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?)

I think rather than do something like this, we should concentrate more on getting something like the male pill and put prevention back onto men more (also doing further research into the female pill)

While no conception is 100%, the combination of male, female pill and condom should be enough.

But as I say a lot more research and testing would need to be done on both. Personally that would be money better spent. It also means that it rules out, the whole argument that a woman tried to trap them.

This forum will have some faux outrage and come out with the usual tired line of 'wear a condom/dont have sex'
Meh. No outrage, faux or not. It's a pretty accurate and sensible idea though
Fact is, men DO have the final say. The buck stops with them whether or not you want to accept/admit it. If they choose NOT to wear a condom, I have no sympathy, especially for those 'pregnant after 5 minutes' scenarios. Stupidity doesn't mean you can opt out.

Consequence free sex for me men already exists. It’s really not that hard to walk away and avoid paying for children.

You're right. Because it works for kost people most of the time, screw the people for whom it fails

I’m not saying screw them, but you cannot pretend that the tiny minority for whom it fails are a vast majority. Contraception is very reliable. If it fails, that’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the norm.

For women, it’s not just a case of ‘opting out’ by terminating or giving up for adoption. It’s an agonising and painful decision to make.
Pregnancy is difficult and can be traumatic and life threatening.
Using the term ‘opting out’ sounds like you just fill a form and skip off into the sunset. That might be the case for men but it won’t be for women.
The decision needs to be made by the woman, who bears the burden of it all.
Contraception needs to be the responsibility of both parties.
So no, I don’t think men should be able to opt out.

MyOpinionIsValid - you're brave to post that considering how much I've been yelled at 😂 but that's very interesting. I've always heard it claimed that this happens, and it is so so wrong - if it could be proven that a woman deliberately caused a pregnancy (either by stopping her pill or other) then should normal rules apply? Is the man still responsible or is he a victim?

Fact is, men DO have the final say. The buck stops with them whether or not you want to accept/admit it.

No, women do, it’s their body. They don’t have to have a child they don’t want. Or they can if they want, their choice. A man doesn’t have that choice. They may be equally responsible for the sex, but what the outcome of that sex may be is a woman’s choice.

@mawof3soontobe

Yes it is extreme. It was deliberately so to make my point to people who are saying that it is not fair for men to have parenthood forced on them because the woman choses not to have an abortion.

Your abortion experience may have been fine for you but it is not the same for everyone and to suggest that a man could effectively say get it done or I am signing this paper and absolving myself of any responsibility is to me abhorrent.

For some women, getting an abortion would be far more physically damaging and emotionally traumatic as a man getting a vasectomy.

But as PPs have said, women have choices and actually so do men. They are just not very palatable ones.

Using the term ‘opting out’ sounds like you just fill a form and skip off into the sunset. That might be the case for men but it won’t be for women.

You're right, Beechview - I do agree with this. I guess for a woman there's no easy way out whereas for a man there could be, which means it isn't ready equal at all.

For women, it’s not just a case of ‘opting out’ by terminating or giving up for adoption. It’s an agonising and painful decision to make. Pregnancy is difficult and can be traumatic and life threatening.

This isn’t news. Sex is inherently more risky for women than men.

No they shouldn't be able to 'opt' out because none of this is about the parents - it about the child who's been conceived. How and why that child has come into existence is a moot point, that child is entitled to emotional and financial support from both its' parents.

I guess for a woman there's no easy way out whereas for a man there could be, which means it isn't ready equal at all.

That’s biology for you. There’s no way to make this fair and equitable.

"A man doesn’t have that choice. They may be equally responsible for the sex, but what the outcome of that sex may be is a woman’s choice"

I agree with this too. This is where my confusion comes in, to be honest, and why I think that men maybe should have some way out. Is the best thing for a child really to insist a man is involved in their upbringing when he knows he doesn't want to be and/or won't be a good parent? Don't children deserve to be loved and not treated like a burden by ANYONE in their life? And if someone will treat/view them as a burden, isn't it better that they're not in their life anyway?

I do think there should be a limited opt out.

Every time I have sex I have a to accept the possibility of becoming pregnant, but I never have to accept becoming a parent. If I am pregnant and don't want to be I can get rid of the pregnancy even if the Father doesn't want that. Up until 24 weeks I alone, have complete control.

So I do think there should be a point before 24 weeks, where a man could express his choice not to become a Father and opt out. After 24 weeks neither he or the Mother can opt out completely so T that point it seems fair.

Completely disagree. That as policy would send us back to the days of unmarried mothers' homes and sending pregnant women to the workhouse. It exonerates men, whatever the circumstances, of any responsibility whatsoever and leaves it entirely on the woman's shoulders.
The system is far from perfect but it's better than no system at all and, in the absence of abuse, it is generally better for a child to have a relationship with both parents.
I agree it's unfair a woman can choose a termination but a man can't influence the situation after choosing unprotected sex but this isn't the answer.

In theory I kind of get what you’re saying. However, dd1’s dad effectively did this with a child he fathered 12 years before my dd came along. The mother had told him she was on the pill, they were only together a few months. He decided it wasn’t working out so told her he wanted to break up, and that’s when she told him she was pg. he made it clear that he did not want a child, and if she had the baby she was on her own. She was happy with that as she had intentionally stopped taking the pill as she wanted a baby.

They did stay in touch and he’d see the child maybe once a year or so. Her mum is a very strong woman who has given her a really interesting life, travelling to different countries a lot for her work. She grew up to be a very switched on, successful young woman.

All good UNTIL my dd came along. He has been involved with her since she was born, and although we split up when she was a baby, by his standards he’s been a great dad. His now adult other daughter came to visit a few years ago, and saw my dd’s Bedroom which her dad had lovingly made for her, and her art station in the corner of the living room with all her pictures on the walls, and it really messed with her head. Now she won’t have anything to do with him at all.

No I think that the right of born children to be supported by the people who created them is more important that the right of men to ejaculate without consequence

This. It needs to be about the best interest of the children, not men’s sexual rights.

Both men and women can opt out of parenthood. It's called adoption.

Men can opt out by choosing to not be involved. Sure rhey still need to legally pay, but that's all. A woman has more options to opt out. She can abort or go for adoption. And she doesn't need to pay when it's adoption.

A man has less choices, but he can effectively still opt out. Both genders do it frequently.

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.

Not true. Many women, for religious or ethical reasons cannot or would not consider an abortion. I’m one of them - I support abortion as absolutely necessary but on a personal level it is not something I would even consider. So as a result I have only had penetrative sex in a committed relationship with men who I’m planning a future with. There are plenty of other ways to have fun in bed.
Men who don’t want children with the woman they’re with do not need to have penetrative sex.

What you’re advocating for is for children who have no choice in being born to be deprived of half the financial support required to provide them with a healthy, safe, nourished upbinging. Not to mention the absence of the person who provides 50% of their DNA. By choice. I’m currently raising two children who’s father has chosen not to be involved in their lives in any way. I can assure you that while it may be fantastic for their father to have that option to live his unencumbered life, it is certainly NOT consequence free for the children. It’s causes huge amounts of pain and will leave a permanent emotional legacy with my children. My youngest in particular has been irreparably damaged by his father’s choice to reject him. It says an awful lot about a person’s emotional intelligence that they think this should be a legal option for men. Spend some time with abandoned children. See exactly how “consequence free” it is. Maybe feel embarrassed.

Hmm. Interesting. I'm getting from this opening post that men are somehow hard done by when it comes to the whole parenting thing. Totally true. Women don't do the majority of childcare, don't put their careers on hold, don't sacrifice most of the rest of their life, don't earn less over a lifetime, aren't held responsible for all of society's failings that are inevitably the fault of 'feckless single mothers', I could go on.

You're right though, OP. Anything we can do to make men's lives easier we should absolutely be doing. Because, you know, they're the losers in society.

Is the best thing for a child really to insist a man is involved in their upbringing when he knows he doesn't want to be and/or won't be a good parent?

Women make this decision. They don’t have the right to force their decision upon the man in question. You can’t force someone to care about a child, and you can’t force someone to support them. So the decision should be made with that in mind.

The realities of abortion versus signing a form to 'opt out' are inherently unequal ways of avoiding parenthood.

You also have to factor in the men who string women along until the child arrives and then change their mind.

That said, if both the mother and father don't want the father in the childs life, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have some way they can arrange that, but both should have to consent to it.

I would also suggest that theres some sort of assessment beforehand though. Committing to raise a child on one income without any possible help is a big deal, and I'd worry about someone more vulnerable being coerced into signing rights away.

No they shouldn't be able to 'opt' out because none of this is about the parents - it about the child who's been conceived. How and why that child has come into existence is a moot point, that child is entitled to emotional and financial support from both its' parents.

But the child will be born as a result of a choice made by its mother in which the father has no say. Prior to that it has no rights.

Yes its called vasectomy.