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:
MirriVan · 20/06/2019 14:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 14:58

Nope, talking about all men.

On a personal level, it wouldn’t bother me. But all men can do what the fuck they want with their willies.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 14:58

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

Then he doesn't have choice does he?

He refuses to have sex - which you say is his right - and his wife decides to divorce him because of it, but he has to pay?

How is that a choice then?

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 14:58

@Bodicea

Must admit, I didn't realise that was the case at all. I assumed, lazily, that abortion was available as a free choices in the UK at walk-in clinics similar to certain US states, which certainly does change the dynamics of the argument.

That'll teach me to look at a debate in one country through the prism of the culture of another country (which I should know better, not having lived in the UK for going on 20 years).

SpacedOutDog · 20/06/2019 14:59

No @herculepoirot2.
He didn't know that she was gonna slam her knee's shut.
And then sting him for CS to support existing kids.

MirriVan · 20/06/2019 14:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 15:00

A man does not get a raw deal, because apart from the finacial burden he is free. The woman is stuck with all the parental duties, which btw is a full time job. On top of that she is also repsonsible for her share of the financial burnde of raising children. So on top of having to work fulltime to care for her children, she also has to work outside the home to provide for them financially.

But no, let's pretend that the man, who only has to pay for the kids he created (which he did not even have to bare), is the one who is worse off. Depsite all statistics pointing to financial gain for a man after divorce and financial loss for her, as well as social isolated from "shared" friends.

What a raw deal indeed.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 15:01

BrainFart

It's only true in as much as that is what the law says. In practical terms, abortion in England is available on demand.

SpacedOutDog · 20/06/2019 15:02

@Bodicea
Women can and do have abortions literally on tap. I've known plenty. Myself included.
All they have to do is either wibble to their Dr about how they can't cope, or flash the cash.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 15:02

SpacedOutDog

He absolutely did know that that was a possibility. The only possibility he didn’t is that he is a control freak who believes he has a right to sex. Otherwise he knew she might not want sex.

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 15:02

Some posters even go far enough to suggest that both participants should accept pregnancy as an outcome of sex

Umm, of course it is! Confused what on Earth makes you think it isn’t? You’ve been to school, right? Studied reproduction?

Does the posters who steadfastly hold these views also believe that women do not have a right to an abortion

Why on earth would they believe that? Abortion is a perfectly legitimate way to end an unwanted pregnancy. Why shouldn’t women have that right?

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 15:03

How is that a choice then?

Let me explain how this marriage thing works. You agree to get married. You know at the time that the other person can divorce you. You know they can ask for a split of assets. You know that you can do the same thing. You get married anyway.

It is a choice.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 15:05

On top of that she is also repsonsible for her share of the financial burnde of raising children. So on top of having to work fulltime to care for her children, she also has to work outside the home to provide for them financially.

Really? Are you sure about that? I know a woman who decided to leave her husband. She text him at work to tell him this. He has had to leave his house and 3 children and move in to his parents home. He continues to pay the mortgage on a large family home. His wife has never worked and continues to not work. Her Instagram pictures show the life that she continues to lead and it isn't one of hardship.

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 15:10

@JoxerGoesToStuttgart

The first was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that some posters seemed to suggest it was only on the man to accept pregnancy as a result of sex, or certainly only focused on the man's responsibilities as opposed to the woman's.

The second was because it seems that some posters accept that a woman has a second chance to undo the obvious personal consequences of an unwanted pregnancy (the maintenance and upbringing of a child, I'll not get into the emotional toll of having an abortion), without countenancing the idea that, theoretically at least, it would be fair and reasonable to allow a man to do the same via the "opt-out" proposed by the OP. I wanted to confirm that they held this position. I've said it before, but personally I am quite happy for women to get abortions as they wish (per what I remember from Freakonomics and the economic and criminal impact of banning / allowing abortion).

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 15:10

Decomp, there are always exceptions, but those does disprove the general statistics.

SpacedOutDog · 20/06/2019 15:10

@herculespoirot2
No one goes into marriage with the view that their sex life is gonna come to a stop because one or the other doesn't want a kid.
Stop talking daft.
It goes back to my earlier point of, she decides she doesn't want to become pregnant so slams her knee's shut. He's supposed to just accept it?
He decides he doesn't want a pregnancy, so he stops having sex, is she supposed to just accept it?
Of course not!
But if they divorce over it, he's gonna have to pay, whoever instigated the lack of sex and the divorce.
You lot make me laugh with your cotton wool thinking.
I'm going to do something more constructive now.
Toodle Pip.

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 15:11

Do not disprove, I mean

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 15:11

I love how the same men who arguing that men should be able to have strings-free sex think that threatening a sex strike is going to achieve their goals. They don’t have the self-control needed to stop knocking people up left, right and centre, even though they don’t want to, but they imagine we’re all going to believe they will choose abstinence just to spite women.

Comedy gold.

😂😂😂

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 15:12

He's supposed to just accept it?
He decides he doesn't want a pregnancy, so he stops having sex, is she supposed to just accept it?
Of course not!

They can accept it or get divorced.

CaptSkippy · 20/06/2019 15:12

It goes back to my earlier point of, she decides she doesn't want to become pregnant so slams her knee's shut. He's supposed to just accept it?
He decides he doesn't want a pregnancy, so he stops having sex, is she supposed to just accept it?

Yes and yes. You can't force someone to have sex.

MirriVan · 20/06/2019 15:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 15:23

I love how the same men who arguing that men should be able to have strings-free sex think that threatening a sex strike is going to achieve their goals.

I don't think anyone should have strings-free sex - men or women.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 15:24

They can accept it or get divorced.

And who pays for that?

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 15:25

Why do these once-married men not want to pay for their children?!

Who's talking about not paying for their children?

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 15:28

With pregnancy, the circumstances are different due to the differences between the sexes.

OK. Now apply that to the arguments surrounding how women's careers and earnings due to pregnancies / maternity leave. Does it become right to just shrug your shoulders and say "that's it, it's biology, men don't have this so it is normal that they earn more" ?

Swipe left for the next trending thread