This is my first post to this forum; hello all.
As for the issue at hand, I'm not convinced that abolishing the father's financial responsibility is the right thing.
This argument hinges on a single point: the father was mislead as to the chances of pregnancy. In my view, this is a moot point, as intent is irrelevant in this matter. Clearly the only foolproof way to avoid pregnancy is to not engage in sex. If you do otherwise, you are assuming the risk of having a child, no matter how small the probability is. Furthermore, a man chooses to have sex with a woman within the context of knowledge that ultimately it is her decision and her decision alone to abort or birth the child. As such, your intent to have a child or not is outweighed by this obvious, and understood, assumption of risk.
In my view, the real problem with the child support law is that it seems to favor the female in all situations. If the father chooses to be absent from the child's life, he was still responsible for creating the child and as such has made a decision, intentionally or not, to support it during childhood. On the other hand, if the father wants to raise a child that its mother does not, typically the custody is simply handed to the father and the mother walks away. The mother could have aborted the child, but chose not to and I believe should be required to support it in the same manner that the law requires the father.
