Why must the baby die?

  • There is no justification in order to achieve the objectives of the bill.

This is a ‘Termination of PREGNANCY Bill’ NOT a ‘Termination of FETUS Bill’

  • If a termination of pregnancy is to be permitted past 24 weeks gestation it must be treated accordingly, as a termination of ‘pregnancy’ not a termination of ‘fetus’, and therefore performed via an appropriate medical procedure in order to deliver the viable baby alive.

Delivery is no more invasive than current late term abortion procedures and as from mid-term is statistically less risk than a termination.

 Beyond 20 weeks of gestation, the immediate risk of death to the woman from elective abortion procedures exceeds the woman’s risk of death from delivery.

 One study has shown that, compared to abortions performed at eight weeks gestation, the risk of death increases exponentially by 38% for each additional week of gestation.          

                                                                                                                               Bartlett et al., (2004) op. cit.


Our current abortion law recognises viability for life as the determining factor as to when a termination of pregnancy can lawfully be performed.

Prior to this gestational limit, known in 1970 to be at 28 weeks, the demise of the fetus was inevitable and unavoidable.

The Termination of Pregnancy Bill encompasses a whole new gestational period for the first time, that of viability for life, now determined to be post 23 weeks gestation.

During this period of fetal development, current medical advancements now make it possible to terminate a pregnancy without causing the death of the fetus.

Therefore, given that the intent of this abortion law reform is to give women total autonomy over their own bodies and further their reproductive health rights, this can successfully be achieved for a woman wishing to terminate her pregnancy by simply removing the viable human life in her womb from her body.


The question before the parliament is now uniquely, not whether a woman has the right to remove that life from her body, but whether she has the right to unnecessarily kill it first.

Any response in the affirmative would demand significant justification, given that this is a viable human life, completely innocent of its current circumstances and completely unable to do anything about changing them.

Our elected representatives must answer the question; ‘Why must the baby die?’

Will this government set the unthinkable precedent of making it lawful for one human being to unnecessarily take another human being’s life, particularly when another course of action is readily available?

There is no reason to ever justify this. The argument of possible emotional distress to the woman, knowing that her child is alive and being loved and well cared for by adoptive parents, is no reason for sanctioning the taking of a viable human life.

DANGER! If this is allowed, the rationale must apply for other circumstances where a child’s life is debilitating to the mother and apply to an indeterminate age of the child. Then credence must be given to the proposal of post birth abortion. This progression has already occurred in places where abortion up to birth has been legalised.

British Journal of Medical Ethics-Post birth Abortion   https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261          Study: Belgium Healthcare Professionals Attitudes-Termination at Viable stage https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aogs/13967?af=R

Clearly, this bill raises a humanitarian issue which would surely prohibit any termination of pregnancy post 23 weeks gestation that includes taking the life of a viable child, from ever being considered a ‘lawful’ health procedure.

Proposed procedure post 24 weeks gestation

  • The baby is delivered alive
  • The woman achieves her objective ie no longer pregnant nor a parent
  • The woman has a time frame in which to voluntarily relinquish all maternal rights
  • If this is decided, the baby is then placed for adoption.

 This will

  • Discourage late term abortions
  • Increase adoptions and reinstate this as a credible option that will be accessed by grateful infertile couples.
  • Give a viable human child the right to live their life

It is unlawful for one human being to deliberately take another human being’s life.

For this reason, abortion can never be considered purely a health care issue until there is a legal definition of when human life begins.

In the absence of that legal definition, after viability for life has been established, the taking of that life must be deemed to be a crime, except to save the life of the mother or another fetus.

This conclusion is honouring to the spirit and intent of the original abortion law and it’s lawmakers.

Total reproductive rights for women is the main objective behind these changes with extremist advocates

that will settle for nothing less

than ‘absolute’ rights at any expense…

Even the lives of viable unborn human beings.