Compulsory Abortion Orders should be imposed on pregnant women deemed unsuitable for motherhood

Thank you to Brian for a timely and though provoking debate topic. The stories on Karen Matthews were heart-wrenching. Although I do not reside in the UK, I must say we have the same, if not worse statistics here in the US. I agree with your summation of said events, but not your method of rectification. I am all for abortion - if chosen by the woman. BUT - never, NEVER if chosen by the state. I wonder why you chose compulsory abortion as the only route to solving this worldwide problem? It is a tad extreme, to say the least. Who is to determine their unfitness? The state? That wouldn't work. Having the state deem a mother unfit would be cost-prohibitive, not to mention unfair for the mother, whom you wisely stated is most likely financially and educationally challenged anyway. How would such a woman mount a defense? Determining fitness would be near impossible in cases of first time pregnancy. (If you are including it.) Speaking of first time pregnancy, how is anyone to know UNTIL she is a mother just how unfit she is? Your disregard for the ability for people to change is disturbing. Would someone have to meet all your criteria to be deemed unfit? Or are three enough? What if said woman is down on her luck, shacks up with her boyfriend whom is a druggie and abusive, gets on the dole, and works her way back up? Does the mother's will to change have any play in the argument? Is she branded for LIFE? Why not just sterilize her? - Less traumatic, and saves the state money on future abortions, doesn't it? She wouldn't even have to know. At the welfare office, when she is standing at a counter to complete forms, she can be exposed without her knowledge to sterilizing doses of X-radiation. - wait - I think the NAZIS had a similar idea... "A practical procedure would consist in making the persons to be treated approach a counter where they would be asked to reply to certain questions or to fill out forms for two or three minutes. The person sitting behind the counter could work the apparatus by turning a switch which would bring two lamps into action simultaneously." (The radiations had to be transmitted from either side.) "By installing two lamps, between 150 and 200 persons could be sterilized daily and, in consequence, with twenty installations of this type, 3,000 to 4,000 individuals could be sterilized every day." Taken from link below. http://www.maebrussell.com... Problem solved. BUT - What if this woman is Christian, or any other religion that forbids this? Her immortal soul doesn't matter to the state, now, does it? And what of the father? Does he get his cake, and get to eat it, too? Conceiving a child is a dance,(although horizontal) and it takes TWO to tango. I have 2 better solutions, that will reap benefits for the state and the mom/child. Compulsory adoption and/or compulsory birth control. Augmented with a huge dose of education. Either way is so much more desirable, for all involved. Costly, for sure, but if your idea is the alternative, I'd much rather pay taxes to SUPPORT a child, rather than ABORT a child. A child given a chance, is a potential tax-payer, therefore repaying the state X-fold for its investment in him/her. At least one countryman of yours has made this case - http://www.timesonline.co.uk... And a Dutch legislator - http://www.bbc.co.uk... You say, "Once this legislation has been passed, social services departments will, for the first time, be able to prevent an unsuitable mother's pregnancy reaching full term and thereby save a youngster from a life of misery and I therefore commend this important measure in the fight against child abuse to the House." Save a youngster from a life of misery? fight against child abuse? Easily not the best choice of words - but accurate if we only accept the either/or idea of motherhood. Orphanages would not be the best solution, but they sure beat being ripped apart inside your mom, and not having ANY chance to contribute to the world. I wonder how many children were born of unfit mothers and turned out to be caring and contributing members of society? I know of at least one. The author of this rebuttal. Me. Your proposed solution strikes me as far too draconian. Have we got the right to exercise pre-emptive "justice" – and could this be the first step towards a "minority report" approach to parental "precrime"? I firmly and deeply reject the proposition, and hope my opponent can see the error of his words. Thank goodness they aren't 'WAYS' - yet. Thank you.