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?)

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

It's not a pretext. It is literally what the OP is about. The fact you have decided to make it about abortion rights doesn't mean that is what the OP is about.

All this discussion to justify and enable men abandoning responsibility for their children. People feeling sorry for them because they might not be able to entirely avoid the consequences of their own choices and actions. Think about what you’re saying for heaven’s sake.

I notice with interest that abortion is absolutely a-okay with these posters too if it can be used to bolster the assertion that MEN are the ones who are hard done by when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. Or a wanted pregnancy for that matter, but they want to be able to change their minds and magically take back their sperm and it’s soo unfair that the law doesn’t help them to do so.

Boo fucking hoo.

The misogyny and desperation for male approval is deafening.

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.

This is just absolutely this thread in a nutshell, isn’t it? Loving your work Hercule because it’s brilliant to read these intelligent, well-reasoned posts against a sea of ‘but the MEN don’t WANT it’.

Anyone prepared to admit that the babies needs are less important than the father’s wants? Since that’s the bottom line of ‘well he didn’t WANT the baby so should be allowed to opt out’

I notice with interest that abortion is absolutely a-okay with these posters too if it can be used to bolster the assertion that MEN are the ones who are hard done by when an unwanted pregnancy occurs.

In my case, I'm a-ok with abortion regardless, and had assumed it was freely available in the UK. Even if men don't have such an opt-out, it still should be freely available in the UK so that no woman has to go through the stress and/or charade of having to prove MH or other medical issues.

All this opt in and opt out stuff is utterly pathetic. You are trying to apply process and rationale to something utterly the opposite. You are also making some major assumptions about the circumstances in which these children that men don’t want were conceived and there will only be one party’s word against the other unless they were putting on a sex show.

How do you account for all the people who plan children then retrospectively opt out?
Don’t tell me the CMS and the Family Courts take care of all that. The reality is somewhat different.

The state will never write off an opportunity to take money from an individual. Especially not the current government, who do not really care about the needy, the poor the vulnerable. I sometimes wonders if the CMS is only really there to try and take the pressure off other government pots. And if you think an administration with more of a social conscience would ever seriously consider creating a process that generates wealth via applying and paying to disown a child then it’s either risible or very disturbing indeed.

It’s the equivalent of Bo Jo’s bridge idea.

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness

So you want a system based on making it very hard for most men to get parental responsibility because some men are abusive? But then you want to be able to complain that men won't step up and be parents, despite supporting a system that makes it almost impossible for these men?

I have seen posts on here where women openly say they don't want the dad involved. There always replies that say "don't put him on the BC. Make him go to court to get PR, if he can be bothered, which he probably won't. You can still get CMS even if he isn't on the BC". So how is that putting the child first and making sure they have both parents? It is entirely gaming the system, knowing that it makes it difficult for men to do this.

Set up a fair system. Don't let women exclude dads. Ensure that opportunities to parent are equal. Don't give all the rights to one parent and then complain that the other parent doesn't step up.

@NiteFlights
I am in total agreement

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness

So explain then how it's right for a mother to be provided with social housing, benefits and child benefit so that she can care for her child but the dad isn't. Then his lack of suitable housing is used as a reason as to why he can't see his child? How, in any way, is that right or fair to the child?

If lack of housing is the barrier to him seeing the child then yes, he should get the same help from the state that the mother does.

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.

And it isn’t the same. The woman bears all of the physical risk. But if the man impregnates someone, he is responsible for that. There is no reason in the world why he shouldn’t be.

I want men and women held to the same standards.

So if men are feckless for having unprotected sex, then so are women.

If women can choose to have unprotected sex with a random man and risk having a child without knowing who the father is and relying on the state to raise that child then how can you say that men can't choose not to be involved in other instances?

If being raised without a father is to be avoided at all costs what do we do about women choosing to do just that?

But if the man impregnates someone, he is responsible for that.

Does he do that in isolation then? And this isn't what the OP is about.

The OP is about a woman who had a ONS, had a child but now doesn't want the dad involved because he is a stranger.

That's all on her. She chose that, so tough noogies now. She needs to accept that she chose to have a child with a stranger and so now needs to figure it out. Not say that she doesn't want a stranger involved with her child. Well no, it's not her child it's their child.

No that is not what I want at all. You have manipulated my words, and I don’t appreciate that.

I want a system where there is genuine skill and capacity to root out the abusive men that give decent ones a bad name. But primarily to protect children. I’m sorry if you find it galling that to me a child comes before a parent but they do and always should.

What happens if a man won’t register the birth with you, or you can’t find him. You’re not married so what do you do?

I have as I said no issue at all with the separation of contact and maintenance. It works both ways in that a non maintenance payer - and there are plenty of them - still can see his children. So suck it up.

It isn’t impossible to get PR, to get contact, in fact it seems quite easy to me.

Conversely if a woman wants to remove an abusive partner and parent from her and her children’s lives for proven and justifiable reasons it seems she has a practically impossible fight ahead of her.

There are reasons why most single parents on benefits are women
There are often reasons for lost of things if you look hard enough.

I understand the question of opting out inevitably brings these layers of complexity and what ifs but I think if you start allowing certain groups of society’s opinions to override biology and sovereignty over your own body then we are headed for dark days ahead.

I want men and women held to the same standards.

Do you really? Are you arguing to close the gender pay gap? Are you pushing for 50/50 custody for men and women in the result of a separation? Are you doing as much as you can to rebalance the number of men and women CEOs in the FTSE100? Or is it just this particular point, when a man can’t snap his fingers and get exactly what he wants that you have an issue with?

@DecomposingComposers where did I say that is right? Once again you re putting words in my mouth.

A good parent who loves their children and wants to raise them should always be supported regardless of gender / sex whatever you are allowed to call it on here.

There are wider issues here of course in terms of who is the primary carer having given up their job to care for the children, marital status, circumstances of separation etc.

And the lamentable state of our social care and support infrastructure. Which is only going to get worse.

It's not a pretext. It is literally what the OP is about. The fact you have decided to make it about abortion rights doesn't mean that is what the OP is about.

I am NOT making it about abortion rights. I am saying abortion rights are irrelevant to the question of an opt out. You and others are linking the two.

Well no, it's not her child it's their child.

Erm, this is exactly what I am saying.

I think the issue of abortion is a red herring. The reason abortion always has to be an option, is not because women get to choose parenthood or not, it is all about bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy should be an inalienable human right. This is a right which men have (an in fact have had for much longer than women).

Both parents are involved in making the baby, both have the choice then to try and prevent it. Once the baby is conceived the woman has the right to decide whether or not to carry the baby. Being pregnant and giving birth is a huge thing, which has lifelong consequences on a woman's body. She gets to chose whether to do this - because she has bodily autonomy. In the same way a man gets to make decisions about his body.

If the baby is carried to term, and born. That baby now exists and both parents have equal responsibility in caring and providing for that baby.

Also, the fact of the matter is that it is ridiculous this is being discussed as an option. Once a man knows that his child exists, he should want to have a relationship with it and provide it a decent quality of life. That is the right thing to do. I am a woman, but if somehow a baby of mine was born that I hadn't chosen, I would still want to know it and provide for it. As a society there should be a huge social stigma for men who abandon their children (equivalent to the stigma for women). As it is men are called "good dads" for seeing their children for a few hours a week and paying a tiny percentage of what they cost.

Yes, life isn't fair ......for women!

DecomposingComposers

In any case, you seem very confused about the OP. The father was certain he did not want a child. He de facto opted out early on. The mother was left to do all the work. Now he wants involvement and she doesn’t want him to have it. What the fuck does that have to do with giving men an “opt out” during pregnancy? If she is doing the wrong thing by trying to exclude him now, surely it follows that opting out of parenting is wrong?

As I read it, that was merely the backstory to the actual thrust of the OP being about whether an opt-out should be available for men up until a certain point in the child's development (as foetus or up to 1-month old as initially suggested), not about the situation her friend was in.

BrainFart

Exactly. The OP is about the opt out, so let’s discuss that, if anything. Not the price of fish generally.

Pumperthepumper

Thanks 😂

In any case, you seem very confused about the OP. The father was certain he did not want a child. He de facto opted out early on. The mother was left to do all the work. Now he wants involvement and she doesn’t want him to have it. What the fuck does that have to do with giving men an “opt out” during pregnancy? If she is doing the wrong thing by trying to exclude him now, surely it follows that opting out of parenting is wrong?

But it is her who raised wanting to allow men to opt out. Though actually what she wants is to allow women to remove men's rights, because the opt out doesn't apply in her case.

It clearly says that mum doesn't want this stranger involved. But this stranger is her child's father. He wants to be involved (yes, late in the day but better late than never for the child) so she has no right to say no, does she?

As I said it isn't her child it is their child.

@herculepoirot2

Yes you are right, what’s more he’s been and being a have your cake and eat it sort. IF he had been allowed to opt out and rescind his rights he’d be fucked now.

Seems people change their minds. Who would have thought it ?!

But it is her who raised wanting to allow men to opt out. Though actually what she wants is to allow women to remove men's rights, because the opt out doesn't apply in her case.

Oh I see. But yes, she’s wrong, isn’t she? And yet you have spent 30 odd pages agreeing with her.

@NemoRocksMyWorld
Yes
Yes
And yes.

And no it isn’t!