In 2011 the Mail published a piece by one of their columnists, Liz Jones, The craving for a baby that drives women to the ultimate deception. In the piece she admitted she’d tried to become pregnant by using the contents of both her ex-husbands’ condoms – thankfully, without success.
Our thanks to Mike P for a new piece in the Mail, ‘Child support is 18 years of easy money’: Women reveal the REAL reasons why they’ve lied about being on the Pill – and many DON’T regret what they’ve done. A selection:
I’m having unprotected sex with my friend’s crush tonight, I lied and said I was on birth control. I’m desperate for a baby.
I slept with a guy I knew who was rich & told him I was on birth control (I lied) now I am 5 months pregnant. He rented a (sic) 🙂 apartment for me he pays for everything. I don’t feel guilty one bit.
I lied to my boyfriend about being on birth control because I got tired of getting a shot every 3 months.
I lied about being on birth control because I really wanted a baby. I was scared about being alone forever.
I lied to my boyfriend about being on birth control and accidentally got pregnant. [J4MB: A typo there. When she said ‘accidentally’, what she meant to say was ‘deliberately’.] We are married now and I’m still filled with guilt that I purposely had our child. [J4MB: So, a duplicitous liar / fraudster, AND a virtue signaller. Nice.]
I lied to my boyfriend that I was on birth control… it has been two months of constant hooking up and I still haven’t gotten pregnant.
My pregnancy test is positive. I lied to my boyfriend about being on birth control because I was tired of leading a purposeless life. Now I have a little one to motivate me.
No one knows who the father of my baby is because I lied and told him I was on birth control, so he can’t know.
I lied about being on birth control and had a baby… I never once looked back to regret it.
I lied about being on birth control and got him for child support. 18 years of easy money!
We covered the issue of paternity fraud in our last general election manifesto (pp.52-4). Of our proposals (below), only (2) would give men any potential protection in the event of paternity fraud resulting from women lying about contraception. Many men naively believe their partner’s lie that the pregnancy was an ‘accident’ – “John, you must know the contraceptive pill isn’t 100% safe!”
Most of the proposals relate to another form of paternity fraud, illegal under the Fraud Act 2006, but never pursued by the Crown – women lying (or allowing it to be assumed, maybe in the context of a supposedly ‘stable’ relationship) that named men are the biological fathers of the children in question.
The manifesto proposals:
- The government should introduce compulsory paternity testing for all new-born babies, and both parents should be informed of the result of the tests (verbally and in writing) within a week of the babies’ births. If a man is not the biological father of a baby, he should be informed of the fact in the course of a face-to-face meeting with a health professional, and sign a document confirming he’s been made aware of his non-paternity of the child in question.
- The state should only require a man to have financial responsibility for a child if he’s previously signed a legal declaration that he’s willing to support a child who results from the sexual relationship in question, and a paternity test has proven him to be the child’s biological father.
- Legislation should be introduced requiring women found guilty of committing the first form of paternity fraud to compensate the affected men for the full sum of their financial contributions to the child’s upbringing.
- Paternity fraud is such a grave assault upon the human rights of men and children that attempted (but failed) paternity fraud should attract a minimum three month prison sentence. Where a woman has carried out a proven paternity fraud, her minimum prison term should be 12 months. Where the fraud has continued for more than three years, her prison term should be 12 months plus three months in prison for each year of fraud. Frauds relating to two or more children should attract consecutive, not concurrent, sentences.
- DNA samples should be destroyed as soon as results are known and communicated to both the mother and the putative father, or as soon as criminal prosecutions and any appeals are completed.
Two years ago I was interviewed on LBC along with a female ethicist who strongly opposed the idea of compulsory paternity testing at birth. The interview is here (audio, 14:50). The piece has so far attracted almost 50 upvotes for every downvote.