Well, you see, all your arguments are based on the premise that if we changed the laws, people would go on as they have recently, having sex without bothering to marry. The whole point of changing the law is to give people an incentive to marry, so that behavior won’t continue.
Yes, if we changed the laws, and some people still didn’t get married, then sure, there would be people shutting the father out. However, I think most women would realize very quickly that they should get married before having kids, if they don’t want to get saddled with the entire burden.
We’ll never be able to fashion a system where the law can protect people (especially the children) from the consequences of unmarried sex. That is an exercise in futility. The only feasible option I see is to try to fashion laws that encourage marriage, and discourage sex before marriage. That’s my entire point. Worrying about people who would ignore those laws and continue with their foolishness and be in a worse situation than they are now is silly. The whole point of the law is to make their situation worse, so that people try to avoid that fate.
I understand what you're saying. I just don't think it would work. Plus, I happen to believe that a father should help to support his children. Assuming that he knows he has any.
I also have known many single mothers who worked hard, often two jobs at the same time, to make ends meet, whereas they couldn't get the fathers to support their children.
For the record, though, as I stated somewhere on this thread, I don't think anyone should go to jail for not paying child support. My state doesn't do that. I'm not sure if SC does.