That doesn’t get him off the hook financially though. If the mother put his name on the birth certificate, he’d probably have to take a test to prove he’s not the biological father. And if he is, tough.

I looked into it more and realized I misunderstood how it worked. You’re right, a mother can add a man’s name to the birth certificate without his consent, and then the burden of proof is on him to prove that he is not the father, which typically means a paternity test. Obviously that is unfair. I think the better solution is to require the father’s consent before adding their name in the first place, or else making it tentative until it is “ratified” by his consent (or a court order in either case). And only in special situations like the father being dead or unreachable would it resolve without him.

This is why I support legal paternal surrender. As long as women have access to abortions (legal, easy, free), men should have the financial equivalent. That’s only fair.

Well, women don’t always have access to safe abortions, and regardless I don’t think this needs to be tied to that. I think this shouldn’t be treated differently between genders. Either parent should be able to surrender legal responsibility for the child, and if both do so then the child is surrendered to the state. If only one does so, that one should be forced to still financially support the single parent similar to alimony. I don’t think either should be able to voluntarily shed financial responsibility though. At least once they are born, a child has a right to a certain amount of support from both their parents, unless both agree the state would be a better custodian for them.