannot escape the responsibility (if the girl chooses to harness them with it) in ANY way. And, in the case of abortion or "hospital dropoff," would be powerless to stop that action--i.e., the have no choice in either keeping or abandoning responsibility.

Can any of you family-law attorneys out there tell us what happens when a 14 year old boy impregnates a girl and she gives birth?

• Are his parents financially responsible until he turns 18? (No one can deny that a babies' expenses MUST be met by SOMEONE).
• Does he then become personally financially responsible at 18--for the next 14 years?

Exactly why is it fair that girls have the broadest possible spectrum of choice, while boys have ZERO choice? (And please, let's assume the sexual act itself was a mutual choice--therefore, no comments about him "choosing" to unzip).

I really believe that boys and men should be able to opt out of any financially responsiblity as long as they sign a contract giving up all parental rights.

This way the girl \ women has a clear understanding of what the future will look like. The women should still be the ONLY ONE that decides if the baby is born or not.

This is better than the current system where girls BELIEVE the boy will be there for her (he has to right,, WRONG) and after the baby is born she finds out that the boy isn't willing to support the child (emotionally or financially). What good does it do to garish the wages of someone making $10 an hour or when the guy moves from state to state!

Instead the girl\women would know she is on her own and thus she can make a more informed choice.

I don't know about teenage boys, but full-grown ones escape the responsibility of caring for their children all the time. They simply leave one day and don't come back.

I agree with jazzguitarman's solution though.

Ah, but you are confusing what right the right to choose is based on. The right to choose isn't about the right to choose whether you want to be a parent or not. The right to choose is about a person being able to make medical decisions for herself. Essentially a woman gets to decide whether she wants to be pregnant or not.

Unfortunately this is a case where biology insures that we can not have equal rights.

Yes, men don't fullfill there duties all the time but often they do NOT want those duties so on wonder they don't fullfill them.

Note that my solution would likely result in more abortions initially, but I would hope over time women would get wise and demand the guy where a condom since they know that if they get pregrant they cannot force the guy to pony up.

StevieN:

(And please, let's assume the sexual act itself was a mutual choice--therefore, no comments about him "choosing" to unzip).

But that really is the thing. It isn't just the unzipping. Was birth control used? Was a condom used? Did it fail? Was spermicide used? Did IT fail too? Why has science not developed a better form of male contraception in order to better protect boys from this possibility? If condoms "don't feel good" what is a boy to do?

Sorry but your point is total BS; the women is already pregnant so she is NOT deciding if she wants to BE pregnant or not. She is deciding to have a baby or NOT.

And with any right comes responsibilty. So the women gets to decide if she should have a baby. This is here right based on biology.

BUT she should NOT have the right to force the man to support HER decision to have a baby by being forced by the state to provide financial support.

AND yes, there is a way to ensure equal rights. Have a system where based on the flip of a coin either the man gets to decide or the women if the baby is carried to term or not.

HEY, that plan is BOGUS, but so is the current system where the man has NO rights.

NONE of what you listed is the SOLE responsibility of the man or the women. As StevieN pointed out getting pregrant is a mutual choice unless someone lied (e.g. said they were on BR but where not, put holes into the condom).

Either way if the women gets the right to decide (she should) than the man should have the right to opt out and NOT have to support her choice. Again, why is that not fair?

jazzguitarman:

but I would hope over time women would get wise and demand the guy where a condom since they know that if they get pregrant they cannot force the guy to pony up.

Conversly, it's hoped that men would get wise and decide to wear a condom since they know that if they get her pregnant he will be forced to pony up.

Wait that's already the way it is pretty much..... are you saying that it's womens' fault if men are irresponsible when it comes to birth control?

I never said it wasn't fair...

right now a male's options are condoms (what a drag) or a vasectomy (yikes! and not always reversible). Not a lot of choice. And yet men are saddled with the result of a pregnancy. Why are there no other options, so that a teenage boy could go in for his birth control shot every 3 months, and then not have to worry about pregnancy...

I'm just saying that the issue of boys getting a choice has more to do with the issue of pregnancy.... it also has to do with them having more choices when it comes to birth control.

Yes condoms fail, or are sabotaged, that was my point, a boy should be able to have a back up - some other form of birth control, sperm production control, so that if his girl decides to poke a hole in the condom, he will not find himself trapped.

But you know that men cannot be forced to pony up since one cannot get money out of deadbeats!

It is clear you wish to have a gender battle here! When a women gets pregrant BOTH parties are at fault. BOTH.

BUT only the women gets to decide if the baby is born or not. THAT is clearly unfair. So in exchange for the women getting the right to decide if the baby is born or not the man gets the right to opt out of any parental duties.

This way the women makes her decision based on true character of the man.

Court orders do NOT make a man send that check each week and be a good father. Thus the system is folly. If the man could opt out the women would know what she is dealing with and thus make a more informed choice.

The key issue StevieN was addressing here was the FORCED financially responsiblity placed on a man without any options to avoid that responsibility AFTER the women gets pregrant.

The women has options to avoid 18 years of financally responsibility; get an abortion.

The many does NOT have any options. So in the interest of fairness the man should be able to opt out any parental responsibility.

Do you support that or not and if not, why.

So you are suggesting that it is wrong for courts to assign tortious financial responsibility for the CIVIL consequences?

If I run over you with a car and a court decides I contributed to the accident and I owe you money that I should just be able to walk away?

Now lets change that example so it is more like pregnancy;

Yes, we are both responsible for the accident and each of us have some financial responsibilty.

But since I owned the car I decide to buy a new one that cost 400K with an 18 year payment plan! You have NO say it this choice of mine.

Should you be stuck with half of that bill OR should you be asked to pay a more reasonable amount (like $400, the cost of an abortion).

Not quite. Its more like

Your accident triggered a latent case of Temporal Mandibular Joint Disorder. This is a progressive deterioration of the jaw joint and requires intermittent and progressively more expensive treatments throughout one's life.

Now the TMJ was latent, so you don't owe 100% liability, but it was not acute either and you triggered it. So you owe either

• periodic medical payments as determined by the court
• OR
• a lump sum that actuarializes into the equivilent of the sum of the periodic payments.

This happens all the time. I sat in the jury on a case like this. Neither the vicitm nor the driver were happy with the settlement we gave them - so we figured we did a good job.