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 it would be a disaster as there are so many ‘men’ who would opt out, leaving the woman to support the child while the man skips off to impregnate the next woman and opt out. As soon as my son is old enough to start having sex it will be drummed into him that if the woman gets pregnant he has absolutely no say in whether he becomes a father so he must take equal responsibility for contraception.

Note that the OP has chosen not to engage with the core point, that the man can choose not to have sex, and the woman gets to choose not to continue with a pregnancy because SHE is the one who is pregnant.

I haven’t read all the responses so apologize if this is repetitive.

I don’t know how it works here but I’m American and I know there it is legal for a father and a mother to contractually agree that the father will relinquish all parental responsibility. That means the father has no financial obligation to the child BUT he has no right to see the child or be in the child’s life, ever. It’s like he gave the child up for adoption. Some women are OK with giving up on child support, which in many cases won’t be much if at all, so that she has peace of mind that the father can’t just decide to show up when the child is older. He would have no more right to the child than a stranger.

Importantly, this can only be done by agreement, usually through lawyers. I know two women who have done this and are very happy. It’s not like these fathers were likely to do anything for the baby anyway, and this way there is no nagging anxiety about the father suddenly wanting a relationship.

Is this a thing in the U.K. as well?

It's not about men's rights Vs women's rights. It's about the right of a child, who has a right to be financially supported by both parents
I agree with this

I always thought similarly to you before, but really the rights belong to the child, not the mother. An existing child has the right to be supported by two parents. And unlike an abortion, if one parent opts out, the other has to pick up the slack (or the taxpayer, to an extent) - it's not a decision that impacts them alone, but also the other parent.

And the outcomes are unequal in both directions - a woman having an abortion won't leave a man supporting and raising a child alone for the next 18+ years.

A poster on another thread said that for an adoption to take place both parents must consent, or the mother must prove she has made every effort to notify the father. So if that's the case:

• both parents have equal rights re adoption
• both parents have equal rights and responsibilities re children once they are born. Non-resident mothers must pay maintenance.
• Women have the right not to continue a pregnancy, with its associated effects and risks to health. Men don't have this right because they don't fall pregnant. Whilst I agree this does in effect allow women an opportunity to "opt-out" that men don't have, it's one that effects women alone and will not have a marked negative impact on a living child or the other parent. (Aside from emotional, in the case of wanted children).
• Men often slip out of their responsibilities to children once born. Women by default are left with the financial, emotional an childcare burden. They have no choice in this - if a resident mother decides to not pay for their children like the father has, they would be jailed for neglect.
• You're proposing an official opt-out system, which would mean more women carrying 100% of the financial burden, and an increase in costs to the taxpayer.

And to clarify, my deepest sympathies lie with men who both lose a wanted child to an abortion, or are "trapped" by a woman deliberately lying about contraception.
And I believe men and women bear equal responsibilities re contraception - an accidental pregnancy is not "poor woman, careless man".

But I don't feel that either preventing abortions (which are usually not a decision taken lightly), or allowing parents to opt out of their responsibilities to the detriment of the other parent and the child is the answer.

None of us exists in a bubble, and in the system you're proposing the man will be able to make an official decision that has lifelong effects on three people, allowing him to shirk his responsibility to the child he created to the detriment to the other parent, the child, and society in general.

Isabella do you really think all women can choose to either work or be SAHM? In my experience they often have no choice in the matter unless married to someone wealthy. And yes it has to be marriage if the woman wants any sort of pension for her efforts.

Everyone has agency - in what jobs they take, whether to get married, who to marry, whether to have children, whether to keep working or whether to stay home. Yes, people have choices.

Your friend is unreasonable. He made it clear he didnt want the baby so she was on het own. Did she put his name on tbe biryh certificate? Does the child have his name? If so why?

Men choose to opt out all tne time, even those who are in relationships/married. I can't see this changing because society still sees men who sleep around as ok but women who do it are cheap. A woman gets pregnant society says it's her fault. Tne benefit system is setup in this way, the state acts as the fathet from a financial viewpoint.

I imagine the sale of condoms would drop massively the day after an opt-out law for men came in.

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
Nope.
Of course a man has a choice. It's called a condom. If a man chooses not to use one, it's on him.
A couple is equally responsible for the sex, sure, but the outcome is down to the man. Always.

If a pregnancy results, THEN the woman has the final say.
All of the contraception failures are on MN of course, but in the real world it's extremely effective. The poor menz who choose not to use a condom and then cry foul are pretty 'special' individuals

*Condoms bought by men, that should say

Men can choose to have sex.Women can choose to have sex.

Man can choose to use contraception. Women can choose to use contraception.

Men can’t choose whether to continue
pregnancy. Women can choose whether to continue pregnancy.

Women hold all the cards on this game.

My dh had this conversation with someone and they agreed that if men could opt out, there would be an awful lot of them, particularly young ones, who would have no problem never wearing a condom and constantly opting out.

I tend to agree.

Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland therefore women have no "opt out" clause here. And so, no men shouldn't be given an "opt out" clause. They already have plenty of ways they get out of parenting.

A couple is equally responsible for the sex, sure, but the outcome is down to the man. Always. If a pregnancy results, THEN the woman has the final say.

No, contraception is the responsibility of both. Are you saying women not capable of taking control their own bodies? They can’t make sure they don’t get pregnant? They have to rely on someone else?

Yes, the woman has the final say, but has no right to impose the choice she makes on the man.

ODFOD
As if society wasn’t already misogynistic and generally fucking hideous towards women. We’ve now got women - yes actually, women - musing this subject. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.

OP the irony is they opt out anyway if they want to. They don’t need a “law” to enable it. Where have you and your friend been living?

Park all the very serious issues such as the emotional and psychological impacts of having or not having a shitey deadbeat dad wafting in and out of your life or just not giving a fuck about them in first place. Just look at the real reason why “men” would use such a law which would be be to protect their wallet. You don’t seriously think even if they are clobbered for child maintenance it is really anywhere near what it costs to bring up a child?

My dh had this conversation with someone and they agreed that if men could opt out, there would be an awful lot of them, particularly young ones, who would have no problem never wearing a condom and constantly opting out.

Such a shame women couldn’t take steps to prevent this happening by ensuring they use contraception.... oh wait.

there would be an awful lot of them, particularly young ones, who would have no problem never wearing a condom and constantly opting out

I agree too. It would be a disaster.
Our society actually needs the opposite - more responsibility and support for children, both financially and emotionally.

Many women do not make the choice to be a single parent, raising children alone and without support, IsabellaLinton. We end up in that position through no fault of our own and have to do the best we can for our children because we love them and it’s the right thing to do. Often with grave consequences for the physical and mental health of the lone parent, and for their future ( o pension for retirement etc).

Parents (generally fathers) who don’t love their children and have no sense of ethical responsibility to them still have a legal responsibility to do the bare minimum for them, unless and until there is an opportunity for them to be adopted by their resident parents new spouse.

OP step parent adoptions are a legal route for NRP’s to opt out of parenthood.

I think this could work although the cut off must be before the legal abortion limit.
So say you receive a declaration of pregnancy officially present it to the father in front of witnesses and then he can officially opt out forever if he chooses too.

Then the woman has a choice if she wishes to proceed or not. If he does not opt out before this limit, it then becomes neglect if the father does not take an active roll in bringing up the child at any point in the childs life.

If the father does opt out then he has absolutely no say about the child and their future no sneaking back in 30 years wanting a spare kidney etc.

I do think effectively removing deadbeat/disney dads sporadic reluctant contact and the stress this causes the mothers could have a positive effect on the child.

This would effect a relatively small amount of people.
Relationship breakdown when kids are involved well the man would have already opted in so would have to support them.

I think that the sort of proposal where either parent could opt out of parenting would require state intervention, and thus higher taxes on welfare. A child costs money to raise, apart from anything else. So if one of the parents doesn't chip in, the State has to.

That would be a no from me, then. But I think that society will move in future to a more Nordic model of taxation, so maybe it will happen?

For every ‘contraception con’ by a woman, I bet there are equal, if not more, tales of women being pressurised or ‘conned’ into sex by a man who doesn’t like the feel of condoms.

As if society wasn’t already misogynistic and generally fucking hideous towards women. We’ve now got women - yes actually, women - musing this subject. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.

Bullshit. I don’t live in a misogynistic society. I live in an equal society. Women have all the cards in this game. They could take some responsibility for their bodies and use contraception - they even make the final decision as to whether to continue pregnancy or not, but no, it’s so much easier to blame men. What happened to personal responsibility?

No, contraception is the responsibility of both. Are you saying women not capable of taking control their own bodies? They can’t make sure they don’t get pregnant? They have to rely on someone else?

Hmmm, I'm trying to figure out if you are just being obtuse for the sake of it

I shall simplify.
Without sperm, there is no pregnancy.
If a man feels strongly that he does not want a baby, he ensures he does not provide the sperm necessary for conception.

You can continue to talk in circles if you like but it will not change that fact.

In the case of unplanned pregnancy on 'ons' the woman is just as feckless as the man in many cases where contraception is not reliable.
To use a well known mn phrase 'No' is a complete sentence and perfect contraception!

So you made choices, good for you.

😂

You’re trolling.