At this point, whether he is married to the child's mother or not --- and sometimes it's she who refuses --- he cannot stop her from killing the child before it's born; and unless she acknowledges him as the father, he can't prevent her from handing his child over to be adopted by a couple of men or a couple fo women with a sexual disorder and a bizarre idea of how to raise a child.
In short, he doesn't have the "right" to carry out his most solemn moral duty of identifying, providing for, and protecting his child.
And that in turn violates the child's natural rights to paternal identity, provision and protection.
Which seems to me to be the reason to return to a less complicated state of affairs, such as existed before the ‘60s.
Out-of-wedlock births existed then, of course, but far less of them, because there was a certain social stigma attached to them, and because the law hadn’t been set so far in favor of women with no concern for anything but “the best interests of the child” as determined by some feminist judge.
“The best interests of the child” is, if not marriage between the parents, at least justice between the parents, which we do not now get.
Still, if a man wants parental rights, he should at least offer to marry the mother to get them. If she refuses, that’s another can of worms that I don’t have time to address right now, even if I had settled my position on it, which I haven’t. As I said elsewhere, sometimes we just have to pay for our mistakes.
As for the mother’s right to murder the child without even consulting the father, I think we both can agree that she should not have that right, even if they both agreed.