The only other issue I see with men being allowed to opt out in early pregnancy is that what man in their right mind would not opt out in order to avoid child support? Especially those who are not emotionally invested in the mother. I got pregnant with my first at 16 years old. I dated her dad for 2 years before that. We broke up a week before I took a pregnancy test. I assure you if he had the option he would have opted out of paying support. We ended up back together and married years later but he wouldn't have paid a dime if he could have gotten away with it in the early years. He had a new sports car to pay for and I heard about that shit daily how he couldn't afford child support because of his new car payment (he lived with his parents for pete's sake).
No it's not fair a mother can abort even if the father doesn't want her too. I really don't know what the solution to that should be. On one hand I think if he wants his child she should have the baby and sign over her rights or be forced to pay support. On the other hand I don't think anyone should be forced to do something with their body they don't want to do. It's a hard dilema and I think you are right Obsolete it isn't ever going to change.
I do think they should change the law about married men being the assumed father. I think if he has any doubt at any time he should be allowed to ask for a dna test and appropriate action taken. It's not fair if the wife cheats and then the state automatically declares the man the father (even if he refuses to sign a birth certificate) Unwed father's have the choice of deciding whether or not to get a dna test and go through the courts to be added to the bc or sign an affidavid of paternity (however; those should be signed only if you know for sure because they wave your right to dna test)