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

I am indebted to my opponent for his gracious acceptance of this challenge and thank him for posting such an eloquent and ostensibly reasonable argument. In response to my opponent's comments, I should first like to make it clear that, while the Government (state) would enact the law, a pregnant woman's suitability to become a mother would be assessed by professional social workers working under strict guidelines and would apply to the courts for an Compulsory Abortion Order (CAO) to be served in cases where allowing the pregnancy to reach full-term would place a child at risk and / or be socially undesirable. With these checks and balances in place, it would not be legally possible for the Government to decide who would and would not be subject to a CAO. Furthermore, I would envisage that a CAO would only be granted in exceptional circumstances for first child cases, possibly only for extreme cases such as a woman addicted to drugs, living in a crackhouse that is frequented by violent criminals and who is willing to sell her body for the price of her next fix. Please now allow me to explain the inspiration for my proposal. I was discussing Britain's underclass in general, and unsuitable mothers in particular, with some friends of mine. The consensus amongst them was that evil fat slags like Karen Matthews should all be sterilised (they were not my most intellectual friends and they had been drinking heavily, but still….) and my opponent suggested the sterilisation option in an attempt to discredit CAOs by associating them with Nazi birth control schemes. However, abortions are one-ff and do not, therefore, preclude the possibility of a woman having children in the future if her behaviour and circumstances are sufficiently improved. My opponent then introduced two arguments, the first regarding religious objections. As Britain does not have a written constitution, no special privileges are accorded to people of faith, although their right to practice their religion (in accordance with the law) is protected under the Human Rights Act 1988. http://www.opsi.gov.uk... However, the right to freedom of religion would not endow a plaintiff with the legal right to refuse a CAO on the grounds of their religious beliefs, any more than it gives them the right to break any other Law of the Land. The second argument concerned the father of the child. Ignoring the temptation to address the question of "horizontal dancing" (my opponent is clearly unfamiliar with "knee-tremblers"), the courts may decide that the child could be brought up in the father's care, if he is deemed to be a potentially responsible and stable parent. My opponent had two alternative solutions, namely compulsory adoption and compulsory contraception. The former already exist in Britain and the second, while it has its undoubted merits, would be difficult to monitor and enforce. Under my proposal, when social services do refer a case, the criteria the courts will use in order to make their assessment will mirror those of the Children Act 2004 and the pregnant woman (or her legal representative) must convince the court that, if she is allowed to give birth, the child will have every possible opportunity to: - Be healthy, both mentally and physically - Be safe from neglect, abuse and anti-social behaviour - Enjoy, and achieve at, school - Make a positive contribution to society - Achieve economic well-being through employment as an adult http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk... To end his debating round, my opponent resorted to an appeal to the voters' sense of compassion by implying that a child born to an unfit mother should be given a chance to become a worthwhile citizen. However, we must look beyond the emotional language he used and consider the matter dispassionately. Few of us would dispute that, even if someone did survive a childhood spent living in a crackhouse full of violent strangers with only an abusive, drug-addicted criminally-incompetent mother to rely on for support, they would be most unlikely to grow up to be some sort of paragon of virtue. If you examine the backgrounds of most murderers, rapists and child molesters, you will find that most were brought up in a dysfunctional household. In conclusion, not only will CAO's safeguard unborn children from potential future abuse and reduce the rates of serious crimes; they will save the taxpayers significant amounts of money by reducing the numbers of women eligible for government-funded housing; income support and child-benefit payments. Thank you.