Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
MirriVan · 20/06/2019 14:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:36

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.

What are you talking about? Who mentioned rape?

What I am saying is that if a husband does not want a child right now, the only way he can be sure that it doesn't happen is to refuse to have PIV sex with his wife.

I doubt that many wives would agree to that and would issue the ultimatum that if a sexless marriage is all that's on offer, then they want a divorce.

So given that threat, does the husband really gave a free choice to abstain from sex? I would argue that no, he doesn't, unless a) he's not that bothered if the marriage ends and b) he is in a financial position to support both households.

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 14:39

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

Because it doesn’t suit women to do so.

MirriVan · 20/06/2019 14:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Bodicea · 20/06/2019 14:41

I’ve said it before and will repeat it. No one ever seems to take it on board in this argument:

It is illegal to have an abortion in this country for social reasons! ILLEGAL!!!!!! It is only granted in most cases if keeping it will affect the mothers mental health. That’s how they get around it.
Therefore the woman cannot choose to abort her baby! She does not have that “choice” as men would have you think.

Not to mention the psychological burden of ending a life is entirely on the woman’s head.

So no men don’t get to just opt out if they don’t want it. Their options ended the moment they had sex.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:41

does the husband really gave a free choice to abstain from sex?

Yes. Otherwise all married men and women who don’t want children are being coerced into sex. They aren’t. They are taking a risk, as adults, of something happening that they would prefer not to happen, because they either want sex more, or they want to be married more. It’s a choice.

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 14:43

Due to biology, men only get to exercise this autonomy at conception

And their contraception isn’t 100% effective. So the only way they can avoid a pregnancy is to abstain from sex. So women do have the upper hand, biologically speaking.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:43

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.

You say it might take some work - on whose behalf? It is only a viable option for a man to abstain from sex in order to prevent pregnancy if his partner bis willing to agree to it and continue the relationship.

If a man says to his wife that if she uses contraception he will divorce her, yet she is financially reliant on this man, would you say that she had the choice to use contraception?

Abstinence within a relationship is only an option if both parties are on board. It isn't something that a man can decide on against his partners wishes and still continue the relationship so I don't see that as a viable choice for most men.

Possibly outside of marriage but even then how many women would accept being in a relationship and never having sex?

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 14:45

Decomposing you said that in response to an unwanted pregnancy, so I guess the only other option is that you do allow them to walk away

If this mythical man of yours is unable to exercise free choice to abstain from sex to prevent pregnancy because of financial implications, how is he able to walk away?

If he is able to walk away after, he's sure as hell able to walk away before!

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:46

So women do have the upper hand, biologically speaking.

And the lower hand. I have never heard of a man dying in childbirth.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:47

Yes. Otherwise all married men and women who don’t want children are being coerced into sex.

Exactly. They are being coerced into sex. It's just that we don't usually look at it like that. But the truth is, that is what is happening.

MirriVan · 20/06/2019 14:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

pikapikachu · 20/06/2019 14:48

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

Lots of stories on here where couples have fertility treatment like IVF and the man still does a runner. You can't consent more to having a child than IVF 😂

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:48

But the truth is, that is what is happening.

Bollocks. They are not coerced into getting married, and they can get divorced. The only limitations on that are those they set themselves.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:49

If a wife doesn't want to have sex but her husband threatens her with divorce if she doesn't and she feels, for whatever reason that she can't leave the marriage, do you think she is agreeing to sex freely? I don't.

Same with a man.

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 14:50

Equal Rights does not mean Same Rights.
Due to biolological differences between men and women same rights would be impossible with regards to reproductive rights.

It is easy to see if this is about the control of women's bodies by considering similar scenarios. If a man wants a vasectomy there will be few, if any, doctors telling him no, because he might meet a woman who wants children some day.
The reverse scenario of a woman wanting to get her tubes tied and being told no repeatedly happens all the time.

The debate of "one chance" vs "two chances" is a false equivalence, due to the very different physical investments required of each sex with regards to reproduction.

SignedUpJust4This · 20/06/2019 14:50

I've heard it all now. Women have the upper hand biologically speaking! Apart from being physically weaker and smaller than men, more likely to be murdered by men and lumbered with childbirth and bulk of child rearing (often single handedly)...

Can't argue with stupid...

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:51

Bollocks. They are not coerced into getting married, and they can get divorced. The only limitations on that are those they set themselves.

Maybe men should refuse to have sex then unless that want a child, then we can see how happy women are about it?

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:53

DecomposingComposers

That is the case whether it is about sex, or money, or going out, and it applies to men and women equally. It isn’t what this debate is about. A man who chooses not to have sex can - in all but the most extreme circumstances - not have it. The threat of divorce is not usually coercive. It is just that two people want different things.

SpacedOutDog · 20/06/2019 14:53

So a man walks away because he doesn't want sex to prevent further pregnancies, and gets stung for CS for any existing kids.
A woman walks away because the man won't have sex to prevent further pregnancies and the man gets stung for CS.
So yeah, the man gets the raw deal because whoever walks, the man is gonna pay.
Obviously in MN world this is fair. Hmm

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:53

Or how about men can leave a marriage where the wife doesn't agree to his abstinence, without suffering any financial penalty?

If that was the case, then I agree he has a free choice.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:54

Maybe men should refuse to have sex then unless that want a child, then we can see how happy women are about it?

If we’re talking about these wasters who want to “opt out” of paying for and parenting their children, I feel fucking great.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:55

So a man walks away because he doesn't want sex to prevent further pregnancies, and gets stung for CS for any existing kids.
A woman walks away because the man won't have sex to prevent further pregnancies and the man gets stung for CS.
So yeah, the man gets the raw deal because whoever walks, the man is gonna pay.
Obviously in MN world this is fair. hmm

Exactly.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:56

Or how about men can leave a marriage where the wife doesn't agree to his abstinence, without suffering any financial penalty?

Hmm

No, because when he entered the marriage he knew the terms that go with divorce, Decomposer.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:56

If we’re talking about these wasters who want to “opt out” of paying for and parenting their children, I feel fucking great.

Nope, talking about all men.

Swipe left for the next trending thread