A man should be able to relinquish all responsibility for an unborn child.

I'd just like to state for the record that my opponent has agreed that the current system is unfair. The specifics of the proposed arrangement haven't been pointed out. Perhaps the man, in choosing to exercise the proposed right, also gives up any chance of future involvement with the child, or perhaps not. In any case, there is a problem of inequity which must be solved, and my opponent has already agreed that sticking to the current arrangement is ineffectual. Any risks involved in abortion would be incidental and inconsequential to this debate; however: The same study involving abortion related deaths, cited by my opponent, was conducted soley by the observation of medical records and death certificates for women of child-bearing age; any abortions within a year prior to their deaths were recorded. It states that abortion is four times deadier than childbirth. The same study indicates that women who have given birth within a year are half as likely to die than women who have had no pregnancy within a year (Non-pregnancy is twice as deadly as pregnancy). It indicates that women who have miscarried within a year are also less likely to die than women who have had no pregnancy within a year (Non-pregnancy is deadlier than miscarriage). This is utter nonsense. [http://afterabortion.org...] I don't deny that abortions come with risks, but this article [http://health.usnews.com...] based on a study that compares pregnancy related deaths to legal abortion related deaths, indicates that abortion is much safer than childbirth. It notes that "complications -- such as postpartum hemorrhage, infections and high blood pressure disorders -- were more common in women choosing to continue their pregnancies." I believe these are all complications mentioned in Con's cited article. What I've read on Planned Parenthood authority [http://www.plannedparenthood.org...] indicates that there are little to no negative psychological effects necessarily caused by abortion, other than possible post-procedural guilt. There is also indication that abortion is the safer course of action for women who suffer from certain conditions that greatly increase risk in childbirth. My opponent's point is that abortions have risks, where the proposed male "equivalent" would not. Is this supposed to be justification for inequity? Or is he proposing that we insert risks into the male's options, despite the fact that obstetrical risks are inherent in a pregnant woman's condition? I've read about women who lie about being on birth control and even poke holes in condoms to purposely get pregnant, and part of the plan is to trap the father into child support if he doesn't stay, or even if he wants to stay but can't. I don't know how often this happens, and can only assume that it does at all; even if women never do this, however, they CAN. Under the current arrangement, they can do exactly as I described if they so choose. The proposed arrangement would abolish this possibility. As far as "skewing the '[un]fairness' from one side to the other": under both the current and proposed arrangements, a woman can choose to abort her unborn child even when the man would object. This kind of inequity, alongside obstetrical risks, is also inherent in a pregnant woman's condition and is thusly inevitable.