I get the whole argument that it's unjust that a woman has the power to choose to keep/terminate and the man has to accept her choice but truth is that the child is innocent and should not be penalised. The best we could do, perhaps, is make the "burden" equal and non-beneficial to any party other than the child.

​

Not perfect but if a man has to pay for a child that a mother has solely decided to keep it should not be in money but rather it should be in vouchers that will only be applicable to the child - fore example:- Milk, nappies etc. and as the child grows, shoes, books, tuition and such. That way, we can be sure that what a father pays goes to the child not the mother. That is to say, if the mother made the choice to keep against the wishes of the father she should not be renumerated for her "care" and all financial assistance sees the child as the sole beneficiary.

Ideally, what the father pays into the voucher system should then be matched, by law, by the mother but that may be pushing it.