Is this viral blog post logically consistent?

Just got into a discussion over this post:

https://humanparts.medium.com/men-cause-100-of-unwanted-pregnancies-eb0e8288a7e5

Seems to me that it is very flawed and wondering what, if any, logical fallacies are being committed in here.

The main proof the author uses to take her position is that without sperm pregnancy cannot occur.

Fair enough.

But without an egg or uterus pregnancy can't occur either.

It also makes no mention of whom the subject of unwanted pregnancy is.

Obviously one can give evidence and example od of men who fathered children and aren't responsible.

Just genuinely looking for a break down in the flawed reason in this article.

Thanks in advance,

Excellent essay, btw. She seems to be on very sound footing, even if it is a bit unsettling.

Most men ejaculate sperm
Sperm is the cause of 100% of all pregnancies
Therefore men’s ejaculations are the cause of all pregnancies whether they are wanted or not.

I read the whole article waiting for the justification of the main claim that "Men Cause 100% of Unwanted Pregnancies." I did not find it. It is an article filled with sensationalist claims written to stir the pot, which was clearly effective. This might be to counter the equally as crazy abortion laws being proposed. Honestly, it is not worth taking seriously as a logical argument.

To me, the article is intended tongue-in-cheek and I wouldn't apply logical standards to it per se. It's intended to get us to think in a different way, not to make a logical point.

It certainly is a polemic, but if you substitute sperm for men and leave the moral issues out of it I think she makes a compelling argument. As a Certified Tantra Yoga Educator, I dealt with many social and biological issues around both the male and female ejaculate. One of the goals of this ancient yogic practice (Yoga below the belt) is to teach men how to physically separate the orgasm from ejaculation, and thus elevate his normal sexual experience to a multi-orgasmic level. The practice itself requires men and women to take responsibility and yogic mastery over their basic sexual practices and strive for a superior pregnancy-free mutually satisfying experience.

That was one biased, extreme, ideologically-driven article that is far more invested in demonizing and guilt-tripping than it is invested in making a logically satisfying case to justify its central claim. All the reasons the author has given to justify the claim that men are responsible for ALL unwanted pregnancies are not adequate or sufficient enough reasons to support such a broad claim. I don't think either men or women can be ENTIRELY blamed for ALL cases of unwanted pregnancies (only a Sith deals in absolutes). It is mostly a shared responsibility between both of them, with varying degrees as to who shares the biggest responsibility depending on each specific case. Knowing what each one can do to minimize their contribution to an unwanted pregnancy and working with their partner to do the same is far more helpful to reduce unwanted pregnancies than pointing fingers and accusing the other party of being the only one mistaken.

The post is logically consistent imo, as it simply argues a fact that cannot be disputed.
There is a possible issue of arguing from consequences, as the author is using the facts as a basis for some sort of justice over the consequence of pregnancy, that a share of the "blame" must be placed on the man. That's fine, as far as it goes, but misses the point of the real consequence of pregnancy, which is entirely, factually, biologically borne by the woman.

Analogies allow other fallacies perhaps, but I submit that if we take a well known syllogism as a start, there is a consequential argument that is illustrative:
1. If it rains, the street gets wet.
2. If the street is wet, it must have rained. Flawed, as it ignores the wet street that happened by cleaning, broken main, fire department, etc., but in the case of pregnancy, there are no alternate causes, just "sperm rain". To continue...
3. If you don't want the street wet, then prevent the rain, or at least provide a cover over the street.

The author of the blog comment recognizes this very point early on, but dismisses it in getting on to her justice implication. It's up to the reader to see through her dismissal.

It strikes me that there are many logical inconsistencies in the argument.

1) Argument: men can "cause" more pregnancies than women. That has no bearing on whether they do or on whether those pregancies are unwanted.
2) Argument: female contraceptives lead to side effects and hence women cannot take responsibility for birth control. The side effects claim is true for some, maybe many women, but it doesn't mean they can't be used or that many women can't use them with few or no side effects. Indeed some women use contraceptives to prevent/reduce hormonal issues during their cycle.
3) Argument: there is a high cost to female birth control and difficulty in obtaining it. However, many women can afford and obtain birth control. It's also a very culturo-centric view, as it's easier/cheaper(free) in some countries than others
4) Argument: Condoms are easy, cheap, convenient and free of side effects. There are pros and cons which are ignored. Female birth control can be semi-permanent, or at least planned well in advance, whilst condoms need conscious effort at the time of intercourse and sufficient "stock" is required to deal with frequency of intercourse. This could be affected by alcohol or desire for multiple, er, sessions. They can also cause side effects in a small number of people... In my country, condoms are generally more expensive than female birth control
5) Argument: "most women are totally on board with condoms". Which somewhat defeats the 100% are the fault of men, as some women are not onboard with condoms.
6) Argument: It's known that men sometimes remove the condom during sex. It's also known that women sometimes damage cxondoms in order to get pregnant (and an unwanted pregnancy could be unwanted by the man as well, right?!)
7) Argument: something about orgasms. All seems irrelevant
8) etc... etc...

Some obvious points for why it's just not (logically) true that men are 100% to blame for unwanted pregancies:
1) Sperm is not biologically required for pregancy. You can actually do it with 2 eggs, although it would be unlikely to happen by accident ;)
2) A pregancy can become unwanted due to factors after conception, which have nothing to do with the man
3) The article appears to presume that a pregancy can only be unwanted by a woman and that a man is not impacted by pregancy. I know that my wife getting pregnant and the subsequent baby had a very significant impact (fortunately a positive one!)
4) A female could kidnap another female and inject her with harvested/banked sperm. Probably doesn't happen often!

Having said all the above, I don't think the author is trying to make a logical argument. Things can often be true, even if not logically true. However, in this case the 100% claim is provably false.