Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:14

or is it a woman in a difficult decision choosing what is best for her rather than the child?

Isn’t that what a man is doing when he decides to have sex?

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 14:15

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

Do you feel that women are morally obliged to get terminations?

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 14:17

Wow, WTAF?

It was not too long ago that women could not legally say no to sex with their husbands when their husbands wanted it. Was that ever acceptable? I should say that it damn well was never acceptable.

It takes two to consent. Sex happening with one party not consenting is never acceptable. How can you even argue such a thing, decomp?

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 14:17

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

And sometimes you can do all those and life gets in the way?

Surely men should be taking "proper precautions" too?

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:17

JacquesHammer

So a married couple. Have a child. Wife wants another child now, husband doesn't. Husband refuses to have sex as only way he has to prevent pregnancy. Wife refuses to accept this. So, do you think that realistically, he can leave the marriage, with all of the financial and emotional penalties that incurs? It's ok to leave his child without a dad? It's ok that he has to pay maintenance, plus pay the mortgage plus try and support himself? That isn't a choice is it? That's like saying women should just leave an unhappy marriage - it's not that easy and if they have no home , no money etc then it isn't really a choice.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 14:18

It’s not about making it better for men.

Yes, actually, trying to change the system to absolve men of paying child support is in fact about making it better for men.

Once a child is born it needs to be financially supported. It does not matter whether you or I disapprove of its mother’s sex life - the child still needs support. And that right to support outweighs its father’s right to consequence-free ejaculation.

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 14:18

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.

Right, but that's not really answering the question. One group of people is expected, with no recourse, to accept the responsibility of the child resulting from an unintended pregnancy. The other group is able to accept or reject this responsibility and engage the responsibility of the first group through their actions.

If you accept that women have the right to abortions, but men do not have the right to "opt out" of any and all parental responsibility (financial, emotional etc...), then you appear, to me at least, to accept that equality of rights is acceptable in some cases. Which is absolutely fine, but then the various activists (and I'm not saying this is anyone on this thread) who campaign at length (and often ridiculously) should not be surprised and a little less bitter and hateful when others disagree and prevent whatever it is they believe they are entitled to.

FWIW, I am entirely pro-abortion and against the idea of a legally enforceable opt-out. Purely interested in the argument.

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 14:19

Futhermore, many posters say "Both are responsible" and I completely agree with this, so what are we arguing about?

If both parties are responsible surely a man should never have the option to walk away altogether. He should at least pay for the maintainance of the child or go to prison for neglect of parental duties.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 14:20

So, do you think that realistically, he can leave the marriage, with all of the financial and emotional penalties that incurs? It's ok to leave his child without a dad? It's ok that he has to pay maintenance, plus pay the mortgage plus try and support himself? That isn't a choice is it? That's like saying women should just leave an unhappy marriage - it's not that easy and if they have no home , no money etc then it isn't really a choice

Of course it is a choice - he might not like it, but he has that option.

Just a point though, a marriage splitting isn't necessarily "leaving a child without a dad".

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:20

BrainFart

I think I did answer the question. Women and men don’t have equal rights when it comes to pregnancy. I gave you the reason as well. What didn’t I answer?

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:20

Do you feel that women are morally obliged to get terminations?

No. I think they are morally obliged to think about pregnancy before they have sex though. Just as men should.

It takes two to consent. Sex happening with one party not consenting is never acceptable. How can you even argue such a thing, decomp?

Sorry, you've lost me. Where have I said that only 1 party needs to consent?

MirriVan · 20/06/2019 14:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 14:23

One group of people is expected, with no recourse, to accept the responsibility of the child resulting from an unintended pregnancy.

What I should have said was...

"One group of people has to accept a mininum legally-enforced responsibility (putting to one side the argument of the cost of CMS to the absent father and prosecution rates for non-payment of child maintenance) regarding the child resulting from an unintended pregnancy"

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 14:23

The fact that women have a second chance to end a pregnancy does not negate the fact that men have their own responsibility to prevent it if they don't want it

Good post.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 14:24

I think they are morally obliged to think about pregnancy before they have sex though. Just as men should.

well, so do I, so do most people, glad we’re all agreed.

Once a child exists, however, it needs to be supported. It does not have less of a right to that support because its parents didn’t think things through.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:26

Of course it is a choice - he might not like it, but he has that option.

But it isn't a viable choice is it? The expectation, certainly within marriage, is that the couple will have sex. That expectation comes with the risk of pregnancy that the man only has one chance of reducing the risk for. His only option to avoid it completely is to not have sex. That is likely to end the marriage and especially if there are children involved, likely to incur large financial normalities to the man. So how is it a choice? It isn't really.

Just a point though, a marriage splitting isn't necessarily "leaving a child without a dad".

Not without a dad but with reduced contact with the dad.

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 14:26

Decomp, I was responsinding to this post:

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.

That implies that a man does not have a choice, because the wife would not accept it.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:27

The fact that women have a second chance to end a pregnancy does not negate the fact that men have their own responsibility to prevent it if they don't want it.

How do men prevent it? Surely they can only reduce the risk unless they have a vasectomy?

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:28

That implies that a man does not have a choice, because the wife would not accept it.

And I think that's true.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:30

And I think that's true.

It isn’t. It’s never been the case that a wife was able to rape her husband. It was the case for a long time that the husband could rape the wife. Not anymore. Sex within a marriage is a choice. HTH.

MirriVan · 20/06/2019 14:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 14:32

@herculepoirot2

Perhaps I needed the blunter approach of your follow-up.

However, perhaps you or somebody else could try to justify why women get two chances to avoid the consequences of an unintended pregnancy, when men only get one, and why men shouldn't be allowed a second chance to opt out which is legally roughly analagous to an abortion (renouncing all interest in the cells / foetus / child before a certain cut-off point in the pregnancy) ? This is of course assuming that is your position (I haven't read the whole thread).

Are people on this thread generally happy with unequal rights (real or perceived) between the sexes in other areas such as employment law ?

Again, I disagree with the premise that such an opt out should exist, I just want to understand if people are being selective about equal rights or if they accept that rights can be different depending on the circumstances.

MirriVan · 20/06/2019 14:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 14:34

So how is it a choice? It isn't really

You seem to be implying there should be all these easy options? It absolutely IS a choice - it might take some work, it might not be the right one upon examining. However to pretend that it isn't an option is futile.

Not without a dad but with reduced contact with the dad

Possibly. Or possibly better contact. It's possible.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:36

However, perhaps you or somebody else could try to justify why women get two chances to avoid the consequences of an unintended pregnancy, when men only get one, and why men shouldn't be allowed a second chance to opt out which is legally roughly analagous to an abortion (renouncing all interest in the cells / foetus / child before a certain cut-off point in the pregnancy) ? This is of course assuming that is your position (I haven't read the whole thread).

I DID justify it. When men get pregnant, they can have two chances.

Swipe left for the next trending thread