Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Should men be allowed to "opt out" of parenthood?

999 replies

Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 09:08

My friend has a child who was ultimately the result of a very casual, friends with benefits type situation. The father was immediately sure that he didn't want a baby and told her from the very beginning. He wasn't around and didn't help out for the first couple of years, but has now decided that he wants to have access to the child and start to build a relationship now he is older.

My friend doesn't trust him, doesn't like him, and is deeply hurt over all the things she has had to go through alone because of his previous lack of involvement and support. But she's worried that she is totally unable to prevent him from ever having access, and feels that he has put her in a horrible and stressful situation.

Which led us to think about this.

When a woman falls pregnant from a one night stand or casual-sex type scenario, she can choose whether to keep the baby, or go through an abortion or out the baby up for adoption. Thus ultimately "opting out" of parenthood.

A man in the same situation has no such right to opt out of parenthood. He has to accept the woman's decision and his life will be impacted by the woman's decision.

My friend believes that she was unrealistic during pregnancy. She firmly believed that the dad would "come round", that he'd see the baby and suddenly fall in love and want to be involved. But of course this didn't happen.

So we started to discuss, what if there was the option for a man to "opt out" of parenthood? It would, of course, have to be done very early on - before the baby was 1 month old, for example. Her idea is that this could be done by signing a legal document stating that he has no desire to be a part of the child's life in any way, will not ever be able to seek any type of access, and will not pay money. This move would have to be irreversible in order to be taken seriously. (Perhaps there could be some terms and conditions like the situation can be reversed but only with the mother's permission).

Now, i know a lot of women on Mumsnet like to say that if a man doesn't want a child then he shouldn't have sex or should use contraception. But I believe in total equality between the sexes and feel that this is unfair. Two people choose to have sex, two people choose whether or not to use contraception, but only one person can decide whether or not they will keep a child if an accident does happen.

I know so many people whose lives are made miserable by constantly battling men for money for their child, or by trying to encourage contact between their child and a man who just isn't interested.

Don't get me wrong - I think this is awful. But wouldn't it save the mother and the child both significant stress and heartache if they can live their lives without these battles? Surely knowing where you stand from the very start will stop all the disappointment and the emotional rollercoaster and stress that so many people experience.

And is it fair for a women to force a child (or the responsibilities that come from having a child, like maintainance) onto a man who knows immediately that he doesn't want a child?

My friend says that with hindsight, she just don't see how this current situation benefits anyone. Men can easily belittle women by claiming that they were "tricked" into having a baby. If there was this "opt out" system, they wouldn't be able to argue this!

The mother also wouldn't have to worry about a deadbeat dad who hasn't done anything for her/her child suddenly popping up deciding they now want to be in the child's life.

My friend says that looking back, although it seems harsh, knowing that this "opt out" system existed would his would actually have helped her. She'd have been much more prepared for single parenthood, much more prepared for being financially responsible for the baby by herself. She'd have been able to prepare better and not have the crushing blows and disappointment and feelings of rejection that come from his behaviour. She'd also not have to now worry about granting a man who is (now) a virtual stranger access to her child.

She thinks that if a man doesn't sign this before baby is month old, then he can't sign it at all, and will be fully responsible for the child in terms is maintainance and anything else, which should then be more strictly implemented (harsher punishments for not paying, for example).

(I thought maybe it would be better if the deadline for opting out was before baby's birth, but she says she still believes that some men will see their child at the birth and fall in love and therefore be given the chance to be involved.)

Of course there would have to be some regulations like if a women can prove that a baby was discussed or planned then the man can't opt out, for example.

What do the rest of you think? I'm really curious about this. On the one hand yes, if you don't want a baby then use contraception. But on the other hand, accidents happen and I can't help but agree with my friend that men should be allowed to opt out just as women can.

At first I thought this was a crazy idea but the more I think about it, the more I think it could help. The UK could issue MUCH stricter punishments to men who don't pay (because if they haven't opted out then they have no right at all, and no excuses, like they make now). It would in many ways protect the mother and child too.

Thoughts, anyone?

(Please don't kill me, I'm just curious to hear ideas from all sides, I'm not fully persuaded! Not that what I think really matters - and it won't happen anyway. But would it be better or worse for people if it did?)

OP posts:
Ginlinessisnexttogodliness · 20/06/2019 11:19

I cannot believe that there are people on here thinking out loud about how this opt out thing might work.

I do accept that there are men who have babies brought into the world that they did not want. I do accept that these babies might have been conceived despite the man taking his own responsibility for contraception and it failing. I also suspect that those men are are in a tiny minority.

I do not want the creation of a law that retrospectively impliedly pardons irresponsible and reckless sexual activity in order to enable abandonment of a child you knew you risked creating by not protecting your penis yourself.

The whole women have to do this too, they are taking men’s choices away garbage is really just another way to make life easier for men and harder for women and children. And ultimately society.

CJsGoldfish · 20/06/2019 11:19

No matter how despicably a woman behaves, it’s still a man’s fault
They make the ultimate choice as to whether to have a child

You DO know how baby's are made, right? Confused

Without a man, there is no baby. A woman cannot make the 'ultimate choice' without a man who chooses not to use a condom, as many choose not to btw for purely their own pleasure.

Surely you do understand that yeah? No sperm, no pregnancy.

Yes, a man could keep his penis in his pants, but a woman could keep her legs together. It takes two to make a baby
Or whoever feels strongly about NOT making a baby ensures it doesn't happen. Could be one, could be both. Don't want a baby, use contraception. Easy

aPengTing · 20/06/2019 11:20

Either way they make a choice. Women don’t have to suffer any of this if they don’t wish it

And how do those women in abusive relationships make the choice?
What’s to stop a man walking away despite willing trying for a baby?

SummerSix · 20/06/2019 11:20

Men can sign over their parental rights.

Moralitym1n1 · 20/06/2019 11:20

All those unrecorded and unprosecuted male rapes .. Hmm

LemonGingerCakes · 20/06/2019 11:22

Without a man, there is no baby. A woman cannot make the 'ultimate choice' without a man who chooses not to use a condom, as many choose not to btw for purely their own pleasure.
Surely you do understand that yeah? No sperm, no pregnancy.

Without a woman there is no baby.

A man can wear a condom, a woman can take the pill.

Surely you do understand that yeah? No egg, no pregnancy.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 11:24

With regards to the OP, I have a casual FWB.

We've had a chat about what would happen in the case of an accidential pregnancy. The upshot was he doesn't want a child. The choice to either continue the pregnancy or end it is absolutely 100% mine. He acknowledges absolutely it's only fair that he would pay maintenance because he is responsible.

He also made the point that he learnt that sex can = baby when he was a child...

LemonGingerCakes · 20/06/2019 11:24

And how do those women in abusive relationships make the choice?

That have a termination or take the MAP without the man even knowing they’re pregnant.

Frequency · 20/06/2019 11:24

Forced into abiding by the decisions someone else has made for him. No choice here

Condoms and abstinence are choices. Men have choices. They have the choice to use a condom. They have the choice to abstain until they are prepared to finance a child. They have the choice to never lay eyes on the child in their entire lives. They have the choice to parent every other weekend. They have the choice to take action to avoid or minimise the amount of CMS they pay.

What the don't have (allegedly) and should never have is the choice to push the child they created by not using condom into poverty. They don't have the choice to force the tax payer to pay for the result of them willingly ejaculating into a woman.

Where has this absurd idea men don't have choices come from?

CMS is to benefit the child. It is not to punish the father.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 11:25

Well said, Frequency.

LemonGingerCakes · 20/06/2019 11:26

No contraception is 100% effective. Men AND women need a choice if it fails.

Shazzanat · 20/06/2019 11:27

No don't be a twat. As for the "give it up" for adoption option, you clearly don't know much about modern adoption. HTH hun 🤣

LemonGingerCakes · 20/06/2019 11:28

What the don't have (allegedly) and should never have is the choice to push the child they created by not using condom into poverty. They don't have the choice to force the tax payer to pay for the result of them willingly ejaculating into a woman.

Than maybe the woman should have made the right choice and terminated so that all these things dicome to pass.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 11:30

Than maybe the woman should have made the right choice and terminated

Child maintenance is for the child, not the woman.

Even if you think a termination is something a woman owes a man (ugh), it’s not something that the future child gets a choice about if it’s born. The father should not have the right to push the child into poverty or insist that everyone but him pays to support it.

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 11:31

You DO know how baby's are made, right?

No, but I know how babies are made.

Without a man, there is no baby. A woman cannot make the 'ultimate choice' without a man who chooses not to use a condom, as many choose not to btw for purely their own pleasure

Without a woman, there is no baby. A woman can make the ‘ultimate choice’ regardless of whether a man uses contraception.

Surely you do understand that yeah? No egg, contraception in place, no physical conditions conducive to pregnancy, no pregnancy.

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness · 20/06/2019 11:33

@LemonGingerCakes no as you say no method of contraception is failsafe.

Just out of curiosity to anyone who thinks opting out is a theory worth exploring........if these men are legally allowed to walk away from any commitment to a child do you also think it would be fairer on all concerned to force the woman into an abortion? Should that be part of their sordid little application?
After all I’m assuming you don’t think thst society should foot the fathers end of the bill.
What if the mother is poor, doesn’t own a house and car, has no family or support.

LemonGingerCakes · 20/06/2019 11:33

Child maintenance is for the child, not the woman.

Are you under the impression that women do not abuse this? Then you are very naive. What it’s supposed to be for and what happens is often very different in reality.

aPengTing · 20/06/2019 11:33

They have a termination or take the MAP without the man even knowing they’re pregnant

Because a woman in that situation will easily be able to access an abortion or MAP.
And what if she decides she wants to keep the baby? Should the abusive man who purposely impregnated her be able to relinquish financial responsibility?

LemonGingerCakes · 20/06/2019 11:34

*some women

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 11:35

What the don't have (allegedly) and should never have is the choice to push the child they created by not using condom into poverty. They don't have the choice to force the tax payer to pay for the result of them willingly ejaculating into a woman

So men shouldn’t do it, but it’s ok when women do? Women make the choice to go ahead with pregnancy, knowing that the man doesn’t want to be involved and won’t be contributing, and hits the taxpayer up with the bill. Sounds fair.

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness · 20/06/2019 11:35

While we are at it, I suppose we could start lobbying for parliament to consider revoking our sovereignty over our own female bodies and wombs in particular.

With the current rabble we have in and our likely new “Leader” I don’t think it would be written off , especially if it made men’s lives easier and the cost burden lighter.

LemonGingerCakes · 20/06/2019 11:37

Because a woman in that situation will easily be able to access an abortion or MAP.

Yes. It’s very easy to access.

If she wants to keep a baby, when she is already in an abusive relationship, then that’s her choice.

As was just said finance is not to punish the man, so she has the option to keep or abort. He has the option to remain or walk away. Maybe him walking away and cutting all ties would be for the best in that scenario Hmm

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 11:37

While we are at it, I suppose we could start lobbying for parliament to consider revoking our sovereignty over our own female bodies and wombs in particular

You want all the rights to your body and none of the responsibilities, I take it?

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 11:37

Are you under the impression that women do not abuse this? Then you are very naive.

Yeah, all those women, living the CMS high life of Lamborghinis and oysters while their children eat worms in the shed. Happens all the time. Probably best we just abolish child maintenance altogether, don’t you think?

LemonGingerCakes · 20/06/2019 11:37

While we are at it, I suppose we could start lobbying for parliament to consider revoking our sovereignty over our own female bodies and wombs in particular.

Oh get over yourself.

Swipe left for the next trending thread