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 20:53

why should a man not have a choice to not have the child in their life ?

The right to a termination is not about deciding you don’t want to be a parent. It is about not wanting to be pregnant. This has been explained many times. The man has no right to a termination because he isn’t pregnant. If he was pregnant, he would have a right to a termination. No additional rights exist because he doesn’t have that one. He just doesn’t have it.

And maybe more women would abstain, yes. It’s irrelevant.

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 20:56

as the woman ,quite rightly, has the choice to terminate and not have a child in their life.why should a man not have a choice to not have the child in their life ?

Because the woman’s decision doesn’t abandon the child to be raised solely by the other person.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 20:58

And to test what I just said, consider this:

If the child was conceived and grown ex-utero, would a right to abort it exist? No. The right to terminate ONLY exists because the baby is inside my body. That is the key factor.

For a man, the baby is not inside his body and therefore he can’t choose in the way I can.

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 20:59

Do you think women would be a lot more cautious if the OPs friend suggestion was brought into law?

Do you think men would be more cautious if it was brought into law that any child they created could be left with them to raise solely from birth with no recourse to money or support from the mother?

MsTSwift · 20/06/2019 21:00

Well in my next life I will definitely be a man. Marvellous to be able to have a family but someone else have to do all the hard horrid painful bits and if I then don’t fancy the whole shebang I can move towns and go self employed to escape the toothless maintenance people. The fact some men feel hard done by is quite astounding really.

bourbonbiccy · 20/06/2019 21:01

He DOES. His choice can only be prior to conception.

But why should it have to be when a womans isn't? If the decision had to be made before the abortion deadline, then both people have a choice.

I'm not sure, ultimately what my final thought would be. I can see both sides, but I do think it's an interesting concept.

bourbonbiccy · 20/06/2019 21:02

Do you think men would be more cautious if it was brought into law that any child they created could be left with them to raise solely from birth with no recourse to money or support from the mother?

Yes, I think they definitely would.

Did you have answer to the question I asked ?

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 21:03

But why should it have to be when a womans isn't? If the decision had to be made before the abortion deadline, then both people have a choice

Because biology. There is only ever one possible person who has a choice when it comes to abortion.

A man can’t have an abortion, not ensure a woman has one. Therefore he has to use his opportunity to exercise his right to choice.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 21:04

But why should it have to be when a womans isn't?

Because the reasons for and consequences of the two ideas (abortion/opt out) aren’t the same. That’s why. It has been explained and explained.

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 21:06

@DarkAtEndOfTunnel

Yes, you are right, the reasonings are weak because it is very hard to find anything where gender is the sole variable in an outcome, yet in public discourse there is an awful lot of generalisation that "men" are 'dominant' in whatever way, and then 'subjugating' women in "the patriarchy", in whatever way, when it is enormously more complex than this, but that doesn't suit simplistic arguments that are made for why women deserve special dispensation based solely on gender. I recognise this has gone a long way off the initial topic.

I quickly searched and found (a very superfical search)journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/courts-lenient-sentencing-bond-women/ - a bit dated and US-based, but still bears out my initial suggestion about criminal treatment. I also note your inclusion of like-for-like crimes, which is a precision lacking when, say, talking about women's earnings (not having a go at you, I don't know your position on that, just referring the what I see as the general discussion around that topic).

re : custody, you are right, perhaps I was trotting out a tired old trope which may have been true at some point, but for which the situation has now changed for greater equality. My fault for not being bothered to do any research.

In terms of the "general assumption that women are lying" about rape, do you have any sources that suggest women are disbelieved by the initial reporting officers or prosecutors (I would assume these are the most important people in such cases)? I don't believe there is a general social assumption that the average woman filing a rape complaint is lying, but I certainly believe that it is a damn hard crime to successfully prosecute to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", given that even with DNA evidence it can then become a question of "he said, she said" about consent and so why would one side get the benefit of the doubt based on gender.

Also, if it allays your fears about some sort of incel invasion of Mumsnet (I know, I'm paraphrasing), I have only started reading Mumsnet in the last few weeks, because I enjoy the spark of self-righteous anger from reading Bridezilla, CF and horrible family threads, and also to see other points of view on how to behave in certain parenting situations when I wonder if my initial reaction is inadequate / unreasonable (as a recent case in point, my daughter was recently not invited to what she thought was one of her best friend's bday parties, despite having invited the friend to hers just a couple of months ago. Thanks to advice gleaned here, I didn't lose my shit and assume that the friend was an ungrateful shit, but instead proferred some sort of "Well, maybe she restrictions we don't know about" answer, which definitely would not have been my natural reaction).

Drogosnextwife · 20/06/2019 21:09

My first child's father has nothing to do with him. He didn't want a child and I didn't try to persue contact and have never received a penny or tried to.

A woman can decide to have a termination, she can decide to have a child adopted but if she decided on one of the things, she can't two years later decide she wants contact with the child, so a man should be able to do this either.

Drogosnextwife · 20/06/2019 21:11

If the decision had to be made before the abortion deadline, then both people have a choice.

No, they don't.

bourbonbiccy · 20/06/2019 21:11

Because the reasons for and consequences of the two ideas (abortion/opt out) aren’t the same. That’s why. It has been explained and explained

No I'm not saying abortion and opt out are as easy as each other. But they are decision on wether a child is brought into 2 people lives. One can decide, once egg is fertilised, that they do not wish to continue and one cant.

I'm asking why should a woman have that choice and a man shouldn't?

I haven't seen it explained again and again, I have seen different points explained again and again but not if it was within the abortion deadline that the document was signed why can't a man have the same choice as a women ?

JacquesHammer · 20/06/2019 21:13

but not if it was within the abortion deadline that the document was signed why can't a man have the same choice as a women

Because it’s potentially manipulating a woman into an abortion.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 21:13

A woman can decide to have a termination, she can decide to have a child adopted but if she decided on one of the things, she can't two years later decide she wants contact with the child, so a man should be able to do this either.

I presume that's what the OP is asking for though - a legal, permanent resignation of parental rights, which is what abortion and adoption are.

herculepoirot2 · 20/06/2019 21:14

I'm asking why should a woman have that choice and a man shouldn't?

Because - let me say it SLOWLY - she is pregnant and he is not.

Because - again SLOWLY - when a woman decides to terminate, no child exists to be the responsibility of either of them, whereas if she doesn’t, a child exists. A child the man willingly fathered. So it is his responsibility.

bourbonbiccy · 20/06/2019 21:14

Because the reasons for and consequences of the two ideas (abortion/opt out) aren’t the same. That’s why. It has been explained and explained

No I'm not saying abortion and opt out are as easy as each other. But they are decisions on wether a child is brought into 2 people lives. One can decide, once egg is fertilised, that they do not wish to continue and one cant.

I haven't seen it explained again and again, I have seen different points explained again and again but if I have missed it, if it was within the abortion deadline that the document was signed why can't a man have the same choice as a women ?

53rdWay · 20/06/2019 21:14

why women deserve special dispensation based solely on gender

Sex. Not gender. Biology. Women have the legal right to abortion because women are the ones with uteruses.

If men had uteruses, men would have the same legal right. They don’t. So they don’t need that legal right. It does not follow that they should therefore get a “refuse to provide the bare minimum support for their children” right to make up for the unfairness of not being the ones who get pregnant.

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 21:15

But why should it have to be when a womans isn't?

Because he can’t terminate a pregnancy. Obviously. Confused

Do you think women would be a lot more cautious if the OPs friend suggestion was brought into law?

I doubt we’d see little change. Its pretty much the situation as it stands. It’s very easy for men to be entirely non existent (including financially) in their DCs lives.

DecomposingComposers · 20/06/2019 21:18

Because it’s potentially manipulating a woman into an abortion.

Is it though?

If a man says before pregnancy that he doesn't want to be a dad, they use contraception but it fails, woman informs him that she's pregnant and he again says that he doesn't want to be a dad how is the woman any worse off if he says it informally or legally relinquishes his parental rights?

Just by saying he doesnt want a child you could argue that he's manipulating her into an abortion couldn't you?

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 21:18

I'm asking why should a woman have that choice and a man shouldn't?

What are you not understanding about the fact men can’t terminate a pregnancy that isn’t in their own body? Confused

bourbonbiccy · 20/06/2019 21:19

Because biology. There is only ever one possible person who has a choice when it comes to abortion.

yes, you are absolutely correct and I have never argued differently. A woman should definitely be the only person to decide on an abortion.

BrainFart · 20/06/2019 21:20

The right to a termination is not about deciding you don’t want to be a parent. It is about not wanting to be pregnant.

Can somebody please explain this to me because I don't understand it. Being pregnant necessarily leads (barring tragedy) to being a parent. So not wanting to be pregnant necessarily leads to not wanting to be a parent. What am I missing ? (This is entirely genuine, I honestly don't understand the reasoning and want to).

MirriVan · 20/06/2019 21:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JoxerGoesToStuttgart · 20/06/2019 21:29

BrainFart an Example: I have two DC, I am single, there is no other parent in our family, I work full time and am just about making ends meet, pregnancy makes me horrendously I’ll to the extent that I couldn’t work for the pretty much the entire 9 months of pregnancy, as well as the next however many months until my child could go to childcare. I am not eligible for any additional state support for further children so I would be working at a huge loss to pay for a third child and childcare. Quite frankly, being pregnant right now might possibly be the straw that broke the camels back and make me suicidal. And yet I would love another child. I just can’t do it. So if I were to be pregnant right now, Despite very much wanting to have another child, I wouldn’t want to continue the pregnancy.