Okay, I can compromise. I agree that it's not fair. People should have the ability to opt out of parenthood if they aren't ready. It's why I am pro-choice. Ultimately I must concede that pro-choice must also protect the father as well. I mean, what about his choice? I'm not sure that even financial support can be considered parenthood though. A single mom could just as easily saddle up with another man who can be cooperative in helping her to care for her child, all the while the biological dad is paying support. In thinking of it this way, we can start discussing what it means to be a father. Is it merely financial support? I don't think so. Perhaps letting biological fathers choose if they want to be parents can offset the deadbeat dad phenomenon. Instead of a child always relating to their dad as someone who is never there for them, we can cut the unwilling party loose and then let a better situation take hold.
Unfortunately it seems like the majority of single mothers stay single. There are a lot of men out there who would get together with a single mom and help her to raise a kid that's not even his, but I'm skeptical that these kinds of men are greater in number than those would want nothing to do with the baggage of a kid that isn't theirs - or hell, a kid that IS theirs.
I do understand your use of logic... but I can't help but tie it back to reality. I'm not trying to swindle logic here in order to be right. I just don't see how, reproductively and biologically speaking, men and women are equal. Women cannot easily back away from parenthood because the child is attached to them from the get go. Yes, they can have the kid and give it up for adoption... but that is still her situation to deal with. The man can be in Timbuctu by then for all we know.
Even philosophically, I don't agree that a woman's right to choose looks the same as it does for a man. Men have never had to fight for personhood rights, or the right to control their bodies. Women from day one have not been equal and, until recently in history, have been the property of men. All worthwhile research points to the fact that the status of women and children affects the status of entire civilizations. It's the whole reason behind the UN mandate on bettering women and children. It's not a sexist or discriminatory policy. The fact is that we live in a patriarchy and women are easily trampled upon - maybe less so in America, but look around the world and you will see that we are the exception rather than the rule.
Female reproduction is intimately tied to the health of civilizations. They have the right to choose because they have the biological imperative. Men can sleep around if they want and until the advent of genetic testing, they could get away with it. I see child support laws as compensating for centuries of paternal neglect. A woman can't just toss her child - she will be charged with abandonment, neglect, or even attempted murder. But men have done just that for centuries and now that family courts are trying to prevent it, men are getting pissed at having their parental responsibilities thrown back in their faces. In reality, they are being shown the world that women have always had to live.
(Again, I know there are deadbeat moms out there, but I already demonstrated with statistics that it's not the norm.)