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:
BrainFart · 21/06/2019 12:02

Surely then, if you think it’s biology that makes women unable to climb the career ladder after children, we should be forcing a change to make that more equal?

Yeah, quite happy to, but if this unfair consequence of biology is to be legislated away, what about an opt-out for men regarding births they don't want but have no recourse analogous to abortion ? But if the argument is that only unfair consequences of biology that negatively affect women should be legislated away, then that is sexist and balls to that.

Who is going to "make" men take a step back ? That's anti-men discrimination isn't it ? Would you make black people "take a step back" in the NBA or NFL ?

I can live with either position, whether we try to legislate away biological differences (although I think it's a foolhardy enterprise) or not. But at least be consistent, and not sexist.

Pumperthepumper · 21/06/2019 12:04

Put men in an equal situation. Then if they don't step up slate them all that you want.

They can’t be in an equal situation, because of biology. Luckily they’ve got people like you fighting the corner for shit dads everywhere.

Frequency · 21/06/2019 12:06

Yes and in the hypothetical scenario the opt out would have to be done before the termination deadline. So the rights of the child have not changed either

Jesus Christ, it's like trying to educate milk.

If the mother decides to go ahead with the pregnancy, against the wishes of the father (who had the right to wear a condom) then the child still exists and still has the right to be supported by both parents. The parent's rights don't matter at this point.

Child poverty has a major impact on society. It raises crime levels and lowers social mobility. A child growing up in poverty is less likely to succeed academically than a child from a middle income family and thus the cycle continues.

Do you really want to force more children into poverty and force society to deal with the consequences of child poverty just so menz can get their rocks off consequence free?

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 12:09

They can’t be in an equal situation, because of biology. Luckily they’ve got people like you fighting the corner for shit dads everywhere.

Not talking about a biological equivalence. I'm talking about a social equivalence.

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 12:10

Child poverty has a major impact on society

Yes it does. Who should be responsible for not bringing children up in poverty?

herculepoirot2 · 21/06/2019 12:11

Who should be responsible for not bringing children up in poverty?

Their mum and dad?

Frequency · 21/06/2019 12:11

Not talking about a biological equivalence. I'm talking about a social equivalence

I don't think men want social equivalence. They'd create laws to have social equivalence if they did but why would they when they already have the upper hand?

bourbonbiccy · 21/06/2019 12:12

But I have told why she has that right and why he doesn’t. They are not equal. Why should they have equal rights?

Yes you have told me the rights of why he shouldn't have a say on the termination which I agree with.

People are constantly talking about equality but are only happy to discuss it when it falls in a woman's favour. Surely if people want equality for everything they have to see that men deserve the same rights with certain aspects of that.

Yes it would horrible for a woman to have to bring the child up alone, if he "opted out" but she would have to take responsibility for her actions as well. You can't just sit back in this day and age raging about "men getting women pregnant" as if the poor little lady had no choice - she has a choice and if she chooses to take that risk, and accidentally falls pregnant and she wants the baby, but the father doesn't, why should he be forced to parent ?
If a woman fall pregnant and she doesn't want the baby she doesn't have to have it, she isn't forced to parent

I can't believe people can't see the double standards, wether they like the result of that or not, you can't bang your equally rights drum in everything apart from the bits you don't want, it just devalues the entire issue.

WeirdAndPissedOff · 21/06/2019 12:12

^ The parents.
I'm interested in who you think the answer is. If just the mother, why?

BrainFart · 21/06/2019 12:13

Surely then, if you think it’s biology that makes women unable to climb the career ladder after children, we should be forcing a change to make that more equal?

Just noticed, I didn't say it makes them unable (I gave an example of one who did), it just makes it more difficult and the majority of them are not willing. In the same way that the majority of men are not willing to have an all-consuming career, but a lot more men are willing than women.

Pumperthepumper · 21/06/2019 12:13

Yeah, quite happy to, but if this unfair consequence of biology is to be legislated away, what about an opt-out for men regarding births they don't want but have no recourse analogous to abortion ?

Men can already opt out of births they don’t want! It’s called ‘being responsible for your own contraception’. It’s funny how it’s so easy to toss around (if you’ll forgive the expression) abortion as a prevention but suggesting men have a vasectomy is an absolute no-no.

Well, it wouldn’t be ‘anti-men’ would it? It would be ‘pro-women’ just as opting out of parenting would be pro-men. It means men get a shitty option but at least the women are getting exactly what they want. After all, men chose to work there knowing they could be demoted at any time, how could they complain?

bourbonbiccy · 21/06/2019 12:15

A man does not and should have the right to force a child to live in poverty

Neither does a woman, nor should a couple together, but I would be very careful with this argument as it sounds like it could be on the cards to be means tested before you are allowed to have a baby ...?.

Pumperthepumper · 21/06/2019 12:15

Not talking about a biological equivalence. I'm talking about a social equivalence.

Oh god I would love a social equivalence! Like holding CEO positions solely for women on mat leave so that the FTSE CEO list is 50% female - equality! At last!

bourbonbiccy · 21/06/2019 12:16

Put men in an equal situation. Then if they don't step up slate them all that you want.

Yes, that sounds about right.

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 12:16

I don't think men want social equivalence. They'd create laws to have social equivalence if they did but why would they when they already have the upper hand?

Because the men making the laws are not the ones who would benefit or who are suffering a disadvantage due to the existing laws.

herculepoirot2 · 21/06/2019 12:17

Surely if people want equality for everything they have to see that men deserve the same rights with certain aspects of that.

I am perfectly and more than aware that we don’t have equality for everything. I know you as a man will never need an abortion, or stitches to repair a third degree tear, or have mastitis, or a caesarean scar, or die giving birth. That is why I am entitled to end a pregnancy and you are not entitled to opt out of parenting. Different roles in the process, different rights. Very simple.

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 12:17

Posted too soon - just as those imposing NHS cuts aren't the ones who suffer because of them.

herculepoirot2 · 21/06/2019 12:18

You can't just sit back in this day and age raging about "men getting women pregnant" as if the poor little lady had no choice

I didn’t.

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 12:19

Neither does a woman, nor should a couple together, but I would be very careful with this argument as it sounds like it could be on the cards to be means tested before you are allowed to have a baby ...?.

Exactly.

bourbonbiccy · 21/06/2019 12:19

Men can already opt out of births they don’t want! It’s called ‘being responsible for your own contraception’.
Same goes for the women
It’s funny how it’s so easy to toss around (if you’ll forgive the expression) abortion as a prevention
I haven't seen that tossed round as a prevention, but a right a woman has, but if it is being that is fundamentally wrong.

Happyspud · 21/06/2019 12:20

I agree with you OP. And I think also that the implications of opting out over time will increase the respect men have overall for the role of father being something they need to commit to or not. It would also ultimately free a lot of single mums from deadbeat men and the emotional toll of their ongoing ability to dip in and ruin lives.

BrainFart · 21/06/2019 12:21

Men can already opt out of births they don’t want! It’s called ‘being responsible for your own contraception’. It’s funny how it’s so easy to toss around (if you’ll forgive the expression) abortion as a prevention but suggesting men have a vasectomy is an absolute no-no.

Happily forgetting or ignoring that mistakes do happen, and contraception does fail. An abortion is not analagous to a vasectomy as one is a one-off and the other permanent (or at least I'm led to believe, difficult to reverse). But yeah, men absolutely have the right to get a vasectomy. It's not a discussion about what people should do, it's about what people should have the right to do and in this instance there is no right for men to undo the responsibility of an unplanned pregnancy that exists for women through abortion. Again, I'm happy for either situation to persist, as long as the same principle is rigorously applied to all issues of the unfair consequences of biological difference between men and women.

Well, it wouldn’t be ‘anti-men’ would it? It would be ‘pro-women’ just as opting out of parenting would be pro-men. It means men get a shitty option but at least the women are getting exactly what they want. After all, men chose to work there knowing they could be demoted at any time, how could they complain?

Would you or any other women accept being demoted purely on the basis of your sex without your next stop being HR and an employment tribunal ?

DecomposingComposers · 21/06/2019 12:21

Men can already opt out of births they don’t want! It’s called ‘being responsible for your own contraception’.

So you are saying then that every woman who gets pregnant has chosen that? Because clearly, if she didn't want to get pregnant she would have been responsible for her own contraception - right?

Frequency · 21/06/2019 12:25

why should he be forced to parent?

No-one is forcing men to parent. There is no legal framework in place to force a man to parent. What is in place is woefully inadequate system that claims to force a man to pay towards the upkeep of the child their sperm created.

In practice, men aren't even forced to do that. My ex, who earns more than me, pays £50 per month, per child. He gets away with this because he 'sold' his properties when he left me to his sister. He still receives rental income from them but I can't prove that because his sister gives him it cash in hand. The CMS only take into account the earnings from his part-time job. When he feels like not paying that he cancels the direct debit and when the CMS eventually catch up with him arranges to pay the arrears at the rate of £2 a week.

My kids lunch money alone is £50 a month. What do you think would happen if I turned around one month and said, "sorry kids, no food this month. I have a holiday to pay for" as he frequently does with his CMS payments?

Pumperthepumper · 21/06/2019 12:36

Would you or any other women accept being demoted purely on the basis of your sex without your next stop being HR and an employment tribunal ?

Ah but it wouldn’t affect me, would it? I want to be a CEO so men should respect that want and give me it, even if it means they get fucked over. They chose to work there.

Swipe left for the next trending thread