Sorry for assuming
The father shouldn't pay a greater share because, in my view, having sex with someone in this day and age doesn't equal wanting to have a child. Assuming birth control defects or whatever I don't believe a man should be forced into having a role in supporting a child he explicitly didn't want, in ther same way I support women having access to ways of not keeping a child they didn't want through accidental pregnancy. Obviously men refusing to help would come at the price of waiving all parental rights.
The obvious problem with that is people having irresponsible sex but I don't think there's a real solution to that, its one of those things that would have to be accepted as a compromise in the same way abortion is hopefully used by women who ended up pregnant through BC failures or something but there always also be a few who were just very silly.
No, but I can hope for the laws and government to act in a way that is decent. I can't expect averyone to agree with abortion, but I can try and get it at least far enough that its supported legally.
I kind of want to argue its the mother's fault for choosing to have a child she knew her partner wouldn't support. But either way the child is not being punished. If the bio father refuses to pay then the slack would be picked up by the state. Even if the father pays money into the mother's bank account the kid still doesn't have any knowledge of its dad. The kid loses the same ammount either way. Or gains depending how you look at it I suppose.
Telling a child after they find you years later that you didn't want them you mean? Its harsh, but I don't actually object to it as such. I mean its the truth after all. The alternative would be lying, having to come up with a decent reason why you weren't there which would also be a lie, then giving your child false hope that maybe their father still wants them. I would think its kinder to tell them one harsh truth that go through all that lying.