If at some point it becomes possible to transfer a growing fetus to a surrogate instead of and at no greater risk than an abortion should there be a disagreement in keeping the child then should the woman have to pay child support for the resulting child?

Most feminists will say no.

Suddenly the best interests of the child goes out the window and aren't mentioned. Suddenly it's not about forcing men to choose abortion like the withdrawal of financial support is forcing women to. However it's still about how this forces something on women, as if today's situation doesn't force anything on men; but that's different the feminist squeals.

This is because feminists are really interested in female supremacy, not equality. They want the power of financial abortion to go with abortion.

Ask almost any feminist and you'll get no a woman shouldn't have to pay child support for such a child.

Moreover most will believe their right over the fetus is to kill it. That they fully own it. They believe they not only have the right to remove its sustenance and dependence from their womb, but to directly kill it.

Mind you this idea isn't one that doesn't carry on after birth. No doubt many feminists believe that they can kill their children as long as they are under their care; residing in or using their property. Such an occurrence will be spoken of not as a woman having overstepped her power over her children, but a tragic example of what happens when you force a woman's hands. This won't be see blatantly admitted, but through the shifting of focus towards mitigating factors; postpartum depression, man she evicted wasn't magically around and not enough welfare.