That's an inegalitarian argument for injustice. If the man has no choice in the matter, he should not be obliged to pay.
If the woman unilaterally chooses to have the child, she should be the only one providing. If she can no longer provide, then the state should step in, financed by general taxes, for the good of the child. It is injustice to put this on a man who had no choice in the matter.
It does not. But it has been flagged, so hopefully it will be fixed at some point in the future.