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

I just read the case. One person claim one thing, and the other claims something different. The man could not prove his case, so he had to continue paying child support. I don't know what convinced my opponent that this would be a good case to present. I was expecting the whole time for the man to prove his case and see the consequences that would follow. PRO wrote; "If you can make the claim that my proposal would "skew" the unfairness "from one side to the other," you must logically agree that said unfairness exists. If you disagree that the current arrangement is unfair, you think that a woman should be able to intentionally trap a male into fathering her child one way or another, and that a man should have no choice in the matter following his choice to fornicate. I don't feel I need to explain how this is wrong. " You are again assuming things. I did not say your proposal would skew the unfairness, I said, it would, if unfairness exist. I do not need to know the system to debate this issue, as I'm solely debating the resolution, which is a proposition by you with the intent of fairness. I showed that your proposition is not fair. You believe the current system is unfair, and yet you propose to replace it with another unfair system. PRO wrote; "I believe that my proposal would offer males a much needed choice when faced with an unwanted unborn child. The choice is needed because currently there is none. " The unborn child is there because of the choices of two people. The woman cannot just do as man in your proposal, and simple say. "I do not want any responsibility in this". She is already bonded by what the two accomplished together. You give a man a right to walk away. .. now this woman is there, with the unborn baby, and facing the decisions, of not only if she wants/can keep the baby, but all the consequences that will follow (keeping the baby or not). Not only that, but the man that she was with simply walk away, and she is left with all the stress she will now have to face it, while still pregnant. Her emotions will be all over the place because of something called mood swing, and this situation will just make it worse for her. . http://www.marchofdimes.com... As pointed in the link above, to much stress can cause miscarriage. Therefore, the mother could lose the baby even if she wanted to keep, which could very well be linked to my opponent's proposal if it became law. Even if she can overcome the stress and have a healthy baby, you now have a baby of which it will grow up knowing the father did not want anything to do with. PRO wrote; "Does Con reject the fact that a woman can choose to keep her baby whether the man likes it or not? Does he reject that, under such circumstances, the man is trapped into some form of legal responsibility? Does he disagree that this is unfair, since a woman can never be trapped in such a way having the choice to abort? Does he sincerely reject the idea that my proposition would fix the problem of child support entrapment? "" My position is not to answer any questions. My opponent seems to be trying a game of entrapment instead of focus on his case, and defending it. I have yet to see any new arguments to why; "a man should be able to relinquish all responsibility for an unborn child as long as a woman can essentially do the same by aborting it. " As I show, my opponent's plan is not fair, and a man relinquishing all his responsibilities does not equal the same of a woman aborting. She cannot relinquish all her responsibilities like a man, she must deal with many issues, before she is not longer responsible to what both help create. So far this is what we have. A proposal (which is the resolution). The resolution does not do what it says it does (as I point, a man relinquishing his responsibilities is not "essentially the same" as a woman aborting). My opponent's intentions where of fairness, as he believes the current system is not. As I point his proposal is not fair. My opponent spent his rounds going over what I said, with assumptions that are completely wrong. My opponent then ended the round without any other arguments about his proposal, of which I expected, instead he ended with questions to me. I'm the one who is supposed to present the flaws and possible questions one should be asking about his proposal. I'm not the one with a proposal. Nowhere in the resolution or rules says that I must defend the current system. My opponent still have one remaining round, but I feel is too late for him to try to present his case, as even know there is no rules saying I cannot make new arguments in the last round, it wouldn't feel fare to do so, as my opponent would be unable to respond. __