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:
DarkAtEndOfTunnel · 20/06/2019 17:01

Let's try this thought experiment. If men are to have the free pass that the op wants, then there has to be some other way of supporting the mother and child. That other way is doubtless going to be society at large. You then have a situation where all men are supporting the mother and child rather than just the man responsible.
The trouble is, the next step logically is for all men to declare that if individual men have an opt out, then all men should have the same opt out. In other words, all men suddenly opt out of supporting all mothers and children everywhere.
Women might step into the gap and continue to support other women with children. At which point we have a society of women supporting each other - and a whole bunch of male parasites who refuse to support and therefore are of no value to the whole. Why should society take on the burden of supporting them?
Or, women decide that actually it's not fair for all of them to collectively support a mother and child, and suddenly - as Thatcher so eloquently put it - there is no society at all, only individuals. It's hard to see how society could continue if only single mums have responsibility for kids. It would be a bunch of individuals with everyone for themselves only - and human society does not work like that, complex societies cannot survive like that.

Bodicea · 20/06/2019 17:07

spacedoutdog the point is it is not “officially” legal for social reasons.

Therefore a law could not be allowed that men could opt out at a certain point if a woman is not “legally” allowed to abort.

Currently she has to get a Dr to sign that is for mental health reasons.

And if they altered the first law just so men could have more rights,when they have never done for the sake of women’s rights to choose, then we really would be proving what a mysoginistic country we are in.

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 17:08

@JoxerGoesToStuttgart

The point of the payment isn't to cover the costs of raising the child, it is to discourage the promiscuous use of an opt out to avoid responsibility. Perhaps it could be means-tested to ensure the deterrent remains the same across all income levels. This money would be paid regardless of whether the woman decides to have the baby or not, hence why it would all have to be done well before the abortion cut-off date.

This way, both sexes get two chances at undoing the immediate effects on their life of an unwanted pregnancy, and men still face some sort of deterrent to irresponsibility.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 17:11

This way, both sexes get two chances at undoing the immediate effects on their life of an unwanted pregnancy, and men still face some sort of deterrent to irresponsibility.

Except there is still a child without financial, emotional or practical support from its feckless father.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 17:17

Jesus are you for fucking real? hmm

Pregnancy, birth, abortion, miscarriage - have they all escaped your notice? And the mental and physical impacts they can have?

Exactly. So how can women have strings free sex?

Mummymumm · 20/06/2019 17:18

Almost all pregnancies are caused by male ejaculations. If they don't want a child they should make sure that they and their partner have taken the right steps to avoid it happening. If they don't want a baby it's their responsibility too not just the woman's.

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 17:21

This way, both sexes get two chances at undoing the immediate effects on their life of an unwanted pregnancy, and men still face some sort of deterrent to irresponsibility.

Like I said earlier, no. A woman choosing an opt out pre 12 weeks is undoing a pregnancy, no child will exist. the man has no responsibility to make a decision that will effect his and potentially a child or children’s life. She will not be a mother. No child will exist.

A man choosing an opt out pre 12 weeks is undoing nothing but his obligation to support his child(ren). He is still leaving the woman with the responsibility of making a decision that will effect her and potentially a child or children’s life. He will still be a father, he will just be a spectacularly shit one. his child will still exist.

ITS NOT THE SAME CHOICE

Your posts just scream jealousy. You cannot stand the fact women have a choice that you don’t have.

The deterrent of irresponsibility is the consequence of having to raise a child you didn’t want.

Lizzie3869 · 20/06/2019 17:22

This way, both sexes get two chances at undoing the immediate effects on their life of an unwanted pregnancy, and men still face some sort of deterrent to irresponsibility.

Except there is still a child without financial, emotional or practical support from its feckless father.

And very likely, in a lot of cases, the cost would have to be covered by the benefits system. Why should the tax payer pay instead of the father, just because he chose to 'opt out' of fatherhood?

Because the alternative, of a child being caught in poverty, is surely not one we would want to countenance?

pikapikachu · 20/06/2019 17:22

Men have 2 chances of opting out. The CMS are notoriously poor at getting money and the court system will grant access regardless of whether or not Dads pay maintenance.

Until the day that the number of women who are victims of stealthing, rape, sexual abuse equals the number of men who are victims of women stopping taking contraceptives, using their sperm from condoms/oral sex men will not have equal say in pregnancy. If technology in the future allows men to carry and give birth to babies then they will have the moral and legal right to choose whether or not to continue with pregnancies.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 17:22

So how can women have strings free sex?

Easily.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 17:22

If they don't want a child they should make sure that they and their partner have taken the right steps to avoid it happening.

How do men make sure they and their partners have taken steps to stop it happening?

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 17:23

How do men make sure they and their partners have taken steps to stop it happening?

Wear a condom would seem a sensible start point...

RuffleCrow · 20/06/2019 17:24

Yes, of course. Better to have no dad than a dad who makes you feel like a total inconvenience at best and who abuses you at worst. They shouldn't be allowed to opt out of child maintenance though.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 17:24

How do men make sure they and their partners have taken steps to stop it happening?

There are two ways.

  1. Don’t shag anyone - 100% effective
  2. Wear a condom - 99%
DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 17:25

And very likely, in a lot of cases, the cost would have to be covered by the benefits system. Why should the tax payer pay instead of the father, just because he chose to 'opt out' of fatherhood

How much do taxpayers already pay out for fathers and mothers who decided to have children that they can't afford? This is already happening and women are doing it too so why is it just men being blamed?

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 17:26

herculepoirot2

No, that's how the man makes sure that he's taken precautions.

The post I quoted said that they should also make sure their partner has taken precautions. How?

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 17:26

Wear a condom - 99%

No they aren't.

Lizzie3869 · 20/06/2019 17:27

I'm not saying that just men should be blamed. But it's not about blame, it's about the fact that between them their actions have led to a child being born. That child needs to be supported somehow.

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 17:28

The post I quoted said that they should also make sure their partner has taken precautions. How?

He can’t. Making any man who chooses sex without a condom (unless in the position of trying for a child) rather stupid!

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 17:28

The post I quoted said that they should also make sure their partner has taken precautions. How?

Oh I see. Sorry. Yes, he can only sort himself out.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 17:29

No they aren't.

Not left in the packet they aren’t.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 17:30

Not left in the packet they aren’t.

Nor used in the correct way either.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 17:31

Nor used in the correct way either.

Then keep it in your pants.

MadameButterface · 20/06/2019 17:32

I would not support this but i would support a nationwide scheme rolled out to all males over 18 where they get a free vasectomy and free sperm storage for the rest of their lives which they can then access when two different doctors have agreed that the man in question is emotionally and physically ready to be a father.

Then no one could say they were tricked could they? And this is more on a par with what women have to go through when shit stirrers like this op euphemistically speak of ‘opting out’ of unwanted pregnancy - in reality an unpleasant and intrusive medical procedure (to which great stigma and shame is attached by many people), pretty far from an easy option - I don’t see how signing a form saying ‘tra la la no responsibilities for me’ even compares but hey. We have to pretend they’re the exact same thing don’t we because we live in a misogynist dystopia or whatever

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 17:32

Nor used in the correct way either

So 97% effective with correct use. So if the 3% is untenable risk then don’t have PIV sex.

Swipe left for the next trending thread