My "girlfriend" stopped taking the pill without telling me and now she's pregnant

[imlookingforadvice]

We were seeing each other for 3 months and were having sex.
We didn't use condoms as she didn't like them so she opted to start taking the pill.
I already have 2 kids (4 & 12) and so wasn't ready for more children so was pretty strict on using SOME form of protection!
Long story short she decided because the pill 'wasn't agreeing with her' that she would stop taking it.
4-5 weeks later, still having sex with me that whole time, she sent me a message to tell me that she stopped taking the pill a while back and has done 2 tests and she is pregnant.
Although, at the time she told me this, she kept saying "I'm sorry, I will fix this" that has gone and she has now confirmed to me that shes going to keep it.
What do I do??
I have read as many things as I can but it basically appears that I'm screwed and have no say in this at all and now I can either be a part of the child's life or not yet still pay child support.
Not being a part of the child's life isn't an option for me, its not something I can humanly do.
I suppose this has reached the point now where this is just a rant and I'm just looking for confirmation that i'm well within my rights to be angry\fuming with this or, if not, someone to explain why I shouldn't be angry, because i'm coming up empty.
I realise that when having sex there is always a chance of pregnancy, and that I suppose was the risk I consented to - with contraception. What I did not consent to was sex without protection.
So, AIBU?

*was

DecomposingComposers

It’s no different in marriage. If he doesn’t want a baby to the point that he would want to sue someone for getting pregnant, he needs to keep sight of his willy or cover it up.

As long as they can prove it then where's the problem?

How can OP prove it?

Pumperthepumper

I don't think he should automatically walk away. I think he should walk away if the woman chooses to use the child as a way of controlling the OP. So, threatens him with no contact if he does or doesn't do something, threatens to move away unless he complies etc.

Yes he may well have another child from this relationship but that doesn't mean that he has to have any sort of relationship with the mother. If she cares about the child then she will make sure that she facilitates a good relationship between the child and its father. I don't see why he has to be tied in to a relationship with a liar for the next 18 years.

How can OP prove it?

Maybe she admitted it via a text message?

If he doesn’t want a baby to the point that he would want to sue someone for getting pregnant, he needs to keep sight of his willy or cover it up.

Really? So you have no expectations of trust within a marriage? And you really think that many marriages would survive either a husband basically accusing his wife of being willing to trick him or refusing to have sex for years?

We should be able to trust our partners and if they abuse that trust, such that serious harm occurs, then there should be consequences.

Maybe she admitted it via a text message?

Yeah? Admission of actual rape by text aren’t seen as sufficient to convict.

Yet you’re looking for a system whereby a vanishingly small number of women can be prosecuted?

JacquesHammer

If this were a civil matter the burden of proof is much lower.

Maybe she admitted it via a text message?

Maybe she didn't, then what?
Still doubt that will be taken as evidence in court, considering what people get away with.

DecomposingComposers

No, I do have expectations of trust within a marriage (which this wasn’t, by the way). I just don’t think lying to your husband or wife is a criminal matter. It certainly doesn’t seem to be one when men are lying to women. These arguments are rarely trotted out when a man impregnates a woman after telling her he would leave his wife, like I said.

This argument only ever seems to be a hot topic when a) the woman is perceived to have lied and b) there might be money involved.

I wonder why.

That's a very unpleasant experience OP. I wouod be pretty pissed if I was with someone who said that they were using condoms but was snipping the end off of them or some such. I don't think that there's a lot you can do now though.
Just chalk it down to experience & always wrap it up in future no matter what!

Where did everybody go?

😂

Returning to 'conditional consent', it is a legal concept:
www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-3-consent

There are three cases that have been tested in the courts:

1. 'stealthing' - the deception negates the consent
2. ejaculating inside when it has been agreed to withdraw first - the intentional deception negates the consent
3. deception by a woman pretending to be a man, and penetrating with an object - the deception negates the consent

The courts have made it clear that there are limits to this concept, and give the example of someone who lies about their wealth as an example where a deception may have taken place but it not being sufficient to negate consent.

Judging by the cases on which the courts have already ruled, I'd guess that a clear, intentional deception about taking the contraceptive pill would negate consent. It's very similar to case (2) but with the genders reversed.

*The courts have made it clear that there are limits to this concept, and give the example of someone who lies about their wealth as an example where a deception may have taken place but it not being sufficient to negate consent.

Judging by the cases on which the courts have already ruled, I'd guess that a clear, intentional deception about taking the contraceptive pill would negate consent. It's very similar to case (2) but with the genders reversed.*

I agree and it should be the same with the genders reversed, but I bet it would be viewed differently. The want for a woman to want a child seems to override so much, it's totally wrong IMO. If course it's also difficult to prove intent from a genuine contraception fail.

Before the "he could've worn a condom" brigade jump on me. Yes he could, but had this been a genuine fail and not intent he may not feel quite so angry about the outcome.

You're definitely allowed to be angry - if roles were revered and you were a woman saying "I trusted my partner to wear a condom and he took it off without me knowing" then the whole place would be in uproar

MrsBethel

The conditional consent relates to penetration itself, ie the placing of an object or substance inside the body. It isn’t a concept for any old condition you feel like placing on sex.

And the fact that the woman lied about contraception would absolutely not negate consent if it wasn’t made explicit at the actual time they had sex that he would not have sex with her unless she was still taking the pill daily. There is too much room for “Well, I was taking it...when he asked me.”

Ultimately, a condom protects both parties but the pill is for the woman to guard herself against pregnancy, not the man.