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:
BrainFart · 20/06/2019 13:33

I keep reading that men should accept pregnancy as a possible outcome of sex. Some posters even go far enough to suggest that both participants should accept pregnancy as an outcome of sex Wink

Does the posters who steadfastly hold these views also believe that women do not have a right to an abortion (except in cases of rape or incest) due the acceptance recognised in the first paragraph ? If not, why not ? It seems to be incoherent to my mind.

Beechview · 20/06/2019 13:34

Throughout the animal kingdom, fathers play a crucial role nurturing and providing for their offspring.
It takes both the mother and father to care for the young.
Why are we allowing human fathers to shirk these responsibilities?

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 13:34

I don't see how only men are to blame.

Who is suggesting that only men are to blame? How many men do you see pushing buggies round in the pissing rain with holes in their shoes? How many men do you see going alone to a food bank because their ex has refused to pay maintenance? How many men do you see working school hours and then trotting up and down to the school every day without support?

Women bear the entirety of the risk of pregnancy and birth. They largely bear the brunt of single parenthood.

Who is blaming men, when women are the ones suffering the consequences?

Beechview · 20/06/2019 13:35

I’m not on expert on animals obviously and I do know that many animals aren’t nurtured by both parents. I was looking at mammals.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 13:35

But the increased risk of other cancers.

This is true but statistically it's still a very low risk.

Plus the pill protects against ovarian and uterine cancer. When my Dr explained the risks to me she said that if you had to choose you would choose breast cancer over ovarian cancer - basically saying that a small increase in risk of breast cancer is worth it to be protected against ovarian cancer.

Regardless of cancer risk, the OCP is still less risky than being pregnant do for women the benefits outweigh the risks, physically.

What are the benefits to men, physically, of an ocp or injection? This is where the risks outweigh any benefits (if there are any) so ethically that is very hard to justify.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 13:37

So, why are posters so aggressive towards men when it comes to unwanted pregnancies?

I'm not aggressive but seriously what are the options? You cannot have sex and NOT run the risk of a pregnancy. If that is beyond something you could feasibly cope with then there has to be some serious thinking about what you do.

I really think that men and women should take sex and its consequences more seriously and consider what will happen if pregnancy occurs. I don't see how only men are to blame

Absolutely. But yet again it boils down to timing of choice doesn't it?

I can't alter biology!

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 13:39

What are the benefits to men, physically, of an ocp or injection? This is where the risks outweigh any benefits (if there are any) so ethically that is very hard to justify

Well surely the main benefit would be even further control over their own fertility...?

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 13:42

herculepoirot2

A lot of posters are blaming men for unwanted pregnancies occuring.

The fact is that it is the actions of 2 people that allow a pregnancy to occur. So 2 people are responsible and should be held responsible.

Of course, if men have sex they, along with the mother, should be held responsible for raising and supporting financially the child.

But it should also be recognised that men don't have many options to prevent pregnancy so if the option they choose is abstinence then their partner should understand that. Abstinence should be a valid choice but it isn't. There are threads on here from women complaining about partners not having sex and loads of posters tell them to leave and find someone who wants sex. So, is abstinence acceptable within a relationship? I don't think it is. How then is it a man's fault if their partner gets pregnant?

ReganSomerset · 20/06/2019 13:44

if women want to continue a pregnancy over the objections of the man, they can pay for it

So, you would like to be able to force women to go through an abortion on the man's say-so? Because she's being unreasonable by not wanting to undergo an abortion and kill her offspring, so the man shouldn't shoulder any responsibility, despite them both being equally responsible for creating the offspring in the first place?

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 13:44

Well surely the main benefit would be even further control over their own fertility...?

But that's an emotional benefit, not a physical benefit and not really relevant when a drug company is evaluating safety of a drug. I doubt they can release a drug with a high number of side effects, some serious or life-threatening, and the only benefit is that the individual can control their fertility.

AngelsSins · 20/06/2019 13:46

I’m so sick of women worrying about men’s rights in this respect. Yes, biology may not be fair, women have the advantage when it comes to pregnancy, in some ways, but men have biological advantages too. They tend to be stronger than women, and can use that strength to rape and murder women. No one suggests that we should drug men to make them weaker so that things are more “fair”. Yet when women have the advantage in that they have the ultimate choice to end or continue a pregnancy, some women tie themselves in knots over it not being fair to men!

Well it’s too fucking bad! Men know how babies are made, they have options to refrain from making them, but if they create a child, then they should have to provide for that child. But for those worrying about the poor hard done by men, don’t, because it’s perfectly legal here for men to walk away and never spend a single second with their child, and many get away with never spending a single pound on them either, hence the 4 billion owed in unpaid child support.

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 13:46

How many men do you see pushing buggies round in the pissing rain with holes in their shoes? How many men do you see going alone to a food bank because their ex has refused to pay maintenance? How many men do you see working school hours and then trotting up and down to the school every day without support?

Some of us have seen that very thing! Do you know, some people have fathers who made the choice to bring a child into the world and take their responsibilities seriously. Imagine that!

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 13:46

So, is abstinence acceptable within a relationship? I don't think it is

But it is only abstinence from PIV.

Genuinely Decomposing - if a man absolutely 100% does not want a pregnancy to occur, what do you see as his fail safe options?

SpotlessMind · 20/06/2019 13:46

There is parity post birth though isn’t there? I mean the woman gets to decide whether the pregnancy proceeds because it’s in her body, that much is plain biology. But all is fair once the baby arrives - I’m a woman and could opt out of active parenthood tomorrow if I wished - I couldn’t give my child up for adoption and sever the legal link though, because my child’s father would not allow it. In that case he would become the primary care giver and I would be compelled to provide maintenance, and I could rock back up anytime I wanted and say I’d changed my mind - this is no different to your friend’s situation.

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 13:48

Men don't have many options, because they have always shifted that responsiblity onto women, even when women were not legally allowed to say no to sex.

Men have never made their choices in contraception a priority, so now they have very few. Duh.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 13:49

You cannot have sex and NOT run the risk of a pregnancy. If that is beyond something you could feasibly cope with then there has to be some serious thinking about what you do.

Exactly. So either abstinence has to become a valid and acceptable choice within relationships or sex, and the consequences, need to be balanced between the parties.

You can't allow men to insist on an abortion, nor prevent it, so I guess the only other option is that you do allow them to walk away.

Both parties really should consider whether they could raise and support a child before having sex.

Bluestitch · 20/06/2019 13:49

If women want to continue a pregnancy over the objections of the man, they can pay for it.

What about the right of the child once born Isabella? You seem to be wanting to give men more rights than them, why?

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 13:50

So, you would like to be able to force women to go through an abortion on the man's say-so?

I didn’t say that, did I?

Because she's being unreasonable by not wanting to undergo an abortion and kill her offspring

I didn’t say that either.

So the man shouldn't shoulder any responsibility, despite them both being equally responsible for creating the offspring in the first place?

It depends upon the circumstances.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 13:51

DecomposingComposers

Nobody is forcing any man to be in a sexual relationship. If sex is an expectation and they don’t want to risk pregnancy, they should stay single. Otherwise, they risk pregnancy. It’s not blame to say that they have no right to wash their hands of the consequences of their own decisions. It is just common sense.

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 13:52

Bullshit. Skip PIV and you can have sex without risk of pregnancy. What you can't have is sex without the risk of an STI.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 13:52

But it is only abstinence from PIV.

But that isn't the man's choice is it? He doesn't have control over that.

Genuinely Decomposing - if a man absolutely 100% does not want a pregnancy to occur, what do you see as his fail safe options?

Abstinence. The same as a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to occur. But that would not be acceptable within a relationship so honestly, what choices do men have?

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 13:52

Some of us have seen that very thing! Do you know, some people have fathers who made the choice to bring a child into the world and take their responsibilities seriously. Imagine that!

I said how many, though.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 13:53

So either abstinence has to become a valid and acceptable choice within relationships or sex, and the consequences, need to be balanced between the parties

Absolutely agreed

You can't allow men to insist on an abortion, nor prevent it, so I guess the only other option is that you do allow them to walk away

But if the man has agreed to have sex, he must accept the consequnces. That is the whole point.

I know what having sex might result in. I make partner aware of that - he has the option to say "actually, too much risk" or has sex. If he chooses the latter and then is surprised by a pregnancy.....

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 13:53

Why can a man not abstain from PIV? It takes two to consent to that and if he says no then it had better not happen or it's assault.

CJsGoldfish · 20/06/2019 13:54

I honestly feel that a lot of those people who are playing the "think of the children!" card are actually thinking of the woman. A child deserves stability, routine, familiarity, comfort, security. They would be more likely to have this with ONE loving parent than with one loving parent and a deadbeat who pops up when he feels he can be arsed and then buggers off again, breaking the child's heart, when he feels like it.
TBH, I have zero sympathy for a woman who CHOOSES this situation for their child. She needs to think of this BEFORE actually having a child
Whilst I believe that a man who does not want to have a baby needs to be responsible enough to ensure he doesn't create one, I also believe that a woman who isn't as opposed is responsible for choosing wisely who the father of her baby/babies is going to be. 5 mins generally isn't enough time. It's a bit late to be 'thinking of the child' in this case.

Swipe left for the next trending thread