My question to pro-choice supporters

[Mr.Obvious]

Bolded

You mean like... a condom?

Condoms don't work 100% of the time. There are a lot of disproportionate and bloated confidence-to-cock-size ratios out there causing men to buy condoms that are a little too big "for comfort."

With consideration to men who would deliberatley impregnate women for no other reason then that they want to and can, and dumping reliable BC and child rearing entirely on the woman seems like a huge step backwards in our cultural advancement.

Yeah, condoms don't work 100% of the time. Nor do female condoms, the pill, IUD, morning after pill, ... (And if you believe our Christian friends, even abstinence isn't fool-proof 100% of the time.) And on that regard; I think I'm on board with you: Better contraception with higher-succesrate is not something I'm advocating against.

But I don't see how creating anything but a 'better condom' would hinder 'deliberate impregnations', when it comes to male contraception.
I mean, the good thing about condoms, male and female, (apart from protecting you from STD's)  is that there is no dispute on wether or not you're wearing them. Both parties know. If you create the 'male pill', wouldn't that give those 'deliberate impregnators' an excuse; 'Don't worry baby, i'm on the pill'? I'm not saying most would take the guy's word on that. But it'll be more than when the product doesn't begin to start with.

That being said: I'm with you. I'd prefer to have the option, at least. If for instance someone is in a safe monoguous relationship and is not feeling ready to have a child and fears the other person might be trying to get pregnant or getting her pregnant, it's better to have your own control on your end of the situation.

But aside from that, even if you were to pump a trillion dollars into contraception research, I pretty much guarantee you, there will, along the way, allways be accidents and mishaps. Even if you get your 99% effective contraception up to 99.99% effectiveness. In regards to that, the discussion about creating a, on a societal level, much-cheaper* fail-safe, equal for both sexes, on the face of it seems quite reasonable. Especially since one does not exclude, nor even influence, the other.

(* 'Cheaper' as in less tax-payers money going into research and development. The ramifications of such a change on the existing system notwithstanding. As such a change could effect birth-rates and thus, in the future,  the entire economy. As well as it could, for example, in the future create more need for an extra funding to single parents or something like that, using tax-payers money. Or in other unforseen ways.)