No it doesn't.
The woman could have aborted and the man would have no say the in the matter. If the woman decides to bear children out of wedlock, she has no claim on the father for support.
Look at the child's DNA and tell me the child has "no claim on the father" for support.
What I am saying is that reproduction cannot be a hit and run business for men or women. Men should not donate to banks unless they are willing to support their kids. They are not victims except, maybe, of their own greed to get a few easy bucks without thought to the new life they'd father in the process.
As to the woman having a "right" to abort without the man's consent, that's a red herring - two wrongs don't make a right. I don't agree with that "right" either. My gosh, it's like listening to two kids fight. "But she can abort if she wants to! But he did it in a cup and said I could do with it what I want! Waaa!! Waaa!!"
There should not be sperm banks. There should not be in vitro fertilization making a dozen throw-away embryos for every one that implants. There should not be children outside of marriage, and if there are, both parents should support them. There is no man lower than one who makes a bastard then won't support it.