If people are fine with increases to taxes, the father* should be allowed to defer child support. The problem is that we are dealing with two grown adults that are willingly engaging in activity that can lead to procreation. Lets just say the father doesn't want the child at all, he made it clear since conception was realized, but the mother wants to keep the child. Yes, the mother is knowingly bringing the child into a disadvantageous situation, but an abortion requires the invasion of her body to terminate the pregnancy, thus the only way to prevent carrying the child to term is for the state to go a step further and terminate the child against the mother's will.
I know that sounds crazy but it's a necessary consideration in order to establish and recognize bodily autonomy. So we can't proceed with the above and the mother wants to carry to term against the father's will. Since we can't have the state violate autonomy in this manner, the only other option to ensure, and this is statistically tracked, the best possible upbringing for the child, is to tax the father that isn't participating with child support. It's either that or the government will have to foot the bill, and by government, I mean us citizens that pay taxes. Now we can get into a discussion of taxation if you want.
Now I see your most recent comment about women being allowed to abort in the reverse situation, it's because of the recognition of bodily autonomy. If we follow this to its logical conclusion, assuming the child can't survive outside of the womb, the mother of the child shouldn't have to carry to term with all of the complications that come along with the scenario if they don't wish too. I ask this simply, and scrap the statistics, they are actually irrelevant for the discussion as we are trying to establish autonomy, would you force a rape victim to carry to term and if not, why? It's likely because you see the child, from the rapist, as an invasion of the woman having to carry it. That's what it is in most cases, there are other arguments such as the mental consideration but that still leads to the right to abortion and is an aspect of bodily autonomy. So if the women deems the child an invasion of body, her autonomy, you grant the right to abortion in that scenario.
Now maybe you care for all I typed, maybe you don't, I'm willing to engage in any manner and in good faith. Understand, I actually don't morally agree with abortion of sentient beings, that's a moral disagreement based on my consideration for all beings with sentience. But I am fine with abortions before the fetus achieves sentience, as I don't base this position on potentiality.
And yes, I support the right to abortion, incase anyone brings that up, I can square that position on overall wellbeing.
.