Conversation

Replying to

and

Fundamentally, abortion is about a right to refuse to be a parent. Then what is required for male and female for a sex act biologically is irrelevant that the right to refusal is equal, since it is not based on how much each did a labor for sex or birth.

Replying to

and

There is no right to refuse to be a parent when you have already contributed fully biologically. Not just for males: If a woman (Sue) contributes her egg to a surrogate & then surrogate gets pregnant. Sue cannot then decide she doesn't want responsibility.

Replying to

and

That's just your arbitrary standard. Also, your surrogate egg donor supports my argument. Surrogate egg donors usually have no right or obligations to the child.

Replying to

and

Umm, what country do you live in? In the USA, this is the law.

Replying to

and

Oh and you're a gun nut? Bye.

Replying to

and

Where in U.S. law does it say an egg donor has custody right and child support obligation for a child who is being raised by another couple for just donating an egg?

Replying to

and

Of course you can't answer. No sane couple would get an egg doner to get a child if the egg doner can claim right over the resulting child. No sane egg donor would donate an egg to a couple if the donor can be demanded of child support payment for giving the egg.

Replying to

and

No, gun nut, I've moved on. Not egg donor, surrogate; not sperm donor, intercourse partner. If I said, 'donate' I erred, but I clearly said SURROGATE.

Replying to

and

Sue in your example is a false analogy, because donating an egg to a surrogate means Sue already decided to want a child. That is different from people having sex with no intention of having a child.

Replying to

and

Just say agree to disagree. this is boring. You think somehow the decision to have a child or not absolves a person from responsibility if they do the action that produces a child. I don't. bye.