Should men be allowed to "opt out" of parenthood?

[Jemimapuddleduckpancake]

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?)

It is absolutely not the same as saying you have a moral obligation to terminate. You can continue with the pregnancy that you chose to happen or not.

It absolutely is. You are saying that my choice not to terminate indemnifies you. That is the same as saying I am obligated to terminate, or you are not obligated to do anything.

What if the man steps up. He pays child support and wants to be an involved dad but the mum now realises he isn't someone that she wants a relationship with? No reason apart from she just doesn't like him. He has very different views on raising children and life in general. That's just tough right? She has a responsibility to allow a relationship between parent and child so now just has to live with the consequences of her choice and accept that this man is in their lives for the next 18 years and do nothing to jeopardise that father/child relationship right?

You asked his on the last thread. I don’t know what you mean, does she have a choice on how he parents his own child? Barring that child coming to any harm, probably not, I’ve no idea.

But that doesn’t answer the question I asked you. Why, once the baby is born, is it still her responsibility, and hers alone? Once she’s done the incubation part, why is that child that he created half of, still only her responsibility?

Does it come down to ‘what a man wants is the most important thing, much more important than the needs of the child he created’? I suspect the answer for a few people on here is yes.

With no other reason than that she just doesn’t like him, that is obviously ridiculous.

So what are justifiable reasons for the woman breaking off contact then?

Only it happens that mum's get into new relationships and decide to move away, or that contact is no longer convenient, or leave the dad off the birth certificate so that he has to go to court to get parental rights, or she refuses contact so that he has to go to court....

So, if we expect men to step up and accept responsibility then actually we do have to make the system completely fair and we have to legally make the paternal relationship as important as the maternal relationship.

@DecomposingComposers I'm totally responsible for what happened. But being a mother already to a child who's father is nothing but a waste of space, I wasn't willing to have another child put through that. There were many occasions where my eldest child would stand in the window waiting for her father to come pick her up, and he never did. After 3 years of trying to force that relationship, I gave up. She is now 13 and hasn't seen her father since she was 3.

This child's father made it clear he wanted absolutely nothing to do with the child, so there was nothing really to object to. Whilst I know there will be questions to answer in years to come, ultimately it was his decision and a battle I wasn't willing to have. Fast forward to now, she's a very happy child and we're a very happy unit.

*DecomposingComposers

I am not arguing with you. I don’t think women have a right to unilaterally break off contact unless the father is abusive or incompetent. That isn’t what this about.

Parents can already give up their parental rights.

My son is adopted, I don’t know if this is standard but very little effort was put in to finding his Birth father when he was removed from his birth mothers care.

Ultimately, no matter how the adults feel, the main priority is the childs well being.

So, if we expect men to step up and accept responsibility then actually we do have to make the system completely fair and we have to legally make the paternal relationship as important as the maternal relationship.

But the question isn’t ‘should both parents be allowed to be equally shit?’

You asked his on the last thread.

What last thread?

But that doesn’t answer the question I asked you. Why, once the baby is born, is it still her responsibility, and hers alone? Once she’s done the incubation part, why is that child that he created half of, still only her responsibility?

As it currently stands, no, it isn't just the mum's responsibility. The dad should be involved. But there are so many threads on here from mums who don't want to let the child go to the dads or spend time with him or have an equal relationship with dad.

I've seen threads where the mum doesn't want the dad to come to her home, but doesn't want him to take the baby out, he can't have the child overnight because the baby is too young and so on. But these decisions behave consequences. If you don't let the dad bond with the baby you can hardly be surprised when, a couple of years down the line, he isn't bonded with the child can you?

Women should be thinking about this before deciding to have a child with a man. How keen are you to accept this man into your life? Don't have a child and then decide that you are incompatible with this man and refuse to have anything to do with him (unless he is abusive in some way obviously). Don't set up the legal system so that men have to pay money to fight for their rights. Don't set up systems so that a mother and child can get housing but a non resident dad can't and then use his lack of suitable housing as an argument as to why he can't see his child. Make the support systems equal for both parents and push for equal contact as being the norm. Don't make it so that men are expected to work full time, because they can't claim benefits as the NRP, and pay mums to be a SAHP but then say that dads can't have their contact time when they aren't at work.

@herculepoirot2 the decision wasn't made by myself, it was made by a judge. I had counselling throughout the whole proceedings, which took many weeks. Both sides were asked their views, I do believe the grandmother was even asked. But the judges decision was final. Had he wanted to be in her life then of course, no contest. But as he said it right from 17 weeks, and even asked me to abort at that stage even though he knew it was a girl rather than just a foetus, there was no point trying to change his mind and have the same arguments I've had with my eldest child's father. I've been very lucky to have a good job and be able to financially support both my children. I appreciate this option wouldn't suit many others who would rely on the financial support of the absent father.

And what happens when the child wants to know about their father?
And in your friends case if he had signed a document but as now wants to get to know his child do you really stop this?If he was violent I get it but if it is because he has grown up a bit and is now willing to take responsibility then do are you really acting in your child's best interests to block it.

Haven't rtwt so sorry if it's been covered, but whose rights trump whose? The father's right to 'opt out' or the mother's right to see her and her child supported? I would assume the right to opt out would have to be agreed by both parties? If that's the case then that already exists by virtue that a father who isn't named on the birth certificate has no parental responsibility in the eyes of the law. If you're proposing that the man's right to opt out trumps the woman's right to opt in, then absolutely not. That would potentially be disastrous for women and used by irresponsible men to have unprotected sex without fear of consequence.

Don't set up the legal system so that men have to pay money to fight for their rights. Don't set up systems so that a mother and child can get housing but a non resident dad can't and then use his lack of suitable housing as an argument as to why he can't see his child. Make the support systems equal for both parents and push for equal contact as being the norm. Don't make it so that men are expected to work full time, because they can't claim benefits as the NRP, and pay mums to be a SAHP but then say that dads can't have their contact time when they aren't at work.

Right, but that’s a different issue, isn’t it? That’s ‘make sure the woman doesn’t get to uppity and have the upper hand TOO much’ which again is exactly your argument on the other thread (the one where the fake OP didn’t use a condom and got his girlfriend pregnant because she said she was on the pill).

The point here is ‘should men be able to walk away from their own responsibility’ and my question is ‘why is the baby still the woman’s responsibility alone once the incubation period, the bit she’s needed for, is over?’

Wittsendargh

So you judged the 2nd man by the behaviour of the 1st man?

I do think that women also have responsibilities over who they choose to sleep with and to make sure that they don't get pregnant with useless men.

It takes 2 people to create a child. Both are equally responsible for their choices.

Wittsendargh

I get it. He didn’t want involvement and now you do all the work, yes? This isn’t a case of a woman deciding to exclude a man, but a man shirking his responsibilities to his child.

Wittsendargh

But, using arguments others are using about men, wasn't this the chance you took when choosing to sleep with a man that you didn't know?

What if the outcome was different and he did want to be involved but you had entirely opposing views? There might have been different but equally difficult scenarios to face.

What if you wanted to move away but he vetoed it? Him being involved might have been better for your dd but far more complicated and intrusive for you.

But, using arguments others are using about men, wasn't this the chance you took when choosing to sleep with a man that you didn't know?

Yes. The same as the chance he took. Except now she is the one left doing all the work.

Interetsing discussion - there is clearly a problem with unsupported children. Currently The State is the backstop for this burden and both women and men know this. It is not sustainable long term.

I don't think it will ne long before there will be a shift - not in men taking more respnsibility but in The Sate taking less.

Until we get more reliable male contraception and while both man and woman know that The State will pick up the slack children will continue to be born to fathers who do not want the twenty-year committment of parenthood.

I suspect that forcing fathers to play a role and/or pay for a child that they do not want will be a difficult job. If the default disappears then both parties will have to think a bit more seriously about who they have sex with and how.

It isn't, and shouldn't be a Man v Woman debate as that really gets us nowhere. It should be about society/ The State.

If The State treats all children as equally deserving of money, housing, education and support then the man v woman argument becomes irrelevant to some extent. If all women, (and all men), have the ability/means to support their children alone then again the argument becomes less important.

If The State and society goes back the other way and treats only specific children, (eg "those born within certain conditions") then the picture would change.

I am not advocating any course of action here before I get accused of something I am saying that key player is Society.

Sorry - full of typos

The point here is ‘should men be able to walk away from their own responsibility’ and my question is ‘why is the baby still the woman’s responsibility alone once the incubation period, the bit she’s needed for, is over?’

And my point is that both the man and woman should have to consider potential consequences at the same points.

So, if the argument, as it is here, is that men should consider the chance of pregnancy before sex, then so should women.

Why are women getting pregnant from one night stands and then complaining that the dad is a stranger (as in the OP)? Well, yes obviously he is because he was when you slept with him. Don't use that as an excuse to exclude him.

Don't allow women to register babies without the dad present and then force him to go to court to get parental rights. That's stacking the odds in favour of the women and making it easier for her to exclude the man and then blame him.

Don't give women every financial assistance to parent their child and then use the lack of finances on the dad's part as a reason to exclude him from being a parent.

All choices have consequences on the part of both parents. If you choose to have a child with a waste of space, then you are responsible for the part that you played in that decision.

But only in your imaginary world. In the actual world, you are legally responsible and can be held legally responsible. You are trying to convince me otherwise, so your argument for why can’t be that you have already won. You haven’t

No it's not in my imaginary world a woman is responsible for the child that she chooses to have, I didn't say solely but she is responsible just as a man is. But she is responsible for the decision of if that baby is born or not ?

You are talking as if it's a man "fault" if a women gets pregnant, it's offensive. I choose who I sleep with and I certainly wouldn't be the poor little lady who let a man impregnate me. I would take responsibility for getting pregnant and I am responsible for the choice of wether I would have said baby. I would not be my "problem" and say poor old me a horrible man "got me" pregnant because he could see past his dick. ( I'm talking in straight forward scenarios before anyone starts throwing in that I am including race or anything else, I am not)

It is about a hypothetical right for a man to have the same rights as a woman in the choice to parent, why should it just be a woman who can opt out.

In my "imaginary world" 😂😂 the scenario the OP is talking about is hypothetical 😂😂

Oh I am not trying to convince you of anything any more than you are trying to convince me, I am challenging your statement as you are mine. It's what makes the world a more interesting place.

@DecomposingComposers I didn't judge anyone. I listened to what he wanted out of life, I read his statements. He wanted nothing to do with this child whatsoever. He wanted to go to university, travel the world. He wouldn't have been able to do that with this child on the scene. I didn't have a choice in the questions people are posing about what if he did want to be involved...because he didn't! I simply didn't fight his views. I don't see what is wrong with this when I have been able to provide a strong, stable upbringing for the child. Yes I have questions to answer, but I'm ready for all of that. The door has always remained open for my eldest child's father to step up, but he never has.

Don't allow women to register babies without the dad present and then force him to go to court to get parental rights. That's stacking the odds in favour of the women and making it easier for her to exclude the man and then blame him.

But again, Decomposer, this is biology. If I sleep with two men - as I have a perfect right to do - which of them do we register as the father? If a man turns up to the registration and I say I don’t know him, how can they put his name on the birth certificate?

You can’t have total fairness. It’s not practically possible. And children should not be paying for that.

bourbonbiccy

It doesn’t make a more interesting place. Your circular logic is very boring. You have no answer other than the one you have repeated, and which has been taken apart. No, it is not “equal”, but that is because it is not the same thing. If you want total equality, let’s make you go through the pains and risks of pregnancy and childbirth. Once we have that sorted, you can have a right to termination as well.

Yes. The same as the chance he took. Except now she is the one left doing all the work.

Right. But as you keep saying - biology. This is the reality. As women, it is us who gets pregnant, us who give birth and us, possibly who are left raising the child.

Therefore, it is our responsibility to act differently if we don't want to do any of the above.

Of course men are responsible and should be responsible for the choices they take.

Women are also responsible for the choices they make. If a woman chooses to sleep with a stranger she does so knowing that she risks creating a child with that stranger and consequently linking her life with his. What is her thought process there? How does she see that unfolding? Or is the truth that she doesn't think about it until afterwards and then makes it all the fault if the man for not being the person that she hoped he would be?

So, what about an overhaul whereby :

Women can have free access to abortions, no questions asked, up to week X.

Men can have an opt-out up to week X-3 (allowing the woman time to prepare her own informed choice), against a payment of an amount to be determined, with a minimum level that applies regardless of income and no maximum. These funds get deposited directly into council child services to support local single parents.

This way, both retain the right to abandon parental responsibilities during pregnancy.

Women take on the responsibility of any health complications arising from pregnancy and informing the man is good time (assuming she finds out in time. If she finds out later, revert to standard CMS rules. If she finds out in time but hides he info from the man, he could retain opt-out until finding out or go directly to the minimum CMS payment level regardless of income).

Men taking on the responsibility of the one-off payment and getting his opt-out in before the deadline if informed before the deadline.

Both retain the right to abandon parental responsibility once child arrives, against CMS payments.

Opt-out would not be available in cases where :

• couple already has existing children ;
• TTC had been discussed and not rejected beyond reasonable doubt by the man (e.g. if the woman says "Let's have a baby" and the man replies "Well, let's see", then that's not a categorical rejection so no opt out)

Would such a solution provide some measure of equality in reproductive and parental rights and responsibilities ?