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

Pro wrote; "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)." The resolution supports the right for a woman to have an abortion. Two people of opposite sex should know very well that engaging in sex could lead to a child. There is no foolproof solutions for such. Your proposition would just give a green light to those who just want to have sex and not a relationship. The result would be a bunch of girls impregnated, of which would have to deal with the costs of aborting the child. Many would probably not be able to pay for the cost and end up having a child, which would either have to be put to adoption or having the mother forcefully taken the decision to have it and raise. So like I said, your preposition would just skew things up, very badly so. The man can just go on with his life, like he didn't do anything, the woman would be left with all the consequences. PRO wrote; "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." 1- A woman is bound by the baby, whatever she like it or not, she is trap with such of responsibility. 2- Look at number 1, she is trapped by the laws of nature. A man however, have a chance to scape the laws of man. 3- Entrapment is illegal, and so is a separated issue. 4- Like I pointed above it would create many problems. Again, you point to the issue of entrapment, which there is already a law enforced against such of behavior. PRO wrote; "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." I cannot see how this is relevant. First of all, I have no details of this issue, since again, you fail to present a source. Second, the parents are not longer together, therefore, the court has to decide, according to evidence shown, who the child should be with. The court would be deciding the best option for the child and no one else. I don't see how this fits with the resolution. PRO wrote; "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." You had a one liner followed by a bunch of questions, and I quote and reply on both. The rest was you just going on about technicalities about what I said, and a source to a story no one can really know what happened. Since there were two stories, and the accuser had no prove. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The rest of my opponent's round is to DudeWithoutTheE. I did not know I was having a three way debate. My opponent seems disengaged from his own proposal and more engaged to what I had to say, or DudeWithoutTheE had to say. I have no idea who that is, or how he/she became part of this debate. __