Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Have you ever contemplated getting pregnant and saying it was an accident?

222 replies

Junnieee · 23/04/2025 19:17

I thought about this many times before we had DD (now 7). It was never something I would have acted upon but over the years at least three friends have said things in passing that have made me think they’ve shared such thoughts. One friend actually said she often thought about it as her DH kept putting off the time to ttc. Is this that common? Do a lot of women have these thoughts when they get that urge to be a mother?

OP posts:
NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 10:50

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 29/04/2025 10:34

No, honestly just think about it for a moment. You must know it's not the same.

The fact you can't explain why it's different suggests it is exactly the same.

BoredZelda · 29/04/2025 11:05

HeySugarSugar · 24/04/2025 17:58

I know someone who did this, found her “true love” but he had a kid and was one and done. She desperately wanted to be a mother so lied to him about being on the pill. I don’t understand why people say “his fault for not using a condom”?! He made it quite clear he didn’t want kids and she assured him it was taken care of - how do you think he’d have had the conversation saying “I think you’re lying”? I 100% blame her - it was an appalling level of deceit.

If he was clear he didn’t want children, he should have worn a condom. Why wouldn’t he?

If a male pill existed, would you put the responsibility entirely on the guy with a method of contraception you can’t physically see? If a guy told you he was infertile, would you rely on that? I certainly wouldn’t.

TheHerboriste · 29/04/2025 11:07

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 29/04/2025 10:34

No, honestly just think about it for a moment. You must know it's not the same.

Of course it’s the same. And it’s immoral, repugnant and vile no matter who does it.

Firefly100 · 29/04/2025 11:08

No I never contemplated it. After 2 children however, I wanted more, husband did not. So I told him I was not willing to take any form of contraception any more - if he did not want any more children the responsibility was now on him. He got a vasectomy pretty quick.

whatthehelldowecare · 29/04/2025 11:16

Not quite the same and I don’t think I’ll ultimately do it, but we want to start trying for number 2 in September. For various reasons in an ideal world this would happen by no later than the end of the year. My DH thinks it’ll happen straight away, whereas I’m less sure and debated coming off my pill in July, tracking with a view of not getting pregnant until September at least, but giving my body time to adjust/learn my cycle and not telling DH because he just thinks I’m overthinking and a worrier

BoredZelda · 29/04/2025 11:30

NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 10:50

The fact you can't explain why it's different suggests it is exactly the same.

It isn’t the same because it is about more than pregnancy. Having unprotected sex exposes a woman to potential STDs.

The other reason it isn’t the same is because the law is written in a way that talks about conditional consent. The specificity of the law being applied to a man removing a condom is only now part of that law because there was a case in 2019 in which a man was prosecuted for it. This set a precedent which means a man can now be convicted of it. It is true that under the law a case could be brought against a woman for doing it, but until that case is successfully prosecuted in court, it cannot be said definitively this act is covered by that law.

MakeYourOwnMusicStartYourOwnDance · 29/04/2025 11:39

Mrsttcno1 · 23/04/2025 19:48

Nope never, but then I never wanted to force somebody else into parenthood and make life altering decisions for all of us solo. I respect & love my partner, he respects & loves me, would never cross my mind.

Same
You've both got to want a child, it's beyond disgusting to basically force someone into having a baby by tricking them.
Wouldn't have crossed my mind.

MemorableTrenchcoat · 29/04/2025 11:49

BoredZelda · 29/04/2025 11:30

It isn’t the same because it is about more than pregnancy. Having unprotected sex exposes a woman to potential STDs.

The other reason it isn’t the same is because the law is written in a way that talks about conditional consent. The specificity of the law being applied to a man removing a condom is only now part of that law because there was a case in 2019 in which a man was prosecuted for it. This set a precedent which means a man can now be convicted of it. It is true that under the law a case could be brought against a woman for doing it, but until that case is successfully prosecuted in court, it cannot be said definitively this act is covered by that law.

We’re not talking about STDs etc here, we’re only discussing women getting pregnant accidentally on purpose, i.e. deliberately deceiving their partner into thinking they’re using contraception.

NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 11:55

BoredZelda · 29/04/2025 11:30

It isn’t the same because it is about more than pregnancy. Having unprotected sex exposes a woman to potential STDs.

The other reason it isn’t the same is because the law is written in a way that talks about conditional consent. The specificity of the law being applied to a man removing a condom is only now part of that law because there was a case in 2019 in which a man was prosecuted for it. This set a precedent which means a man can now be convicted of it. It is true that under the law a case could be brought against a woman for doing it, but until that case is successfully prosecuted in court, it cannot be said definitively this act is covered by that law.

So there is no difference related to the topic under discussion.

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 29/04/2025 12:54

NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 10:50

The fact you can't explain why it's different suggests it is exactly the same.

OK, so a woman is going to deceive a man by saying she's on contraception when she isn't = they have sex without a condom consensually, although the man can't give full informed consent regarding birth control, he will be aware of the STD risks. The woman gets pregnant, it's completely immoral but the woman bears the child, births the child and is (statistically likely) to be the primary caregiver for the rest of the child's childhood. She is taking on all the risk.

But...

A man is going to deceive a woman by removing a condom, aka 'stealthing' = the woman believes that the man is wearing a condom and that she is protected from STDs, when she is not. The woman gets pregnant and now has to carry a child she was deceived into having in her body and birth it, with all the risks associated with that. Or she could have an abortion but only if she isn't ethically or religiously against this and also prepared to take the risks and pain of abortion. If she doesn't terminate the pregnancy, once she has birthed the child she will probably then feel biologically compelled to keep it and will love it. She will probably still be the primary caregiver for the child's entire childhood. She is still taking on all the risks but this time not by choice. I mean, imagine if a man did this on purpose and the woman got an STD and then died from pre-eclampsia or something, or had such a severe birth injury she was incontinent for life. Very different scenario.

NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 13:09

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 29/04/2025 12:54

OK, so a woman is going to deceive a man by saying she's on contraception when she isn't = they have sex without a condom consensually, although the man can't give full informed consent regarding birth control, he will be aware of the STD risks. The woman gets pregnant, it's completely immoral but the woman bears the child, births the child and is (statistically likely) to be the primary caregiver for the rest of the child's childhood. She is taking on all the risk.

But...

A man is going to deceive a woman by removing a condom, aka 'stealthing' = the woman believes that the man is wearing a condom and that she is protected from STDs, when she is not. The woman gets pregnant and now has to carry a child she was deceived into having in her body and birth it, with all the risks associated with that. Or she could have an abortion but only if she isn't ethically or religiously against this and also prepared to take the risks and pain of abortion. If she doesn't terminate the pregnancy, once she has birthed the child she will probably then feel biologically compelled to keep it and will love it. She will probably still be the primary caregiver for the child's entire childhood. She is still taking on all the risks but this time not by choice. I mean, imagine if a man did this on purpose and the woman got an STD and then died from pre-eclampsia or something, or had such a severe birth injury she was incontinent for life. Very different scenario.

The woman can take the morning after pill.

Having kids is bad for male health too - instead of a happy relaxed life likely with an early retirement he's got to work himself half to death and almost certainly retire later. Plus wrecking his back dragging car seats around etc. Plus how do you measure just having a worse life?

There really is no moral difference, and the fact it took you two attempts to come up with something even half plausible backs that up.

KimberleyClark · 29/04/2025 13:14

If a woman is strongly ethically or religiously against termination, to the extent she feels she has no choice but to continue the pregnancy then surely she should be taking responsibility for her own contraception anyway, not relying on the man.

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 29/04/2025 13:15

NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 13:09

The woman can take the morning after pill.

Having kids is bad for male health too - instead of a happy relaxed life likely with an early retirement he's got to work himself half to death and almost certainly retire later. Plus wrecking his back dragging car seats around etc. Plus how do you measure just having a worse life?

There really is no moral difference, and the fact it took you two attempts to come up with something even half plausible backs that up.

The woman can take the morning after pill - doesn't work if you've already ovulated.

Are you really comparing risk of incontinence, infection, surgery, prolapse, haemorrhage or dying to a bad back from lifting car seats? Any rational person can tell 'measure just having a worse life' if the options are potentially being tired and having to retire at a normal time vs dying.

It didn't take two attempts, I just genuinely couldn't believe it would even need explaining??

NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 13:17

KimberleyClark · 29/04/2025 13:14

If a woman is strongly ethically or religiously against termination, to the extent she feels she has no choice but to continue the pregnancy then surely she should be taking responsibility for her own contraception anyway, not relying on the man.

I think if the guy says he has contraception covered he has a strong moral obligation to cover contraception.

That's a totally separate issue to whether she should trust him or not.

KimberleyClark · 29/04/2025 13:20

NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 13:17

I think if the guy says he has contraception covered he has a strong moral obligation to cover contraception.

That's a totally separate issue to whether she should trust him or not.

I think if the guy says he has contraception covered he has a strong moral obligation to cover contraception.

As does the woman if she says she’s on the pill.

NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 13:20

KimberleyClark · 29/04/2025 13:20

I think if the guy says he has contraception covered he has a strong moral obligation to cover contraception.

As does the woman if she says she’s on the pill.

Absolutely.

telestrations · 29/04/2025 13:38

I haven't and wouldn't but have had a friend who I know did and would not blame any woman for doing so if she had been strung along for years over it

KimberleyClark · 29/04/2025 13:40

telestrations · 29/04/2025 13:38

I haven't and wouldn't but have had a friend who I know did and would not blame any woman for doing so if she had been strung along for years over it

No one gets strung along unless they let themselves be.

NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 13:47

telestrations · 29/04/2025 13:38

I haven't and wouldn't but have had a friend who I know did and would not blame any woman for doing so if she had been strung along for years over it

Well there's always two sides to the strung along story, versions rarely match, but let's assume someone is strung along. That doesn't justify baby trapping someone. (Either way.)

If a woman said for 2 years she strongly wanted kids and then changed her mind it would be ok for a man to trick her into getting pregnant? Really?

I suspect most (all?) stringing along is actually someone being very non committal rather than someone firmly committing to kids at a specific stated point in the future.

User415373 · 29/04/2025 13:50

xMrsAx · 24/04/2025 18:43

I always wanted 3 children but my husband was completely done after number 2. So we had an honest and frank conversation about it, both voicing our opinions. And then had the snip with my full blessing. Once one half of the partnership says no to more children then it's a no. Children are amazing, but expensive and they are hard work. Getting pregnant by deception is just wrong on so many levels and would completely ruin the trust in relationship

How did you manage to accept it? I'm in the same position. I wasn't maternal at all before kids but now I have 2 my yearning for a third is unbearable. I think about it every day. I would never trap my husband or deliberately get pregnant but sometimes I find myself wishing the condom would split which is awful.
Since he told me he was done I've felt so down and it's been a year. I am so grateful so the beautiful family I have but the thought of never having another baby (I'm 32 now) hurts me in a way I can't describe. He initially was going to get the snip but he decided on condoms in the end. I realise this sounds ridiculous and I'm in awe at what hormones can do a person!

JoyousEagle · 29/04/2025 13:55

Kindersurprising · 23/04/2025 20:56

Agree. I know SO many women in this position - in their mid 30s with husbands who ‘want to wait a couple of years’. Who a couple of years ago also wanted to ‘wait a couple of years’. There’s always something to be done, a promotion, a new house etc

Wouldnt blame them if they thought fuck it and came off the pill or whatever

I’d blame them. Poor child, with a father who didn’t want them. Just a completely selfish thing to do - no regard for the partner, and worst of all, no regard for the child.

NCForThatForumM · 29/04/2025 14:03

JoyousEagle · 29/04/2025 13:55

I’d blame them. Poor child, with a father who didn’t want them. Just a completely selfish thing to do - no regard for the partner, and worst of all, no regard for the child.

....and if simply having a baby was the object then finding an anonymous guy would be easy enough, or a donor and take on the responsibility and effort of raising a child.

What the "trapper" is actually after is someone else to make a massive decades long contribution in time or money or very likely both.

Which shows what utter nonsense the "leading on" thing is. Nobody is stopping women having children without a specific man. To the "trapper" the man is there to pick up the tab and work his guts off for the lifestyle she wants.

TheHerboriste · 29/04/2025 14:07

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 29/04/2025 12:54

OK, so a woman is going to deceive a man by saying she's on contraception when she isn't = they have sex without a condom consensually, although the man can't give full informed consent regarding birth control, he will be aware of the STD risks. The woman gets pregnant, it's completely immoral but the woman bears the child, births the child and is (statistically likely) to be the primary caregiver for the rest of the child's childhood. She is taking on all the risk.

But...

A man is going to deceive a woman by removing a condom, aka 'stealthing' = the woman believes that the man is wearing a condom and that she is protected from STDs, when she is not. The woman gets pregnant and now has to carry a child she was deceived into having in her body and birth it, with all the risks associated with that. Or she could have an abortion but only if she isn't ethically or religiously against this and also prepared to take the risks and pain of abortion. If she doesn't terminate the pregnancy, once she has birthed the child she will probably then feel biologically compelled to keep it and will love it. She will probably still be the primary caregiver for the child's entire childhood. She is still taking on all the risks but this time not by choice. I mean, imagine if a man did this on purpose and the woman got an STD and then died from pre-eclampsia or something, or had such a severe birth injury she was incontinent for life. Very different scenario.

What a complete crock of shit.

Brocsacoille · 29/04/2025 14:16

TheHerboriste · 29/04/2025 14:07

What a complete crock of shit.

With respect how?

I had a guy stealth me years ago, he wanted to come inside me without a condom. If I had ended up pregnant he had absolutely no intention of taking the baby and raising it. It would’ve totally upended my life, in a way that doesn’t happen in the reverse. No woman tricking a man into pregnancy is then going to dump it on his doorstep and fuck off into the sunset.

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 29/04/2025 15:38

Brocsacoille · 29/04/2025 14:16

With respect how?

I had a guy stealth me years ago, he wanted to come inside me without a condom. If I had ended up pregnant he had absolutely no intention of taking the baby and raising it. It would’ve totally upended my life, in a way that doesn’t happen in the reverse. No woman tricking a man into pregnancy is then going to dump it on his doorstep and fuck off into the sunset.

Thank you for being more concise than me.

Sorry this happened to you.

Swipe left for the next trending thread