Read other letters about this article
I've written on this subject many times in other venues. I will agree that it's problematic that pregnant women "hold all of the cards" when it comes to a pregnancy that one parent would rather not continue. And I know that there are many women (both married and single) who dupe men into impregnating them for various reasons, as well as many women who have honest contraceptive failures who do not believe in having abortions and who don't believe in giving up their children for adoption.
But I do not believe that the solution to this problem is to allow a man (or any other individual--or the government, for that matter) to legally "hijack" a woman's womb and force her to bear a child that she does not want.
I feel that a much better--and more equitable--solution would involve notifying a father-to-be VERY early on in the pregnancy and giving him the ability to legally "opt out" of all of his parental rights and responsibilities. If he is not infomred during this legal window, then he is not on the hook for paying child support. (If he chooses to do so, then he would have to go through legal adoption proceedings if he were to change his mind in the future after having opted out of his parental rights and responsibilities.) And a mother-to-be would know--well in advance, and in time to secure an early abortion, should she choose to do so--that she has no father to count on for child support.
The usual reaction that I get from people who hear this proposal is that they--as taxpayers--are unwilling to see their tax dollars go toward supporting fatherless children. (These folks also feel the same way about seeing their tax dollars go toward any and all welfare programs.) But I feel that this is a separate issue. My proposal is intended only to make things more fair for unwilling single fathers-to-be, while preserving what I feel is the overriding principle of a woman's right to control her own body.