that isn't an assumption. it is fact that the author

Posted on: October 18, 2021 at 17:16:57 CT

dismisses the contract at conception argument using flawed reasoning and relies upon the property right of the mother to have an abortion.

That isn't an assumption, it is fact.

"Considering, then, the creation argument, this immediately rules out any obligation of a mother to keep a child alive who was the result of an act of rape, since this was not a freely undertaken act. (the fetus had no role in the act of rape and you can't agress against it simply because you were agressed upon by others...
It also rules out any such obligation by a stepparent (true, and still true), foster parent (wrong, foster parents and adoptive parents undertake contracts to do exactly that),

or guardian (again - wrong they have undertaken contracts to do so), who didn't participate at all in creating the child.

Furthermore, if creation engenders an obligation to maintain the child, why should it stop when the child becomes an adult? (because the child undertakes a contract to support him or her self, if they don't then yes, the parent continues to be obligated as in the case of mentally or physically compromised adult children. Parents continue support of such children)"

But such requirements are in direct conflict with his subjective claim.

You must also remember he says parents have no obligation to continue support of a child they don't wish to support. Fine, but they also can't agress against such a child, again subjective choice of WHEN such protection starts.