Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 12:20

Men need to be responsible for their semen. Opting out of the consequences legally is an excuse not to use contraception.

Women need to be equally responsible. Women can opt out of the consequences legally by having a MAP or an abortion. Not an excuse not to use contraception.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 12:21

Women can opt out of the consequences legally by having a MAP or an abortion. Not an excuse not to use contraception

Do you understand the word “can”?

pikapikachu · 20/06/2019 12:21

I'm interested in this viewpoint too - on Mumsnet, a man who fathers an unwanted child is reckless, but a woman is often seen as the victim of a mistake.

Which boards have you been reading? "Why did you have a baby if you're on a tight budget?""Why did you have a second baby if he doesn't help with the first?" "Why did you have another baby if there's already 2 people in each bedroom and you can't afford to move?" are common replies to dilemmas.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 12:22

Oh the humanity for all these poor chaps forced to ejaculate inside women.

The struggle against oppression is real.

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 12:25

Why? I can fuck about to my heart’s content.

Delightful.

I have choices POST conception regarding the pregnancy.

One more than a man! Awesome! Women 1, men 0!

A man has his choice PRE conception. That’s his only chance for choice.

And if it fails, he’s fucked! No pun intended. Grin You get two chances, he gets one, and one which may fail him.

pikapikachu · 20/06/2019 12:25

Is giving the deadbeat dad that freedom really what people think is best for the child?

Are you saying that once a Dad leaves, there's no chance that he might "grow up" and decide to take some responsibility? I've read on here a few times that a young Dad will abandon child 1, have child 2 10+ years later with woman 2 then finally be able to do a little parenting. While a lot of damage is done when he leaves child 1, hopefully a little is repaired when contact is re-established?

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 12:26

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 12:27

You get two chances, he gets one, and one which may fail him

Indeed. Which - if he has even a modicum of intelligence he is aware of. I mean if he’s stupid enough to think a 97% success rate for condom use means it’s not going to fail, there’s not much hope for him is there?

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 12:28

Oh the humanity for all these poor women forced to open their legs for these men!

I can open my legs all I want, I have the autonomy to deal with any consequences

I often wonder what MRAs actually get out of their drivel? Is it to impress the menz?

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 12:29

See here’s the thing Isabella, I acknowledge that EVERY time I have sex, despite using contraception a pregnancy could occur.

Why isn’t it the same for men?

Are we really saying they should be allowed to ejaculate without consequence?

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 12:30

Indeed. Which - if he has even a modicum of intelligence he is aware of. I mean if he’s stupid enough to think a 97% success rate for condom use means it’s not going to fail, there’s not much hope for him is there?

If a woman has even a modicum of intelligence, she’ll be equally aware and take her own precautions. I mean, if she’s stupid enough to think a 97% success rate for condom use means it’s not going to fail, there’s not much hope for her, is there?

Asmoto · 20/06/2019 12:31

Apart from all the moral arguments, it quite simply wouldn't work.

If the 'opt out' was available after the legal limit for abortion, that would leave women open to being left unsupported if the father changed his mind and 'opted out' after it was too late.

If the opt out was only available before the legal limit for abortion, any woman who wanted to go ahead with the pregnancy, knowing or suspecting that the father would opt out, could just keep quiet about it and hide her pregnancy from the father until the limit had passed.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 12:31

Isabella

Do you need me to use smaller words? You’re really struggling with a very simple concept. Read up on how babies are made, and the options post conception and have a little think.

Education is never a bad thing.

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 12:33

I can open my legs all I want, I have the autonomy to deal with any consequences

Yep, you have all the options! Isn’t it great to be a woman!

I often wonder what MRAs actually get out of their drivel?

I don’t know honey, you’ll have to ask one!

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 12:34

There are other ways for men to get their rocks off that do not carry a risk of knocking a woman up. Anal sex is a possibility, so is oral sex or hand jobs. These things do not carry a risk of pregnancy with or without a condom or vasectomy.

Why does it always have to be PIV? You fucking know what that can result into. It's like driving without a seatbelt. Yeah, you may not crash, but if you do you would really wish you had worn that seatbelt.

You take the risk and that means you have to live with the potential consequences. A child should not have to be punished just because a guy had to stick his dick in a woman's vags. A man who fathered a child is at least financially responsible as is the mother.

LemonGingerCakes · 20/06/2019 12:34

Isabella is a voice of reason on this thread. Thank goodness there are some people of intelligence here.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 12:34

Honestly, I have never read such a pile of shite in all my life.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 12:35

Thank goodness there are some people of intelligence here

Well given you don’t appear to understand what intelligence means....

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 12:35

Do you need me to use smaller words?

No thanks, I’ve read enough of your drivel already, much as I appreciate your kind concern Grin

CJsGoldfish · 20/06/2019 12:35

The woman chose not to prevent or end the pregnancy
And? Why did she have to?

If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t. It’s not hard
Agreed.

Who is 'everyone' in this context?
The taxpayer
Hmm
I would assume she'd be looking to the other person who chose not to prevent the pregnancy.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 12:36

No man ever died from having a wank or being wanked or having a blow job, instead of fucking.

There have been 2 threads on here in the last day or so from women complaining that their partners don't want to have sex - one was married I think but they've only had sex 10 times this year or something. The other has recently started a relationship, been on 10 dates but nothing more than kissing. Both posters upset that the men they are with won't have sex.

Yet you're saying that's what men should do if they don't want children? Have a wank or a blow job? So my DH only wanted 2 children so we shouldn't have had PIV sex more than the number of times it took to conceive 2 children? Do you think women will be happy with that?

LemonGingerCakes · 20/06/2019 12:36

Why does it always have to be PIV?

I don’t know, ask Jacques. She can fuck around all she likes dontchaknow?

Quote of the day:

Women seem to want all of the equality and none of the responsibility.

Lizzie3869 · 20/06/2019 12:36

No I think that the right of born children to be supported by the people who created them is more important that the right of men to ejaculate without consequence.

I totally agree with this. Anyway, men already can opt out of fatherhood and far too many do, as a lot of Mumsnet threads demonstrate.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 12:37

No thanks, I’ve read enough of your drivel already, much as I appreciate your kind concern

Don’t worry. I can see you wear your dimness as a badge of honour.

Going back to the OP, absolutely a man can opt out.

If a pregnancy would be an absolute disaster, he can abstain from PIV. It’s really very simple.

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 12:37

@LemonGingerCakes

Thanks Lemon! Are we the only ones here not enslaved to a man-hating ideology? It appears so! Grin