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

"This paragraph is a story told by my opponent. There is no source of any kind to support this story, and this story is by memory, which is even less reliable." I made the point that I could only assume that cases like this happen, and clearly stated that even if it never happens, it CAN under the current arrangement. If you demand a specific case, then I can provide one. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] This Wikipedia article is a summary of the legal case State of Louisiana v. Frisard, the details of which can be found here: [http://caselaw.findlaw.com...] In summary, Frissard testified that Rojas inseminated herself with a condom used for oral sex, and Rojas testified that intercourse was had. "The Jefferson Parish Court found that Rojas met the legal burden of proof to establish paternity, and that Frisard was thus liable for child support." "There is a reason why I put fairness in quotation at the end, to point that; the "unfairness", if currently present, would just skew to the other side, as I feel the proposal my opponent established, to be unfair for the woman." 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. "PRO wrote; "I don't deny that abortions come with risks..." This was my point (women has risks vs men no risks), which my opponent clearly agree upon. " Yes, I do agree that abortions come with risks. But your source, which states that abortion is deadlier than childbirth, is simply wrong. Also, I clearly stated that any obstetrical risks are inherent in a pregnant woman's condition, and cannot be used to justify the current state of inequity. "I'm not in support to the whole proposal my opponent has in the resolution, I'm CON to the resolution, I'm not here to try to make a proposal of my own." Your position that my proposal would be unfair due to obstetrical risks implies you would either have no action taken despite current unrelated inequities (Con position), or insert risks into my proposal to compensate, which is obviously unreasonable. "I'm just here to show that my opponent's idea does not do what he believes it does, and so far I have done my job." I would suggest you let the voters be the judge of that. 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. 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?