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:
JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 13:54

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!

Absolutely - which makes it all the more untenable that there are those who don't.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 13:57

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.

Why are you assuming that only single men don't want a pregnancy to occur? Married men or those in ltr might not want a child now. So, is abstinence within marriage a valid option for a man? Even if his wife doesn't agree?

And why don't women who don't want a pregnancy remain single? How many threads on here from women pregnant but who don't want to be? This argument cuts both ways. If men should be single and abstinent to avoid pregnancy then so should women.

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 13:59

It’s not blame to say that they have no right to wash their hands of the consequences of their own decisions

I'll ask again, does this extend to denying the right to abortion ? If not, why not ?

Logically it seems that one group has a privilege - to be able to make a decision to follow through a pregnancy - which the other does not. Yet the other is still bound to assume responsibilities (at a minimum financial, also emotional etc...) from a decision they do not make.

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 13:59

Absolutely - which makes it all the more untenable that there are those who don't

And a woman can make that choice. She can decide the father of that child. She can chose a man who’ll shoulder his responsibilities, or try to force them on a man who doesn’t want them. The decision is hers.

PinkCrayon · 20/06/2019 14:00

But they already can and do...
My ex pays 0 for the kids we had together hasnt seen them both since one was a toddler and the other a baby.
He opted out.
Personally I think I myself as their full time carer should be able to take away his parental responsibility as he has done NOTHING for his kids. Him being able to opt out is a smack in the face.
US being able to opt out of him having PR sounds fair. Smile

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 14:01

If men should be single and abstinent to avoid pregnancy then so should women

It’s the only failsafe way.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:02

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..

But both you and your partner sound very switched on and have sensibly discussed the possible outcomes. That doesn't happen in a lot of cases does it? I'm always amazed on here by the number of "we had unprotected sex and now I'm pregnant. What can I do, I don't want a baby" type posts.

Why can a man not abstain from PIV?

Of course he should be able to. How acceptable would that be in say marriage? How many wives would accept her husband refusing to have PUV sex unless they were actively TTC? Not many I would say.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:04

Why are you assuming that only single men don't want a pregnancy to occur? Married men or those in ltr might not want a child now. So, is abstinence within marriage a valid option for a man? Even if his wife doesn't agree?

I am not. You can leave a relationship any time you want, if the risk of pregnancy is unacceptable to you. I am in the same boat every time I have sex with my husband. I take the risk that a pregnancy might occur. I can decide I don’t want to take that risk, or I can decide I do want to take that risk. If I don’t, I can say no to sex. If my husband wants to leave me for that, he can.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:04

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.

I agree with this.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:05

BrainFart

Yes, women have the “privilege” of being able to access abortion. That is because they are pregnant. The men aren’t. It isn’t the same because it isn’t the same.

MirriVan · 20/06/2019 14:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 14:06

The decision is hers

Genuinely is she a mind-reader?

If men should be single and abstinent to avoid pregnancy then so should women

The woman can have an abortion. Whilst that doesn’t avoid pregnancy, it avoids the child which is realistically what this is about.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 14:07

It takes a very special attitude to look at the proportion of single-parent families headed by a woman (90%), the increased rate of poverty in those families (twice that of two-parent families) and the level of unpaid child support (£3.8bn) and think “you know who’s getting a a hard time here? Men. Poor men, how can we make it better for them?”

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 14:08

They do make that decision though! Just at an earlier point!

Once chance, and one chance only. If the contraception fails, tough shit. Women have two bites at the apple. If contraception fails, they have one choice remaining.

Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 14:08

Hi Starlight! Just read your comment:

"I think also op you miss how many children are growing up in poverty and yes this does have a impact on the whole growth sometimes , physical and emotional . Yes men should pay for that."

And I would suggest that CJsGoldfish's reply (at the top of this thread) is an interesting counter to this.

If a man makes it clear from the absolute beginning (before 12 weeks, say) that he does NOT want this child and will NOT be there to parent it, is the woman making the the right decision to go ahead with the pregnancy if she knows she can't raise the child by herself? Or should this be one of the things she considers when weighing up her options?

If a women chooses to proceed with a pregnancy then surely this is something she needs to consider?

I'm not saying she is wrong or right for whatever decision she comes to, but it's an interesting point which is definitely relevant.

OP posts:
MirriVan · 20/06/2019 14:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:10

I am not. You can leave a relationship any time you want, if the risk of pregnancy is unacceptable to you. I am in the same boat every time I have sex with my husband. I take the risk that a pregnancy might occur. I can decide I don’t want to take that risk, or I can decide I do want to take that risk. If I don’t, I can say no to sex. If my husband wants to leave me for that, he can.

But don't you think that is impossible within marriage? So any man who doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, within marriage, needs to divorce basically unless his wife agrees to abstinence?

It's fine for you as a woman (I'm presuming) to say that you accept this risk when having sex, because, as we are discussing, all of the choices are yours to make. Firstly, we have many options of birth control. If that fails, we can take the MAP. If we choose not or didn't know we needed to we can then choose to continue the pregnancy or not.

Men have none of those choices. As people keep pointing out, they can choose to have sex or choose to use a condom - that's it. If they don't want to risk pregnancy all they can do is refuse to have sex. Can they do that and remain married? I doubt it so it isn't really an option is it?

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 14:10

Once chance, and one chance only. If the contraception fails, tough shit. Women have two bites at the apple. If contraception fails, they have one choice remaining

But men KNOW this.

If a child is absolutely not a possible outcome, they HAVE to make the only fail safe choice. If they choose to have sex regardless, then they're acknowledging a pregnancy can occur.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 14:11

I doubt it so it isn't really an option is it?

Of course it is an option. They might not choose to take it, but the option is absolutely there and we can't pretend otherwise.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:11

53rdWay

How many women choose to have a child when not in a position to be able to afford it?

Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 14:12

If this is all about what's best for the child then shouldn't analysing your situation be your number one priority before deciding to proceed with the pregnancy? To make sure you can provide what is best for the child? And if the child will not be able to have a nice or happy life because of the mother's inability to provide for it and the father's unwillingness to either provide OR be involved, then is deciding to go ahead with the pregnancy and battle the man and bring up a child with all that stress and risk and potentially in poverty really what is best for the child, or is it a woman in a difficult decision choosing what is best for her rather than the child?

If a child needs two parents to love and support it (as some are saying) and it's clear from the very beginning that it will NOT have this, then is the women thinking of the child's best interests in proceeding with the pregnancy?

OP posts:
Jemimapuddleduckpancake · 20/06/2019 14:13

I don't know about this. Just thinking out loud.

OP posts:
herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:13

If they don't want to risk pregnancy all they can do is refuse to have sex. Can they do that and remain married? I doubt it so it isn't really an option is it?

That’s between them and their wife. Stop trying to pretend they are being coerced. They are making decisions.

QuizzlyBear · 20/06/2019 14:13

If both parents agree, one can already sign away their parental rights (including responsibilities) unless I'm mistaken?

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 14:14

It takes a very special attitude to look at the proportion of single-parent families headed by a woman (90%), the increased rate of poverty in those families (twice that of two-parent families) and the level of unpaid child support (£3.8bn) and think “you know who’s getting a a hard time here? Men. Poor men, how can we make it better for them?”

It’s not about making it better for men.

Both parties, men and women, must take equal responsibility for contraception.

But women have the ultimate choice in whether they bring a child into the world. Perhaps if they were more selective with prospective partners, took proper precautions against pregnancy and got married before having children, they would lesson their chances of ending up as single parents. Which would be better for everyone.