Plenty of people work out how to collaborate in raising kid in a variety of ways, including as an incidental aspect of going to court, but "paying child support" colloquially is a judicial imposition that may or may not be grounded in moral reason. I'm not saying that paying to support a child is not a moral obligation, I'm saying paying child support or getting someone to do so is not a moral consideration more often than it is a judicial obligation. Others can explore the obvious hypotheticals, but plenty of the time one party ends up destroyed in proceedings.

Any two parties should approach the prospect of raising a child with extreme diligence, unfortunately not everyone does, accidents happen, emotions take over and later things may or may not go horribly.

As noted above, the father is never responsible for a child being born. The mother is the one who makes that choice.

Bullshit!

I'd say it's a toss up, in terms of an unintentional pregnancy, in no particular order.

Prospective mother could decide on her own to keep it, and the prospective father is stuck with either guaranteed child support payments or trying to raise the kid.

Prospective mother and father have hormones take over and both decide to commit even though objectively it's going to be a brutal road ahead.

In what are probably quite rare situations now, the man forces the woman to have the kid against her will.

One of the two parties merely convinces the other it'll work out, and they both try and figure it out.

The parents of either party get involved and create a bunch of other branching variations because they've got money or want grand kids or that's how they did it.

I don't think it's untrue to say it's the woman's choice ultimately, particularly in places where abortion is legal, but it is an unfair characterization, because creating life is incredibly messy, fraught with all sorts of complicating factors culturally and logistically.