The only thing I disagree with in what both you and he say is that we only have his word from the internet that he was honest and upfront with these women.
Maybe he was.
But. I think we should acknowledge that this whole post you were reacting to with your article may be absolute bullshit from a disgruntled man.
Because men will also readily admit, and do on the regular all over the internet, that they have zero moral ambiguity coercing, manipulating (by lying), or outright forcing women to have sex with them if the woman attempts to protect her womb as you rightly suggest. Then they'll be so bold as to claim they are justified in doing so because women are "unfairly" withholding sex and affection from them.
Men believe they are entitled to women's bodies. If you refuse them because they're irresponsible, they'll move on to step two. Then step 3. Then step 4, and so forth and so on till they get what they want and what they believe is their due.
Then they'll lie about it on the internet and claim that women are stupid and blather about how honest they were.
I say if a man wants us to believe he was up front and honest the whole time, show us the receipts. Show us where you conducted yourself with integrity. Show us where you spelled it out.
Don't ask us to just believe you (this guy) when you've already shown yourself to be a man of extremely low moral character. We all already know that guys like this one are fucking delusional.
Not believing men's bullshit lies, excuses, and equivocations is part of how we protect our wombs and each other.
I'd be willing to bet that many of not all of these women would have a different version of how things went down if we were to ask them. They'd probably have texts and stuff to back them up too.
So if he's going to make that claim, where are the receipts?
Anyways, other than the fact that I'm not as willing to take this jerk at his word as quickly and easily as you have (perhaps just for the purposes of writing the article because that seems unlike you), I agree with everything you've written here.