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?)

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.

Crap. This only happened in the situation above because she didn’t want his sorry arse involved. He had no right to refuse maintenance. She just didn’t seek it. So, what’s next?

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?

Well with rights come responsibilities. If you want to sleep with 2 men, as is your right, then the consequence of that is that you can't identify the father. If you expect a man to step up then it should be on you to facilitate that, including paying for DNA tests and the costs of registering the correct father.

If you choose not to identify the father than that is also your choice and you are responsible for the consequences of that choice. Or are you saying that it's the fault of these men that you chose to sleep with the 2 of them? So men are responsible for your actions. Is that what you are saying?

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

No, it would be idiotic.

DecomposingComposers

I have no idea who pays for what now. But it’s hardly the point. You want men to have the same rights as women. They can’t have them. I want men to have as much responsibility as women. They can’t be forced to take it.

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

No, I am absolutely not.

It is your choice to have sex with a man, you know you could fall pregnant and if you do you know you have the right terminate or not. Fact

Yes the rights and choices for a woman after conception are terminate or have the baby . Fact

The man has no rights after conception, the woman decides even after is being a joint venture to be pregnant.

So currently if a woman get pregnant and she doesn't want or can't facilitate having said baby she had the right to terminate, but if the man can't he just has to deal with the woman's decision whatever that may be. Bearing in mind they were both to "blame" for the "problem" in this scenario the man would then have the same right to opt out as the woman.

The woman would then know before the birth and termination deadline if the man would be opting out, to decide if she had the baby,she willingly conceived, alone or terminate.

No, it would be idiotic.

Fair enough. Why ?

but if the man can't he just has to deal with the woman's decision whatever that may be.

Yes. Because I am not morally obligated to end a life because he can’t be arsed to be a parent. He should have thought of that.

Wittsendargh

But the point is that you found out all of this after the event. So once the child was here. You didn't consider it before you had sex, which is what posters are saying that men need to do.

They are saying that before a man has sex they need to appreciate that a child is a possibility and should then decide whether to have sex or not based on how they feel about parenting that child.

But as a woman, you weren't held to that same standard. You only considered this after you were pregnant. So is that right? That women can have sex without regard for the consequences but men can't?

Fair enough. Why ?

This isn’t Groundhog Day.

That women can have sex without regard for the consequences but men can't?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

No really, that is priceless.

It doesn’t make a more interesting place. Your circular logic is very boring*

But yet here you still are 😂😂😂

You have no answer other than the one you have repeated, and which has been taken apart.

The point is it hasn't been taken apart, an answer to different question keeps being given

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.
I have been through it, I am a mother 😂😂 that doesn't mean I have to agree with all things that fall a woman's way, I haven't even started I agree with the idea, it's about being objective and debating, seeing both sides even if you don't agree with one

Once we have that sorted, you can have a right to termination as well

ITS NOT ABOUT THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE !!!!!!!! It's about the right to opt out of parenting !!!

bourbonbiccy

I can’t agree, bourbon. I think this is one of those situations where your questions have been comprehensively answered and you are putting your fingers in your ears and saying la la la.

@DecomposingComposers I think you raise some valid points regarding some mother’s being difficult with contact but there are other aspects to this too. Abusive awful men who have ruined their children’s mother’s lives still get contact and mostly unsupervised. That is questionable in terms of the long terms interests of the child since it seems to me if you abuse a child’s mother you abuse them too.

Given that maintenance and contact are also legally separate issues i personally think the idea that a man can emotionally and physically absent himself from his child’s life but still have to pay for their upkeep is absolutely correct. Regardless of the circumstances of conception.

As many people have written on this thread, men do have a choice. Unless lobotomised, a man knows that even sex with a condom on and being extra careful carries a risk albeit a small one of pregnancy. Furthermore I think there is some fudging of the fact that many men willingly have sex without a condom with a women they barely know if she tells them she is on the pill. That is incredibly stupid. Why should a child be deprived just because their biological parents were both jointly irresponsible? To me that is easy to decide and totally separate from the ethical and cultural dilemmas a termination or single parenthood raises.

The thing that makes me so sad on this thread is that at the centre of this discussion there are innocent children who might have been very negatively impacted by this kinds of thing being allowed to occur. But then again, the cynical part of me who has female friends that have been shafted by their ruinous ex husbands over CM - who once loved and cared actively for their offspring - that loads of men get away with murder when it comes to supporting children. They wanted and planned so these would be opt outers probably aren’t exactly worried.

I have no idea who pays for what now. But it’s hardly the point. You want men to have the same rights as women. They can’t have them. I want men to have as much responsibility as women. They can’t be forced to take it.

I don't want men to have the same rights as women - because they can't. I want them to have equal rights.

Currently, a woman can choose not to register the dad on the birth certificate so he doesn't have parental responsibility but she can still claim maintenance from the CMS without giving him PR. If he wants PR he has to take it to court. How the hell is that ok? Sorry, but it just isn't ok.

The system needs to be changed. No child has no father, it isn't possible. If the woman can't, or won't, name the father then the space should be left blank and if in the future a potential father comes forward he can do so, have a DNA test and be named on the BC without cost to him.

If a woman can't or won't name the dad on the BC then she can't claim CMS from anyone.

Rights, and responsibilities, should be enshrined in law. Yes, dads should financially support the child, and so should the mum. Equally, the dad should be able to have equal contact, facilitated if necessary by the state. If dad can't afford housing, and this is a barrier to contact, then he should be provided it by the state so long as he maintains contact. And so on. Treat dads as an equal parent as regards rights and responsibilities.

@DecomposingComposers I have already said I take total responsibility for my daughters conception. I am as much responsible as he is, and at 27 I was very ashamed of how she came about. Even at that age, it took me weeks to tell my own mother! Then when she arrived there was the questions of who the father was, why I hadn't told anyone I was pregnant etc. That's through shame. And I'm not proud of it.

DecomposingComposers

Those are - to some extent - fair points, but they are nothing to do with this argument. I refer you back to the point of this thread. Should a man be able to opt out from parenting because a woman refuses to get an abortion? No, because she has no obligation to end a life. End of story.

Abusive awful men who have ruined their children’s mother’s lives

But I have specifically exempted abusive men from my proposals.

Unless lobotomised, a man knows that even sex with a condom on and being extra careful carries a risk albeit a small one of pregnancy.

And so do women. So how is it we have women shocked that they are pregnant?

Why should a child be deprived just because their biological parents were both jointly irresponsible?

So given you are against a child being deprived because of their biological parents being irresponsible what is your view on women who have unprotected sex with a complete stranger? She then gets pregnant but has no way of identifying him, so even if he were prepared to be an involved dad he can't because he doesn't know. Who is responsible for that?

I can’t agree, bourbon. I think this is one of those situations where your questions have been comprehensively answered and you are putting your fingers in your ears and saying la la la.

Simply by the point you keep talking about a right to terminate, clearly shows you are giving answers to a completely different question that is being discussed, I think missing the point of the debate sums up your answers.

As you have no real answer on the right for a man to opt out as a woman can, after both main gather same "problem" arise (not talking about abortion for the millionth time) I think it is maybe not myself who has ones fingers in the ears.

And so do women. So how is it we have women shocked that they are pregnant?

Keeping pointing out “so do women” doesn’t help, because nobody is arguing that women should be able to dump the consequences on the man.

I refer you back to the point of this thread. Should a man be able to opt out from parenting because a woman refuses to get an abortion?

Really? Is that the point of the thread? I thought the OP was saying that a mum doesn't want to raise a child with a stranger so should his parental rights be allowed to be relinquished.

So, why aren't discussions about men's parental rights and responsibilities entirely pertinent to the OP?

Contact and maintence are treated separately by the Law though. The “sort “ of women some of you speak of so highly didn’t enshrine this.
There must be a bloody good reason for it.

And speaking of reasons, as we do, we reflect on our own experiences and how sometimes we form the views that we do.

With that in mind I’m a bit fed up of reading about this nebulous group of Sir Lancelot type men on here who have been duped by fertile women, then forced to pay for a child they didn’t want despite using more barrier contraceptive than you can shake a stick at, then denied contact with the baby they didn’t even want in the first place.

I have lived on this earth for 44 years. I have met many many people. And learned of their circumstances through my education, friendships, my husband, my career, my children, etc etc. I honestly have yet to encounter one of these men. I have however, met and know a significant number of single mothers who have been left, let down and stuck with all the hard work and worry and cost. And that is without a rule that would have allow this ludicrous opt out.

Simply by the point you keep talking about a right to terminate, clearly shows you are giving answers to a completely different question that is being discussed, I think missing the point of the debate sums up your answers.

That isn’t true. What has been explained to you - many times - is why the absence of a right to terminate does not confer a right to opt out. Many times.

? I thought the OP was saying that a mum doesn't want to raise a child with a stranger so should his parental rights be allowed to be relinquished.

That was the pretext. It’s not what the discussion has actually been about.

@DecomposingComposers you have specifically exempted abusive men from your proposals.

Have you really? How benevolent of you.
And how naive, if you really believe that you can root abusive men out so easily. Think about your statement. Really think about it. Abusive men dupe the system, connive, lie and project with great success in the Family Court system and to Children’s Services on a scale of epidemic proportions. Why do you think Munby’s parting legacy was to reinvigorate the debate and change required to this very problem in terms of safeguarding both children and mothers?
The lack of capacity and real power to actually flush out abusive parents and partners is woeful. We are failing thousands of children and women.

Your statement has made me very angry and shows me precisely the level of ignorance we are still dealing with in this country with regard to abuse in a familial setting

Keeping pointing out “so do women” doesn’t help, because nobody is arguing that women should be able to dump the consequences on the man.

But you are the one who keeps going on about biology. The differences in biology mean that being equal here doesn't mean the same.

So given men equal rights doesn't mean women dumping the consequences on men, because that can't happen. It doesn't mean men choosing abortion, because that can't happen.

It means recognising those differences but equalising the implications of those differences.

So, both partners have equal choices before sex - have protected/unprotected sex or abstain.

If pregnancy occurs women can choose to terminate or proceed.

At this.point, give men the choice to opt in or out. Then women make their choice in full possession of the facts.

If the man chooses to opt in mad the woman chooses to continue then after birth both parents behave equal rights and responsibilities and equal access to state support - it isn't only the mother that gets it.

If the father opts out but the mother opts in then she has to support that child as a lone parent because those are the choices that she made both before she had sex and when deciding not to terminate. If she knows that she can't have an abortion then she needs to either accept she might be a lone parent, or if she can't be, then abstain.

Don't infantilise women by making them the permanent victim here.