If it is the woman’s right to choose – and hers alone – as to whether to deliver a baby or abort a fetus, then why isn’t it a man’s right to choose – and his alone – whether or not to support the child, if the woman, regardless of the man’s wishes, decides to give birth? The way it is right now, as I understand it, is that the woman, in her sole discretion, decides whether or not to give birth, and if she decides to give birth, then the father is obligated to pay for the child for the next 21 years, regardless of his desire to abort the fetus or to be a father.
In short, the man has NOTHING TO SAY about whether or not the woman he impregnated gives birth AND he has NOTHING TO SAY about whether he will be financially on the hook if she chooses to give birth. THE WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. The man has no right to choose, but he does have an obligation to pay.
Couldn't you just as readily claim that "a woman's choice as to possible parental obligation to the child comes when she has sex"? And if you then assert that she can, in effect, withdraw that obligation, through abortion, then couldn't you similarly assert that a man can withdraw his obligation by offering to pay for an abortion rather than pay child support?
Public policy about abortion and child support obviously concerns far more than the disposition of cases presented to judges. How many children are born to single mothers in the U.S. each year, and how might that number be affected if child support from absentee fathers was not anticipated?