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:
Ginlinessisnexttogodliness · 20/06/2019 17:35

@BrainFart more like £150,000

Then they can fuck off Grin

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 17:35

@herculepoirot2

Yes, there may still be a child (because the woman would still have a few weeks to decide whether to have an abortion or not following the cut-off point for an opt-out, and now she would know that the Dad is going to be absent and take that into account), but a feckless dad will be a feckless Dad. Good men aren't suddenly going to start being feckless Dads (which I have suggested guarding against by imposing a financial penalty for the opt-out).

@JoxerGoesToStuttgart

I am not jealous. I have two kids. Done and dusted and indeed staying resolutely single because I definitely don't want any more kids and don't want the risk at all. I have repeatedly said that I wouldn't allow such a free opt-out, that I am pro-abortion (and, given @Bodicea 's information that they are only available on MH grounds would happily extend them to being free for all who wanted one, no questions asked), but it does appear to be a double-standard that "Biology!" is being used to justify different rights on one hand, but in other conversations "Biology!" is cursed as being irrelevant or, indeed, necessarily over-trodden. I am exploring solutions / suggestions that may allow for such inequality of rights (whether merited or real or imaginary) to at least appear to be overcome in such a way that benefits the maximum number of people.

It has been pointed out that the CMS are notoriously poor at getting payments. Perhaps it would save the woman stress not having to chase as little as £7 per week from a father who is absent anyway, and who instead could profit from the extra facilities laid on for single parents to alleviate the load that a charge for "opt-outs" could bring.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 17:42

MadameButterface

Excellent idea, and all women could be sterilised too and only allowed to be impregnated with the frozen a sperm when 2 doctors certify that they are fit to be mothers.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 17:42

I am exploring solutions / suggestions that may allow for such inequality of rights (whether merited or real or imaginary) to at least appear to be overcome

See. though, the problem that CMS is trying to solve is not ‘how can we make sure men feel equal in all instances”. The problem CMS is trying to solve is “how do we, as a society, ensure this child is supported now that it exists.”

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness · 20/06/2019 17:43

In a similar vein to @MadameButterface

How about all 18 year old boys have to take an enormous bank loan out that can be drawn down from to support future children if they refuse to submit to a vasectomy and sperm being frozen but want to opt out of any mini humans they create. A loan that’s there for as long as they are.

Sorry
Just the rantings of a man hating harpy Hmm

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 17:45

How much do taxpayers already pay out for fathers and mothers who decided to have children that they can't afford?

Lots- why would you want to increase that cost by giving men a legal opt out? Doesn’t it make more sense to have a system where NRPs cannot avoid paying a realistic amount towards their DCs costs that would reduce the lone parents’ reliance on state support?

This is already happening and women are doing it too so why is it just men being blamed?

Because this thread was specifically about allowing men a legal opt out so the responses have been phrased in a way that is focussed on the men who already do opt out.

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness · 20/06/2019 17:45

@DecomposingComposers talk to me about your selection process........

We’re getting into some rather sinister shit here and I wonder how much of it is written in jest

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness · 20/06/2019 17:46

If CMS wasn’t so pathetic and the system fucked up I bet there’s be a lot less “accidents with condoms”
Cough

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 17:49

@53rdWay

I agree, which is why the men could pay a charge which would be put into ring-fenced funds by the government to provide services for those children and their single parents. Or that charge could be used to increase resources at the CMS to chase down deadbeat dads who didn't opt-out.

It seems that a lot of posters expect there to be an epidemic of men who would decided before the 12-week abortion cut-off date that they would just scarper. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe that most men do the decent thing now, and that most men would continue to do the decent thing and support the resulting child in the future. In much the same way, I expect that the majority of pregnancies are followed through to term despite the availability of abortion to prevent it.

DarkAtEndOfTunnel · 20/06/2019 17:49

MadameButterfly, that is an excellent idea.

Or they could accept the male contraceptive pill, despite its side effects as women have to, or fund work on a new one. Somehow men never do seem to want to do anything about problems - they just want to whine and blame the nearest woman for them.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 17:53

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness

Well my post was a response to the fucking ridiculous suggestion that all men, at 18, have a vasectomy and then can only father a child when 2 doctors give permission.

So, why not do the same for women too then?

Because this thread was specifically
about allowing men a legal opt out so the responses have been phrased in a way that is focussed on the men who already do opt out.

Well, that's not really what the OP is about though is it? The mum in the OP objects to a stranger (the dad) being involved with the child so would like a way for the dad to opt out. Except that the dad doesn't want to opt out, the mum wants to opt him out. So, how would this law help?

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 17:53

Biology!" is being used to justify different rights on one hand

Biology doesn’t justify different rights, it necessitates different rights. If men were able to get pregnant they would have the same right to abortion as women. But their biology means it isn’t necessary for men to have this right and female biology means it is necessary for women to have that right.

but in other conversations "Biology!" is cursed as being irrelevant or, indeed, necessarily over-trodden.

I’ve no idea which conversations you are talking about but in this context, biology has great relevance. I know you recognise this. Tbh, I’m not altogether sure what you’re arguing as you definitely do get it, so it really does seem to boil down to you saying “boohoo! not fair, women can do something I can’t. Make it fair!”

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 17:54

Or they could accept the male contraceptive pill, despite its side effects as women have to, or fund work on a new one

Why don't women fund new OCPs too then?

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 17:56

The OP seems confused about what she is asking in terms of what would help her friend. But the question itself is what has elicited these responses from posters.

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 17:57

the men could pay a charge which would be put into ring-fenced funds by the government to provide services for those children and their single parents

And how far do you think £500 per child would go here, exactly?

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 17:59

@JoxerGoesToStuttgart

You're right, in this context biology has great relevance. But in conversations about why men might earn more, or be more represented in certain fields for example, it is seen as something that has to be compensated for. In conversations about transgender issues it has taken on a mind of its own to the point I'm not sure it means anything.

I am perfectly happy for "Biology" to be recognised as making men and women different-but-equal and for different rights to spring from that. But seeing as the march in society seems to be towards demanding some sort of equal-but-superior/protected status for women by noisier activists, then I find it interesting to discuss ways to arrange a "truer" perceived equality, in this instance giving men a similar (although obviously not the same because it is a legal rather than a medical instrument) to avoid the responsibilities of an unwanted child up until a certain foetal developmental stage.

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 18:00

Perhaps it would save the woman stress not having to chase as little as £7 per week from a father who is absent anyway

You can just opt not to chase it. I don’t. (And it would be more than £7/week in my case) It’s not compulsory to seek child support from a NRP.

and who instead could profit from the extra facilities laid on for single parents to alleviate the load that a charge for "opt-outs" could bring.

I wish I had your faith that any such collection would ever end up benefitting the children it was collected on behalf of. Grin

IsabellaLinton · 20/06/2019 18:01

It really does seem to boil down to you saying “boohoo! not fair, women can do something I can’t. Make it fair!

Men can do something women can’t (or won’t) - they walk away.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 18:05

This is all fairly pathetic, isn’t it?

Bottom line: if you create a life, it is your blessing or problem to solve. If you are a woman in the UK, you usually have recourse to abortion. If you are a man, you don’t.

BUT IT IS STILL YOUR PROBLEM. Not someone else’s responsibility to sort it for you. Yours.

CantspellWontspell · 20/06/2019 18:05

to avoid the responsibilities of an unwanted child up until a certain foetal developmental stage.

This already exists. It just happens that the fetal stage is conception which of course is unpalatable to men because it requires them to be responsible for where they ejeculate.

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 18:06

then I find it interesting to discuss ways to arrange a "truer" perceived equality

“A “truer” perceived equality”

So not really true, and only perceived? Grin Which really means it’s just to pacify the men who can’t cope with women having something they don’t.

Redroses17 · 20/06/2019 18:08

If a man doesn't want to be a father and to opt out of parenthood they should not Father a child , it's a simple concept followed by an even simpler action, I think vast majority of people who have sex often are aware of the consequences of having sex and the implications which can occur of having sex I.e. pregnancy and sti s and stds etc and if they do not understand the consequences of having sex the person should definitely not be doing sexual activity , the moral of this is don't go in the kitchen if you can't take the heat. It takes two people to make a baby and there for both of these people are responsible for that child.

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 18:08

Men can do something women can’t (or won’t) - they walk away.

No we’re talking about “cants” not “wonts” here.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 18:09

Bottom line: if you create a life, it is your blessing or problem to solve. If you are a woman in the UK, you usually have recourse to abortion. If you are a man, you don’t.

Interesting. Are you applying that to women too? If you create a life it's your problem to solve?

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 18:11

Interesting. Are you applying that to women too? If you create a life it's your problem to solve?

Yep. I can solve MY problem by either having a baby, or having an abortion. You can’t. That does not make your problem my problem.