I would think that would only logically apply if the woman is the sole decider -- that is, if the woman makes a unilateral decision to continue a pregnancy that the man outrightly opposes. In that case, my feeling is that a woman is 100% responsible for her child (well, she is anyway, but so is the man).
But in so many other cases, like where a man feels objection but doesn't say anything, or if he is ambivalent, or if they are a married couple whose vows included procreation but didn't say when, or if he finds another woman, doesn't want to stay in the relationship for whatever reason, or simply changes his mind (an option the woman doesn't have after a certain point), then it doesn't make sense that he not be held accountable financially, and that it not be enforced legally.
I think if a woman behaves without integrity regarding procreation -- for instance, she lets a man think a child is biologically his -- then she should be liable for any money he pays her for the child's support as a result of fraud, and in fact she should be held accountable in court for punitive damages, as well. The man may very well decide that's not the best decision because of potential damage to the child, but the woman shouldn't be let off the hook, legally, for such a (in my opinion) heinous act.
It's all kind of hard to prove, though, especially with the preponderance of strongly held religious and moral beliefs that hold that not having a child, or that a child must have a non-gender-matching pair of parents, or that a man is not a man if he doesn't support his child even if he is tricked, etc. etc. I think to get fair laws enacted in this area there may be a lot of thoughts to re-think in society.
And by the way, blaming and blasting women or some imaginary "feminist machine" for these thoughts that need re-thinking, is not going to help effect any such change -- in fact, it's going to work against you. Men have been every bit as involved (maybe even more) in setting up the cultural beliefs that keep the current procedures going. (not that you are doing that, Ned.
)
p.s... one thing I think would be a great idea is if there were a contract involved -- not necessarily notarized or anything, but some agreement that is verifiable, to protect both parents. Personally, I would talk about the possibility of pregnancy with a potential sex partner before any sex takes place. And I think I've already told you about the ten million, in cash, in my name, that I'd require.
