'Ask Amy' seems fine with subterfuge to get pregnant against husband's wishes

In this case, the woman concealed important information prior to marriage (that she really did want to have kids). Legally this is called fraud. The husband told her before they married that "he could never have kids." Since she was supposedly on board with this, ethically he need not give her all the details. They proceeded with marriage under the assumption that they were not going to have children. He didn't conceal anything, as Amy suggests. All the detailed medical information is not relevant. The marriage was built on the agreement that they were not going to have kids. If two people get married, and they agree in advance that there will be no sex, and if that's OK with them both, then they don't need to discuss all the detailed biological reasons why there will be no sex.

The wife interpreted the husband's pre-marriage remarks in a way that supported her fraud and her fantasy about having kids. It is amazing how this woman feels "trapped in her marriage," when the whole thing was a sham of her own making. All along she wanted to have kids, and she was deceiving her husband from the beginning. She has no moral basis for being angry with him.

To the credit of Amy, she does refer to the woman's actions as "dishonest", but she also considers the fact that the husband didn't explicitly say he had a vasectomy to be the same. I don't see how. If it's his body, how is it any of her business? (There's a play right out of the feminist playbook thrown back in their faces!) Do men have to let women know that they had their gallbladder, spleen, or appendix out? Besides, the man stated he had no intention of having kids.

Stories like this just make me laugh. It's like watching an evil plot backfire on a villain in a movie.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Ask Amy does show concern for the wife's dishonesty:

"So far your marriage is built on the flimsiest foundation, with both of you behaving dishonestly about a matter that will dictate the course of the rest of your lives." -Ask Amy

The column goes on to stress the importance of honesty and discloser about what they both want if the marriage should continue.

It appears the husband did not disclose the vasectomy he had several years prior to marriage, and the wife did not disclose that she went off the pill to try to conceive shortly after the wedding.

IMO, these two have both been deceitful and both have a lack of respect for each other. If he was not deceitful, why would she be on birth control pills all this time if they knew conception would be impossible (they have been together about 4 years and BC pills have side effects, health risks, and take time, money and effort). Saying "I could never have kids" can be interpreted in many different ways as the receiver of this information would not know if it is a choice, a medical condition or if adoption or corrective procedures would be considered - but this should have led to more in depth conversation when considering marriage.

They probably felt no need to discuss it because they each took (or attempted to take) matters into their own hands without any regard for the other's feelings.

If a boyfriend/fiance told you "I can never have children", could you honestly then say he deceived you about having a vasectomy? He may not have given you the specifics, but you were informed that he couldn't have children. If you choose to interpret it in another way, you can't blame him for your misunderstanding and unwillingness to get clarification (IE, ask questions why).

I find it disturbing how easily people are able to continue blaming the man in this case. The woman is deceitful, she choose to override his choice not to have children, a choice she knew about and accepted when she agreed to marry him, and you would blame him because he actually did something to enforce that choice prior to ever meeting her? He did nothing wrong, he told her, she was given the choice to be with a man who didn't want kids, or to move on. She choose to stay even though she knew he didn't want kids (I'm repeating this because it's important), she did so thinking that she could later force one on him at a later time. I'm not seeing where he was wrong, please, explain it. Because, even if he didn't have a vasectomy, he openly stated (at the very least) he didn't want kids, so why is he in the wrong cause she couldn't trick him? Is it cause he did it to himself instead of it being an effect of some disease (I think malaria can make a man sterile?)?

If a boyfriend/fiance told you "I can never have children", could you honestly then say he deceived you about having a vasectomy? He may not have given you the specifics, but you were informed that he couldn't have children. If you choose to interpret it in another way, you can't blame him for your misunderstanding and unwillingness to get clarification (IE, ask questions why).

Yes, if a fiance worded it like that instead of telling me he had a vasectomy, I would consider it deception, especially if he watched me take birth control pills because I was under the impression I could get pregnant, or if it was obvious that I was forfeiting my desire for biological children because I believed he was infertile from a medical condition that was beyond his control.

I suppose one person could have more blame for not asking or another person could have more blame for not disclosing, but when you are dealing within marriage it is supposed to be based on love and trust and making sure you both get what you need, so in that context, I believe if you realize your fiance/spouse has misinterpreted something that will likely be important to them or they are seeking medical treatment (such as taking birth control pills), then you have a duty to clear up the mis-understanding wether they ask about it or not.

I am not seeing where he told her he did not want kids and she was fully accepting. Saying you "could never have kids" is different than saying you don't ever want kids. Even you and I have differnet interpretations of that statement. That's why it would have been more clear if he disclosed his vasectomy.

I assume that the husband was not forthcoming about his vasectomy because he knew his wife would not like the reality of never having children, and the wife did not ask more questions because she planned to make the decision by herself to get pregnant. Not a good way to proceed into marriage. Her plan is much more ruthless with higher consequences so I find her much more at fault compared to him - but I find both of them deceptive in their behavior.

In the end, it is a good thing he had the vasectomy as children should never be brought into the world that way.

I agree that it was wrong of the husband to let his wife take birth control pills. That is, if he knew she was taking them and knew for certain that he couldn't conceive. The problem is that vasectomies sometimes reverse themselves. The only way to know for sure that you're sterile is to continue having semen samples analyzed. Perhaps he thought that since his procedure was not 100% maybe birth control pills would be a good backup plan. He may have viewed it as both people doing their part to prevent conception. That being said, he may have been wrong for doing this, if it is true that fbc can have the many vicious side effects you spoke of, and that he was aware of this. However, it is likely that either he was unaware of the side-effects, or perhaps even unaware that she was taking them. I'm not saying this is the case, but that it is probable.

On top of this, when most people hear the words "I can't have kids" or "I can never have kids", most interpret this as the person is saying they're sterile. No one usually delves into why, most just conclude that the person can't have children. That being said, provided he was unaware of the side effects of the birth control pills, I don't believe he was dishonest in the course he took to prevent himself from being a father. Perhaps he could have made his intentions more clear, but if she was uncertain, why didn't she ask him to clarify? It is also true that she married him while under the impression that he didn't want kids. Her plan was to make him a father against his will under the assumption that he would just grow to love the child.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

"I believe if you realize your fiance/spouse has misinterpreted something that will likely be important to them"

But he had no reason to believe it was important to her, she never questioned the fact he "couldn't have kids". I do agree letting her continue taking the pill might have been a little sketchy, though i wouldn't condemn the man for that, after all, if she never questioned his not being able to have kids, it's entirely possible she doesn't want to trust solely in his sterility (it has been said Vasectomies can reverse themselves (I often see it in debates regarding paternity fraud, or claims that men should be abstinent if they don't want to risk becoming fathers, even with a vasectomy).

"I am not seeing where he told her he did not want kids and she was fully accepting."

The alternate interpretation of "could never have kids" that you yourself have proposed. Her acceptance is never questioning why not, or if that might change.

"Saying you "could never have kids" is different than saying you don't ever want kids."

If it doesn't mean he's incapable, and it doesn't mean he is unwilling, then what does it mean? What possible definition can you provide that still holds him accountable for deceiving her and will justify her not asking any further questions on what he meant? At this point, it simply looks like you are trying to ensure that, even if the woman is guilty here, the man is not a victim of attempted deception and entrapment.

"That's why it would have been more clear if he disclosed his vasectomy. "

"Could have been more clear" is not the same as lying. Regardless of how you choose to interpret the statement he "could never have kids", the intention is crystal clear, Kids are not on the table without serious discussion. For her to marry him, knowing that he felt that way, never having asked why (why didn't she ask? I can only assume she realized, under normal circumstances, that she could force her will over him, and he would have no recourse. why discuss something when you can just get your way?), does not mean he lied or was deceitful, it just meant he was blunt and brief.

"I assume that the husband was not forthcoming about his vasectomy because he knew his wife would not like the reality of never having children"

Could the fact she never questioned the fact he "could never have children" not have instilled in him a confidence in him that she too, didn't want children? If I said "I don't want children", and my girlfriend never dug deeper into the way not, I would not think she still wants children, I would think she's on the same page, done deal, matter closed. If she wanted children, or even considered the possibility of wanting children in the future, "why not" would be the minimum that I would expect.

I want to emphasize that I think being deceptive about INCREASING fertility and likelihood of conception is far worse than being deceptive about DECREASING fertility.

I have no excuse or sympathy for what the woman did or attempted to do.

My point is it that I believe partners have a duty to disclose fertility information that might impacts their partners decisions. The case we are discussing is somewhat difficult to see my point because the wife ended up being far more deceitful, but if you take out her deceitful actions and lets just say a few years went by and she went about it respectfully and asked her husband what he would think about her going off the pill and try to conceive a child. I think she would have the right to feel deceived to learn that he had a vasectomy before marriage and never disclosed it.

Although having a vasectomy is a pretty good indication that a man does not want any children from that point forward, men have been known to regret them and get them reversed. So unless the man indicates he had a vasectomy to prevent unwanted children and he is happy with his decision, it is not crystal clear that he doesn't ever want children. Both husband and wife should have entered the marriage knowing what their intentions are, what their physical/medical capabilities are and what options would be open to them if they changed their minds down the road.

The definition of being deceptive includes withholding information that would likely influence someone's choices or their cooperation. Kratch and others seem to think that the husband was not deceptive at all, and I think he was for the reasons I have already mentioned in previous posts. In the end, it really doesn't matter as it protected him from being a victim of her much worse deceptiveness.

I want to emphasize that I think being deceptive about INCREASING fertility and likelihood of conception is far worse than being deceptive about DECREASING fertility.

@Kris, I want to call you out on this. People's bodies are their own business. Nobody has to know you take birth control anymore than they have to know if you wax your legs or shave. It's your own business, it's your own body, your own personal property and space and no one has the right to solicit information about it that you don't want to disclose. All you owe to anybody is to say, "I don't want kids." Same goes for any man. All he has to do is say, "I don't want kids." Which he clearly did, going so far as to say that he can't have kids.

This whole thing about "increasing" or "decreasing" fertility sounds really bizarre to me, Kris. It's just as bad to tell someone that you do want kids but then secretly take birth control or get a vasectomy.

In this case, the woman was never lied to. She lied and thought that she could control the man against his will, knowing fully well that he would be extremely unhappy about what she was secretly doing behind his back. That she was upset that her lies didn't actually work, well, that's just her little problem isn't it?