I feel in this there would have to be some stipulations to prevent people from abusing this, as the balance would be hugely in favor of men than women, even with the pressure of banning abortion being alleviated (which is not even guaranteed).

More men would likely cut and split, than women would have abortions.

As much as i would love to say that i would not cut and split, or those around me would not do so unless lied to and screwed over. I do not trust the majority of men to uphold this.

I personally feel that if you can legitimately prove without a doubt, that the female in this case acted in bad faith, aka lying about the pill, turkey basting (does this even happen anymore?), Artificial Insemination (or w/e thats called, if they will even let women use their own supply of sperm, have not checked) without signed consent, preferably with a unbiased witness. Or Victim of rape (yes women can rape men, it's not a myth). Then the aggrieved party should be legally allowed to cut off financial support towards the mother and child, with your stipulations, they don't get any supervision (with legal recourse, aka your at the mother's discretion on if you see said child, unless they pay back all the child support they would have had to pay, including the difference of promotion/loss of job etc). Perhaps some other fair stipulation that i have not thought of or written yet.

In the case of rape, the same standard used to prove rape against women in normal settings should be used when the father is attempting to cut off financial support when pursuing this route. To keep things fair on that route, AKA good luck. Personal Opinion tacked on, if the mother was an adult and the father was still a minor, the minor should not be financially responsible for the child, as this would be considered rape in many cases i would imagine (NAL). To prevent further traumatization of the victim (this has happened before, iirc it was a 21-25 yr old babysitter who got pregnant from a 13 yr old boy?, the boy was required to pay child support, mother was never charged iirc).

When i think about it, the current system of child support seems to be a relic of the past where, women were being horribly oppressed, in that they could not vote, they could not hold a job of their own, and their only purpose was to basically raise a child. Since women could not hold jobs they could not provide for the child in the event of splitting, and i imagine many men would not want to be burdened with said child at that era. Child support was probably the only life support available at the time. With the changing of the era's and treatment of both sides, we will need to revisit how the law interacts with both sides, making it more fair (as silly as this post title is, it kinda hit a good spot surprisingly) towards both sides. I do not believe universal men giving up child rights to not be financially responsible is the best course of action, giving some life lines to prevent the abuse of child support, and taxpayer money, as other comments have no doubt brought up, is a welcome change. There has already been some amendments since those dark times, like removal of permanent alimony in many, many cases, but as with all things including better treatment of women in the workforce, there is still much to work on and improve to decrease the gap between women's/men's rights.

Disclaimer, this is all random thoughts that i put together having stumbled on this post, and is subject to change on what i agree with or disagree with, based on new knowledge, and or replies that may or may not change my opinions. It is a rough draft of an idea, that may be great, or may be horrible, TBD based on replies.