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

**I just want to clarify that I think the proposed choice for the man should only be available during the time the woman can choose to abort. I hope this was mostly a given, and isn't surprising to Con. I apologize for not clarifying this before the last damn round. ** "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. " I am not assuming anything at all. "So my opponent's proposal would simply skew the "fairness" from one side to the other. " - those are your words. My response was to logically gather that you agreed that the current situation was unfair, and your response to this was to say that your words were conditional. I accepted this; when I said "you must logically agree. .. " I was explaining why I said what I said. That's that. I have yet to see anything more than a weak case against the fact that my proposal is unfair, supported by nonsensical citations. I feel I have made quite a case as to how the current system is unfair. Furthermore, my argument isn't so much about fairness (as you assumed) as it is about solving a problem, specifically the problem of child support entrapment. The current system is unfair because under it, women can legally entrap men into responsibility, even in cases where they purposely get pregnant without the father's knowledge. The case I cited shows this to be true; all a woman has to do is claim that there was intercourse, and it's her word over his. She can lie about being on birth control. She can even poke a hole in a condom about to be used for sex to intentionally get pregnant without the man's knowledge. Whether any of this happens or not, the man has no say in the matter of responsibility. If he and his partner both would opt for abortion, he can thank his lucky stars. But in the case where the woman wants to keep her unborn child, the man is utterly out of luck. I fail to see how you could possibly disagree that the current system is unfair. A woman can simply kill the embryo (whether the man likes it or not, mind you). A man can raise her child with her, give her a substantial percentage of his income, or commit suicide (just a joke, haha). "My position is not to answer any questions. " So you can't answer these simple questions without conceding, huh? These are rhetorical questions, anyway. Let me break it down for you in a different way. 1. A woman can choose to keep her baby whether the man likes it or not. 2. Under such circumstances, the man is trapped into some form of legal responsibility. 3. This creates the problem of women legally being able to trap men into responsibility for their children. 4. Giving men a choice to relinquish responsibility for an unborn child (embryo) would fix this problem. "As I show, my opponent's plan is not fair" The only thing you've done to show that it isn't fair is mention abortion related risks. I've already said, at least twice now, that such risks are inherent in a pregnant woman's condition, and as such cannot be used to justify the current state of inequity. "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. " "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. " Did you hear about that guy in Canada who fought for custody of his kids and lost? He set himself on fire because of it. A lot of women face pregnancy without the fathers, all of the time, in fact, and pregnancy in itself is very stressful. I don't think they'll all start miscarrying because suddenly they can't trap people into supporting their children. "The resolution does not do what it says it does" Why don't you scroll up a tick and read what I had to say about that in the last round? All you did was repeat yourself and made no effort to rebut. Con thinks I haven't yet presented a case. I find this to be irritating, yet amusing. DudeWithoutTheE said: "This is one of those motions that only appeals to men on the internet. What would be the real-world consequence of this action? More abortions, and more children living in poverty. So the child is worse off under the pro model whichever choice the mother makes. Also more STIs, since douchey men no longer need to worry about getting women pregnant, sorry honey, it's your problem! Do we really want to give men even more reason to not care about the girls they bang? Also, the harm of having to financially support a child isn't close to the burden pregnancy places on the mother - and the mother then has AT LEAST as much of a burden post-birth in terms of actual and opportunity cost as the father. You can do certain things to avert greater harms that you can't do to avert lesser ones, that's just common sense. (For example - if you are drunk and kicking seven shades out of me, I would be justified in killing you, but not if you were merely smashing up my car). This fails on pro-life grounds because, well, more abortions, and pro-choice grounds because you are economically coercing the pregnant woman into making a decision she might well not if not facing utter penury as a result. " You can't say that a man shouldn't have a choice because it would affect the woman's choice. You act like men are solely responsible for sex, and don't deserve a choice following intercourse. Pregnancy is usually just as much a result of the woman's actions as it is the man's (we're talking about legal sex). "Douchy men," however douchy you consider them to be, shouldn't have to worry about ruining their lives by having consensual sex. If a child has to grow up under this system without a father (and in poverty, no less), it's because the woman wanted to keep it. She didn't have the resources to take care of it, the man was unwilling to take responsibility for it, and she thought, "what the hell, I'll raise it anyway. " I don't see how you can have "more abortions" AND "more children living in poverty" as a result of this system, unless somehow it causes more people to get pregnant. And it won't. It may even effectively deter some women from needlessly getting pregnant. So, thank you, DudeWithoutTheE, for your impassioned yet thoughtless comment.