Feel free to educate me if I'm wrong here. Anyway.

In April of this year I unintentionally impregnated a girl I considered a sex partner. She told me she was on the pill so we decided not to use a condom. She wasn't actually on the pill. Long story.

When I felt comfortable enough to tell people about the abortion and me not willing to financially, emotionally or physically help raising the kid in case she decided to keep it, these people raised their eyebrows at me in surprise. Their point was: "Well that's the risk you're taking when you decide not to use a condom." Ok fine I thought, opinions differ.

But what if I did use a condom and I knew she wasn't on the pill? Then they probably wouldn't judge me for not willing to participate in raising the kid right? Let's consider these 2 cases:

Case 1: We decide to only have sex with each other but not have a relationship. We agree to not use a condom because the female in this case is on birth control in pill form and that carries the same small possibility of conception if used accordingly than a condom. So 1 form of birth control.

Case 2: We decide to only have sex with each other and not have a relationship, but here I WILL be using a condom every time we have sex, but she won't be using the pill. Also 1 form of birth control.

So my question is, why is it morally acceptable if I decide not to participate in raising the child in Case 2 where I'm using a condom, but she won't be using the pill, when in Case 1 I will be judged heavily and it's not morally acceptable? She will still be on a form of birth control after all. This implies that the man is bearing more responsibility for no reason right?

Yes, obviously birth control on both sides is preferable but here I'm talking about just 1 form of birth control on one side.