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

In rebuttal - "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." I beg to differ. Strict guidelines or not, professional or not, it is not up to a Social Worker to determine a child's "SOCIAL DESIRABILITY." A child at risk, maybe, but social desirability????? Mr, Eggleston - my good sir, I am beside myself. Anyone working at the beck and call of a government order would have the goverment's interest in mind ABOVE the citizens'. We've seen laws such as these enacted in other countries - such aa Nazi Germany. And in Communist China and Tibet. http://www.tibettruth.com... "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." This would be near impossible to implement. Taking the child away solves the issue of this type of situation for the child. Abortion punishes the child. The state should never impose control over another's body, without the person forfeiting their rights. And as there is no right to forcefully remove parts of another's body without their consent in Western countries, well, my opponent has no leg to stand on! (FIGURATIVE language, my dear reader.) "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." Sterilisation equals Nazism and Forced abortion doesn't. Your reasoning is unique and quite dangerous, to say the least. My opponent's purpose is to punish the mother for her indiscretion and whorish ways, so he would like to see the state cut the child out. She can always have another. Why spend money on the child? What good would it be? WOW. Parliament should henceforth deliberate in pubs!! "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." My objection is based on US law, admittedly - I am not as familiar with British law. I concede this point. But human rights are human rights - as the UK is allowing ISLAMIC courts, it would be discriminatory to not allow the person's religion NOT to come into play in such a situation. It may not be her primary defense, but it would definitely play a part. "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." Oh, I am familiar with "knee-tremblers" - I just prefer not to collapse on my back in the throes of said passion. As for my opponents point on "the Baby Daddy" - I have no issue. But a Pa that concieves in the upright position may have a problem being a "potentially responsible and stable parent." - - emphasis on STABLE. ;-) "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" I applied the above to myself, and asked several friends to do the same. NOT ONE OF US had "every possible opportunity to" have more than 3 of these. I guess we aren't "socially desirable". *shudder... But - fair enough, every child should be able to expect these - but the alternative is NOT abortion - but adoption. I say again - Abortion is punishing the child, mother and father. Adoption, contraception and education is so much more positive for all involved. My opponent ended his last round by pointing out I appealed to emotion. He wishes you to look dispassionately at the situation. Then he resorts to predicting the future - "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." Could the same be said of babies put up for adoption or foster parenting? I think not. He'd rather you appeal to hatred, bias, and prejudice. My final request of the reader is for them to place themselves into the shoes of the woman. The state imposes a CAO on you. What do you imagine your image of that state to be after this? Benevolence? Willingness to comply with the law? Or would you be bitter, even to the point of hating the very country that is supposed to be in the business of your baby's best interests? Granted, there would be women and men that would welcome not having to take responsibility for their offspring. But they are the minority. Most would fight, and there would be no quick decisions in a case such as this. Thank you to my opponent for this most interesting idea. But even a a Pro Choice supporter, I only support the woman's right to choose an abortion. Otherwise, NO. The only humane, supportive, and morally acceptable choice in this matter is to reject CAOs for what they are - Fascist Eugenics. Thank you.