On one end, no one forced the man to do the deed, it was a choice and a consequence you pay for or deal with if a kid comes from it.
There's no easy solution to this issue and as a result of that I try not to be too harsh toward any given viewpoint, but that argument always creeps me out just a tad because it's the very same one used to justify banning abortion. :(
EDIT: I'm not aiming that at you, of course, I know you're just throwing out ideas. Unfortunately I've seen more than one (really bad) feminist blogger rant about how anyone who takes the "You took the risk, you need to take the responsibility" argument against abortion is a filthy misogynist and then be shocked! Shocked I say! when they later insist that any man who gets stuck paying child support/marrying a woman because of a kid he was manipulated into having (the woman lied about use of contraception, for example) should "deal with the consequences of putting your dick where it didn't belong" and gets responses that involve quoting the previous post and calling the blogger a filthy misandrist.
I posted it here because I definitely want more of the guys-side (but I'm happy being a girl asking it, insofar I don't want this to go all "BROS BEFORE HOS" and *immediately* fight for their own side). And also, while I threw some thoughts out there, I really didn't have "my answer" to the issue.
And I agree, if the woman is willing, it's more than "he put his dick in and he's responsible" because it takes two to tango.
But I just wonder if there should be a contingency to the issue in the event that one or the other doesn't want the child (talking more about the man in this situation) where he shouldn't HAVE to be responsible.
Even still, I find it's a really bad idea for most young couples to have a kid (be it teens or peoples who just aren't making enough money in their careers to support a kid; income-wise, you will increase your chances of poverty).
Like I said, I've seen people use the argument in a very hypocritical (and nasty) manner which makes me find it off-putting, but I didn't think you were delivering The Answer or necessarily advocating for that viewpoint. :) Of course, it is an argument that must be considered.
In any case, I agree that it's a really bad idea for young couples to have a kid (even if they're planning on a long term relationship) before they can afford it, and there are a number of issues that factor into that problem, some cultural and thus rather difficult to discuss without things getting ugly, but I think that one issue that people should* be able to reach agreement on would be easy access to reliable
contraception for people, including teenagers; I'm often skeptical of government subsidization of various things but helping out with contraception pays off well both in terms of reducing government expenditure (less people on welfare) and in raising standards of living.
*I say "should" because, as you have probably been informed, there is a cultural divide between the US and Canada on this matter. Witness the battle we had over people under 17 being able to get access to the Plan B pill as an example. I recall seeing one woman from a "pro-parent" group on the news arguing that it should only be available with a prescription because allowing it to be sold over the counter "destroys the ability of parents to control their children's lives." (Actually used that phrase.) Lady, if you seriously have to worry about your thirteen year old daughter sneaking off to buy a plan B pill you've already
lost control of her.