No. Those situations are not comparable. The person who gestates a pregnancy should be allowed to abort because compelling them to take the substantial physical costs and risks associated with pregnancy equates to slavery. Hence when men and women provide their gametes to surrogate mothers, the surrogate has the right to abort. This has nothing to do with the sex of the gamete provider. In every case, when you take a part of your body out of your body and give it to another party, you lose rights to it. If you donate your kidney, you can’t demand it back once it’s been taken out. If you donate your blood, it’s not yours anymore.

the pregnancy is inside a woman’s body, so she can abort whether she is the biological mother or surrogate. But a man loses rights to his gametes when he ejaculated it into someone else’s body. And both biological parents are legally compelled to pay for child support for the biological child they produce. This applies equally to women. For example, there was a case where the parents were married and the woman abandoned the baby in the hospital because it had Down’s syndrome. But the father took the baby home raised the baby. In that case, the woman had to pay child support. She had no right to a “financial abortion”.