Well, they put it this way:
... given new technologies that allow very early, safe paternity tests, why shouldn’t the father of the baby-in-progress be responsible for medical and other costs during pregnancy? ... “Preglimony names and in that way honors the man’s role in caring for his pregnant lover. A man and a woman who conceive are intimately connected. They are not spouses, and they may not even continue to be lovers, but they are not strangers either.”"Preglimony."
Now, look: our secular society has spent the last 100 years trying to decouple the idea of shame from sexual sin all the way to the place where today even marriage is seen as obsolete because we just don't think about the enduring consequences of family relationships any more -- and that has, of course, caused the illegitimacy rates in our society to skyrocket from below 10% in 1940 to 40% in 2007 (source).
But now, what? Because we don't have any shame or innate sense of personal responsibility to the lives we create though recreational sex, the law should come in and force anyone to do anything toward the consequences of those actions?
I have said this before: the only thing the (human) law can really do is be a trailing indicator of what people in a society are prone to do. If most people are prone to do "X" and then "X" is made to be illegal, either the state has to implement totalitarian control over "X" (which will create a black market for "X") or else the state has to concede that it cannot control "X" and those laws must be repealed. Human Law only works when the citizen over which it rules are generally inclined to obey it.
That's why Prohibition didn't work.
But here, after a century-long campaign to do away with the virtues which create paternal responsibility by doing away with sexual moral shame, suddenly we find out that we are better off when men behave like men? And now we want the Law to fix it?