Whoopsie conceptions vs men lying about using condoms

This is also a twitter thread here.

Choice For Men

C4M is a proposed change to the law. Under c4m, before a couple have a baby, a contract is signed saying the man agrees to take equal financial responsibility. If she conceives and there is no contract, the woman can still abort, adopt out, legally abandon the baby, or accept full responsibility; she just can’t force him to support her or the child.

Whoopsie

A ‘whoopsie’ pregnancy is when, under the current system, she stops taking the pill and doesn’t tell the man; with regular sex pregnancy is then likely. If she doesn’t abort, adopt etc. the man is then forced to support her and the child. She can claim this is an accident: ‘I forget to take it’. There is anecdotal evidence these ‘accidental on purpose’ pregnancies are common. There’s research showing women are more likely to become single mothers (by divorce) if they get more child support, and no reason to suppose this doesn’t apply to unmarried women.

Why ‘lying about condom’ doesn’t invalidate argument for C4M

In context of whoopsie pregnancies and C4M, I said ‘men can’t lie to women about if they are using a condom.’. I think its obvious in context we’re talking about him consistently doing this over time to trick her into getting pregnant, similar to a ‘whoopsie’. Hopefully we’re all adults and understand its possible to e.g. surreptitiously remove a condom one or two times. Normally people leave what’s obvious unsaid, especially on twitter.To ensure pregnancy, as well as consistently doing this over time, the woman would also have to not use any other form of contraception for some reason. So yes, there are exceptional circumstances where this statement isn’t absolutely true. In this case, it’s still nowhere near comparable to the ‘whoopsie’.The only point of similarity between a man tricking a woman by removing a condom and a whoopsie is that in exceptional circumstances she could find herself potentially being made a parent against her will.To summarise, under the current situation if a woman has a whoopsie ‘accidentally on purpose’ conception:

• She can claim the moral high ground: ‘He made me pregnant’.
• It’s very easy to do (‘I don’t like condoms. I’m on the pill/coil. Don’t you trust me?’)
• She can claim it’s accidental (‘forgot to take pill’ has 4 million ghits)
• There’s a strong financial incentive to her.
• There can be a strong emotional incentive to her if she wants to keep the man involved – only cads ‘abandon’ pregnant girlfriends.
• She can change her mind before birth, or even after (adoption, abandonment)

• If a man lies about a condom to get her pregnant:

• Moral low ground (‘He tricked me’)
• It’s hard to do.
• It’s even more tricky or impossible to make it look like an accident.
• Even under C4M, there is no financial incentive. Under the current laws there is a strong disincentive.
• No emotional incentive (Nobody talks of pregnant woman ‘abandoning’ boyfriends)
• Only possible under exceptional circumstance (able to repeatedly do it, medical reasons other contraception can’t be used)
• He still cannot force her to give birth and look after the baby (abortion, adoption, legal abandonment)

There is simply no comparison between a woman ‘forgetting’ to use the pill and a man not using a condom, and it’s correct to say ‘a man cannot lie about condoms (in the same way a woman can about the pill)’Adopting C4M would drastically reduce the number of children raised without their fathers, reduce abortions, make life fairer for men, stop rewarding deceit, reduce burden on social services and gov’t handouts, reduce single parenthood, and lessen child poverty. It would make little difference to exceptional hypotheticals in which a man tricks a woman into conceiving.The only arguments against C4M are:

• It would shift the balance of power less overwhelmingly towards women. To female supremacists this is a bad thing.
• Some people still have a victorian attitude to men’s sexaulity combined with denial of the modern facts of life. These people see conception as a man ‘getting a girl pregnant’ or ‘getting a girl into trouble’. They may resort to contrived hypotheticals (e.g. men pricking holes in condoms) to fit this narrative. In this world view C4M ‘encourages irresponsibility’ or means men ‘will have 20 children’. How these men would force women not to use contraception themselves or abort is never explained.