Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 10:26

The OP says that the mum doesn't like this man and she regrets continuing with the pregnancy in the hope that he would come around, despite him telling her how he felt.

So, basically, she had sex with a relative stranger, got pregnant, he told her he didn't want the child but she went ahead hoping he would change his mind. Now that he has changed his mind she regrets not having an abortion because she doesn't want this stranger involved in her child's life.

So, pretty screwed up all round. Both are responsible for poor decisions. Both need to own those decisions and not blame the other party. Neither should be in the situations that they are in and both should blame their own poor choices for that.

herculepoirot2 · 21/06/2019 10:27

DecomposingComposers

I am not disagreeing with you. I am disagreeing with an opt out.

BrainFart · 21/06/2019 10:30

@NemoRocksMyWorld

Thank you, that was a very clear statement of your position.

Men and women assume the joint responsibility for the foetus at moment of conception.

However, the bodily autonomy imperative affords women the choice of engaging this responsibility or abdicating it entirely. There is no analagous choice for men.

This is an unfair consequence of biology. Which is fine, until shit like the "gender pay gap" (which barely exists anyway, at least the gender component) is brought up as an issue where unfair consequences of biology need to be corrected by legal instruments.

So, are we as a society happy to accept unfair consequences of biology, or not ? Or do we wish to cherry-pick ?

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 10:31

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

I don't agree with her because I don't think women should be allowed to remove men's parental rights.

Is it men's fault that women get pregnant? No. Because pregnancy can't occur without a man and a woman.

Should men be able to force abortion - absolutely not.

Should men be compelled to be a parent - no, I don't think they should.

Should more be done to remove the barriers that stop men being parents - yes they should.

herculepoirot2 · 21/06/2019 10:32

So, are we as a society happy to accept unfair consequences of biology, or not ? Or do we wish to cherry-pick ?

We accept them anyway. When was the last time a man died in childbirth?

What you are advocating is further injustice, not restitution.

MsJuniper · 21/06/2019 10:32

Haven't rtft but presuming OP is either the father or a male friend of the father in the situation described.

herculepoirot2 · 21/06/2019 10:32

Should men be compelled to be a parent - no, I don't think they should.

Then you agree with her about one of the many things she is mistaken about.

herculepoirot2 · 21/06/2019 10:33

Haven't rtft but presuming OP is either the father or a male friend of the father in the situation described.

Or his mum.

Pumperthepumper · 21/06/2019 10:33

I’m willing to bet that if there was a system by which a man was absolutely forced to financially support any child they’ve created, and punished by a prison sentence if they didn’t, men would be an awful lot more careful about making these babies they don’t want.

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 10:36

Then you agree with her about one of the many things she is mistaken about.

In what way? I can't understand what she is proposing because her apparent solution has no bearing on her situation so I am confused about what she is asking for.

Should men opt out early in pregnancy - I think this is an interesting idea that should be looked at

Should women be able to impose it - no.

Would the opt out affect the situation in the OP? No because the child is here and the mum not liking the situation is tough luck. It was her choice to be in the situation so now she has to get on with it.

BrainFart · 21/06/2019 10:37

@herculepoirot2

So we accept them, that's absolutely fine. But, in which case the various arguments for more women CEOs, quotas in boardrooms, the "gender pay gap" fall by the wayside as these are also unfair consequences of biology as women's career advancement is harmed because they are the ones who birth children.

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 10:39

I’m willing to bet that if there was a system by which a man was absolutely forced to financially support any child they’ve created, and punished by a prison sentence if they didn’t, men would be an awful lot more careful about making these babies they don’t want.

You are probably right. Also willing to bet that if benefits stopped at the age of 3 and mums had to go to work then they would be a lot more careful about unplanned pregnancies too.

Let's implement both ideas shall we? Make men and women responsible for the children that they produce?

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness · 21/06/2019 10:39

@DecomposingComposers “both are responsible for their poor decisions”
Precisely.
So no opting out

Oswin · 21/06/2019 10:41

So decomposed men should be able to make the decision to legally walk away. Leaving the mother 100 percent responsible?
But women shouldn't be able to take away pr from a piece of shit father?

So you would prefer men to be able to create children all over the place. Legally abandoning a few and keeping his rights to another few kids. And with the kids he keeps his rights to he doesn't pay for them just treats them like shit and hardly see them.
So the women are allowed no input into either situation.

Fucks sake. Why do you dislike women so much.

Pumperthepumper · 21/06/2019 10:41

BrainFart

So we accept them, that's absolutely fine. But, in which case the various arguments for more women CEOs, quotas in boardrooms, the "gender pay gap" fall by the wayside as these are also unfair consequences of biology as women's career advancement is harmed because they are the ones who birth children.

I think you’ve misunderstood my point - Decomposing was worried that women had the upper hand here, I was asking him if he felt the same about issues where women didn’t have the upper hand. No answer, which probably means no.

But none of these points are related to biology. It’s not a biological issue that stops the FTSE100 CEOs being 50% female. I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. I was trying to see how far Decomposing would go for equal rights, and the answer is: as far as it takes to make sure men hold all the cards, always.

NiteFlights · 21/06/2019 10:42

I can't understand what she is proposing because her apparent solution has no bearing on her situation so I am confused about what she is asking for.

Simply that if an opt-out had been in place he’d probably have chosen it and wouldn’t be trying to ‘opt in’ now.

I don’t think OP said her friend now wishes she’d had an abortion BTW. She just wants to continue parenting on her own.

NiteFlights · 21/06/2019 10:45

@Ginlinessisnexttogodliness thanks. It’s tiring, isn’t it.

BrainFart · 21/06/2019 10:49

It’s not a biological issue that stops the FTSE100 CEOs being 50% female.

Of course it is. To become a FTSE100 CEO you have to work insane hours, from the age of 18-50, spend holidays & maternity leave being almost permanently wedded to your phone, flying worldwide ad infinitum, networking events and others. Between the necessary time put into all this, alongside motherhood, and also taking into account the psychological traits necessary to become a CEO - hyper-competivity, an almost pathological focus on your career - and the pool of such women compared to the pool of such men shrinks as to be almost nothing in comparison.

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 10:51

Decomposing was worried that women had the upper hand here, I was asking him if he felt the same about issues where women didn’t have the upper hand. No answer, which probably means no.

Sorry, who's him?

Pumperthepumper · 21/06/2019 10:53

Between the necessary time put into all this, alongside motherhood

But you’re still assuming that the childcare and the parenting is 100% down to the woman. It isn’t. Biologically, there’s no reason she can’t birth the child, recover from the birth then head back to work. What the baby needs (without getting into the ins and outs of breastfeeding) is a parent. There’s no biological reason for that parent having to be the mother.

MirriVan · 21/06/2019 10:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 10:54

I don’t think OP said her friend now wishes she’d had an abortion BTW. She just wants to continue parenting on her own.

Then what benefit would knowing the man wanted to give up his rights make, if the woman didn't want to act on it?

Pumperthepumper · 21/06/2019 10:55

Sorry, who's him?

I was just checking you were reading my posts since you’re determined to ignore that question. Since you’ve definitely seen it and refused to answer it again, I’m going to assume I’m right.

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 10:57

Say a woman gives birth but decides she doesn't want the responsibility. The father wants to keep the child, and so gets custody. Should the woman be free from responsibility of paying for the upkeep of that child?

In this instance do the same barriers happen to the mum as currently happen to dads? So, she isn't named on the BC and has to go to court to be added?

Would she have to pay CM without having PR?

Wouldn't happen would it so it's a false equivalence.

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 10:59

I was just checking you were reading my posts since you’re determined to ignore that question. Since you’ve definitely seen it and refused to answer it again, I’m going to assume I’m right.

I haven't seen it actually. No idea what your question was. There are too many posts and I'm skimming through them.

What was your question? And never assume - you know what they say.

Swipe left for the next trending thread