Click here to go back to issues list

Should late-term abortions be performed in Victoria, for foetal abnormalities or other reasons?

SCROLL DOWN to read ALL the sections, including arguments for and against


The issue

On July 3, 2000, it was reported that the Royal Women's Hospital had suspended three of its doctors pending an internal investigation and the result of a coroner's investigation.
The doctors were suspended because it had been reported to the that they had been involved in the late-term abortion of a 32-week foetus, which testing had indicated would suffer from dwarfism.
The mother was reported as being suicidal at the prospect of bearing a child with this disability and had come to the hospital seeking a termination.
The hospital does not normally perform terminations of foetuses of more than 20 weeks.

What they said ...
'It makes me angry. It makes me sad. We're short. So what?'
Francis Kelly, chairman of Short-Statured People of Australia, commenting on a survey which shows that 78 per cent of obstetricians support abortion of foetuses with dwarfism

'Terminations of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks gestation are ... carried out for serious foetal abnormality and life threatening maternal illness'
One of the conclusions of the 1998 Medical Board of Victoria report on late-terminations of pregnancy
Echo Issue Outline 2000 / 24-25
Copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

Background
The issue of late-term abortion has been raised in Victoria over a number of years.
In April, 1998, the Victorian Minister for Health, Mr Robert Knowles, asked the Medical Board of Victoria to prepare a report on late term abortions. This request may in part have been prompted by the intention of Queensland late-term abortionist, Dr David Grundmann, to establish a clinic in Croydon.
In the event, the Medical Board of Victoria's report did not result in any change to abortion law in Victoria. It did, however, clarify the current practices that operate with regard to late-term abortions in public hospitals in this state.
The Board also made some recommendations as to what it regarded as optimum practice re late-term abortions. These were modelled on the practices being followed in the two principal public medical facilities performing late-term abortions. One of these facilities was the Royal Woman's Hospital.


The practice of late-term abortions at Victoria's Royal Women's Hospital and Monash Medical Centre
(This is a slightly edited version of the summary of findings published with the Medical Board of Victoria's 1998 report on late term abortions.)
  • Terminations of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks gestation are performed in the State's two major obstetric hospitals and carried out for serious fetal abnormality and life threatening maternal illness.
  • The Royal Women's Hospital and Monash Medical Centre perform some 80 of these late-term abortions a year.
  • The services are provided by professional teams which include an obstetrician, geneticists, nursing staff and counsellors, with additional referral to other specialists.
  • Termination of pregnancy is performed after counselling and on the request of the woman who is fully informed about the foetal abnormality.
  • Both institutions provide comprehensive care of the mother, encompassing her physical and emotional needs and those of her family.

    There are a number of reasons why termination for foetal abnormality may not be made until late in pregnancy. In some cases it is due to delayed diagnosis or to late-term deterioration in the foetal state, and the need for time for counselling and for the parents to consider. Women in rural areas may be at a disadvantage due to lack of access to specialist investigation or advice.
    The degree of foetal abnormality leading to termination varies.

    There are two methods that are used in Victoria to terminate pregnancy beyond 20 weeks. These are
    1. Induction of labour with prostaglandin and
    2. Dilatation and evacuation after cervical preparation with prostaglandin. (Author's note: it is unclear whether this procedure is the same as the D and X procedure used by Dr David Grundmann. This is described in the next note.)

  • Disposal of the foetal remains and the handling of the stillborn infant are made with respect and according to the wishes of the parents.
  • Although Victorian law does not recognise foetal abnormality as an indication for performing termination of pregnancy, such terminations performed at the two major institutions in Victoria are carried out on the legal grounds of being necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her physical or mental health.
  • It is unlikely that the ethical and moral issues related to late term termination can be resolved in view of the strongly held and widely diverse views of individuals and organisations within the community.
  • The Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria considers that if late term termination of pregnancy is to be carried out, it should be done in accordance with best clinical practice.

    Late-term abortion procedures employed in some private clinics.
  • The Medical Board of Victoria's report made some incidental reference to the late-term abortion procedure used by Dr David Grundmann.
  • The procedure is referred to as D and X or partial birth abortion.
  • It is employed by Dr Grundmann for foetuses older than 20 weeks.
  • In this procedure the cervix is dilated over some days. The legs and torso of the foetus are brought outside the mother's body. The contents of the foetus' skull is then suctioned out while the head is still in the birth canal. The foetus is then born dead.

    D and X or partial birth late-term abortions in the United States
  • This form of abortion has generated significant controversy in the United States.
  • In 1996 United States Congress passed a bill which would have outlawed D and X or partial birth abortions.
  • President Clinton then vetoed this bill. His administration argued that it did not allow for circumstances where this form of abortion was necessary to preserve the health or future fertility of the mother.
  • Critics of the Clinton veto and subsequent attempts to amend the bill claim that the proposed exceptions to preserve the mother's health are too broad and would allow for the procedure to be performed under almost any circumstances.

    Australia and visa limitations on United States doctors performing late-term abortions.
  • In November 1999 a number of United States doctors were warned against violating the terms of their visas.
  • There was concern that the public expression of their views might spark protests and civil unrest in Australia.
  • All the doctors were attending an international abortion conference being held in Queensland.
  • All were practitioners of late-term abortion and were speaking on some of the procedures which could be used.
  • The conference was organised by the International Society of Abortion Doctors. The Society's president is Dr David Grundmann.

    Internet links
    In April, 1998, the Medical Board of Victoria produced a report titled, Report on late term terminations of pregnancy.
    As already noted, the report was prepared at the request of the then Victorian Minister for Health, Mr Robert Knowles.
    The report is an excellent source of information on current practices regarding late-term abortions in Victoria.
    It treats in detail Victorian laws as they effect these terminations. It also considers what impact, if any, the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child might have.
    It considers a number of the ethical issues raised in relation to late-term abortions.
    It also makes a number of recommendations about preferred practice when late-term abortions are preformed.
    The report can be found at http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/ahs/report/index.htm

    The Age, on April 29, 1998, published a report by Mary-Anne Toy titled, 'Controversial abortion method 'safe' for women'.
    The article deals mainly with the findings of the Medical Board of Victoria's report on late-term abortions. It also looks at Dr David Grundmann's performing of this type of abortion.
    The article can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/daily/980429/news/news8.html

    A valuable anti abortion piece supplying both information and argument has been written by Greg Smith, a barrister and president of the Right to Life Association(New South Wales). This is a ten-page discussion which argues that abortion should remain a criminal offence. The paper is titled Abortion Law in Australia with particular reference to New South Wales. Though written in 1994, the piece is still relevant to Australian abortion law as it currently operates except Western Australia where abortion laws were significantly liberalised in 1998. It supplies a defence of the rights of the unborn and a detailed discussion of current law and its interpretation.
    The piece can be found at http://www.kyrie.com/actrtla/abortion/bookab/smith.htm

    An interesting source of information from a pro-abortion perspective is the Children by Choice Internet site. Children by Choice is an education, counselling and pro-abortion lobby group.
    The group is based in Queensland. Their index gives click-throughs to contemporary survey information indicating popular attitudes to abortion across Australia. From their index it is also possible to get detailed information on the availability of abortion in all Australian states.
    Their abortion index can be found at http://www.powerup.com.au/~cbyc/info.htm
    The information, with the exception of the 1998 update for Western Australia, was compiled in 1997.
    Some of the details it supplies on abortion practices in the various states may therefore no longer be accurate. The general consensus appears to be that abortion practice if not law is becoming progressively more liberal.

    The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (OCRT) have an excellent series of articles and information pieces dealing with the issue of abortion. All of these make interesting background reading. Some, such as those dealing with the legal status of the foetus and the ethics of D & X or partial birth abortion, are particularly relevant to late-term abortions.
    The index for OCRT's material on abortion can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm
    This site is an excellent source of information on ethical issues. It does not approach them from the perspective of any particular religion, instead it considers the issues from a broad range of perspectives, both religious and secular.
    OCRT's home page can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/

    The Westchester Coaltion for Legal Abortion/ WCLA Online has an interesting pro-abortion site which lists a series of arguments against abortion and matches these with countering arguments. This section of their site can be found at http://www.wcla.org/articles/procon.html
    It makes useful background reading for anyone interested in the issue of abortion. (Please note: though this balancing of arguments appears to present both sides of the issue, its purpose is to show what is wrong with the anti-abortion case.)

    On January 23, 199, The Seattle Times published a report outlining the initial attempts to outlaw partial birth abortion in the United States, its vetoing by President Clinton and subsequent attempts to resurrect the bill in an amended form.
    The report is titled 'Prayer and protest over Roe vs. Wade' It can be found at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/extra/browse/html97/altabor_012397.html

    Little People of America (LPA) has a website which outlines both the different types of dwarfism and the severity of the effects which can be expected. The site also looks at /the question of genetic testing for dwarfism.
    All this information can be found in the Frequently Asked Questions section of their site. This can be found at http://www.lpaonline.org/resources_faq.html

    Nidhi Thareja of the University of Maryland has published a brief essay titled Should genetic knowledge effect pregnancy options? The piece briefly outlines the arguments put on both sides and identifies the special interest groups involved in the debate.
    It can be found at http://www.wam.umd.edu/~nidisumi/essay8.htm


    Arguments in favour of late term abortions being available in Victoria
    There are six main arguments offered in favour of late-term abortions being available in Victoria

    1. Late-term abortion is already legal in Victoria.
    Those who hold this view argue that as abortion, under certain circumstances, has been legally available in Victoria since 1969, it should continue to be legally available regardless of the duration of the pregnancy.
    In 1969, in the case of R v Davidson, Mr Justice Menhennitt interpreted the circumstances under which it would be lawful to induce a miscarriage.
    Justice Menhennit ruled that abortion was legal where the abortionist believed the procedure was necessary 'to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health'.
    Supporters of late-term abortion argue that it if the life of the mother or her physical or mental well being are in jeopardy there is no legal difference between late-term abortion and abortion which takes place earlier in a pregnancy.
    In the case in question it has been argued that the woman upon whom the late-term abortion was performed was suicidal at the prospect of giving birth to a child with dwarfism. Her pre-birth mental state has been claimed to indicate that both her life and her physical and mental well being would have been further threatened had the pregnancy been allowed to continue to term.
    Victorian law (unlike the law of South Australia and the Northern Territory) makes no reference to foetal abnormalities as grounds for abortion. However, supporters of late term abortion for foetal abnormalities argue that the mental distress suffered by a woman forced to give birth to a child she knew would have a defect are grounds for an abortion under the Menhennitt ruling.

    2. There are special reasons why women present for late-term abortions
    It has been claimed that many of the women who present for late-term abortions are very young. It has further been claimed that they present late because their inexperience has meant that they have not recognised that they are pregnant or they have tried to deny their condition. Many, it has been suggested, may have tried to hide their condition from parents or others and only acknowledge that they are pregnant when the pregnancy is too far advanced to be hidden.
    Supporters of late-term abortion argue that pregnancy poses particular physical risks for young mothers. They also note that young mothers who have motherhood forced upon them are likely to have their mental health put at risk.
    It is further noted that another category of mother who presents for a late-term abortion is the women whose foetus has been detected to have a particular abnormality. A number of abnormalities, such as dwarfism, can only be detected quite late in a pregnancy.

    3. The crime of 'child destruction' has not been committed where an abortion has been performed in accordance with the Menhennitt ruling.
    Section 10 of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 refers to the offence of 'child destruction'. It states that it is an offence to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive. The Act suggests that any foetus of 28 weeks or more development is reasonably considered to be capable of being born alive.
    However, supporters of late-term abortion argue that the Menhennitt ruling means this section of the Victorian Crimes Act does not apply where an abortion has been performed in order to safeguard the life or the mental health or physical health of the mother.

    4. A foetus has no legal standing, irrespective of its stage of development
    The Medical Board of Victoria's 1998 report titled, Report on late term terminations of pregnancy referred to the work of H Reed, University of Queensland which was published in the Journal of Law and Medicine in 1996. Reed concluded that the law does not recognise 'the foetus as possessing a legal identify that the law must protect'.
    According to this line of argument the supposed rights of the foetus have no clear legal standing and so are no legal impediment to 'the rights of the pregnant woman to self-determination in relation to medical procedures'.
    The same Medical Board of Victoria report concluded 'A foetus in utero (in the womb) cannot be the victim of homicide, regardless of gestational age. A foetus can only be the victim of murder or manslaughter if it is born in a living state, irrespective of its capacity to survive.'

    5. Ethically, a foetus is not a separate human being until it is outside its mother's body. Whether it is potentially viable or not does not alter this.
    According to this line of argument, even though a foetus could possibly be delivered and kept alive after 24 weeks or even 20 weeks' gestation, the woman carrying the foetus cannot be compelled to have it born alive against her wishes. According to this line of argument, the women, as an independent, autonomous human being should not be forced to give birth.

    6. Foetal abnormalities that would impair the quality of life of a baby born with them should be grounds for abortion, irrespective of the foetus' stage of development.
    According to this line of argument it would be more humane to spare a child the suffering associated with many conditions which can now be detected prior to birth. Some argue that this is the case even when the particular abnormality may not be fatal. Those who hold this view argue that responsible parenthood is only to give birth to a child without previously detectable defects. Those who hold this view justify the aborting of foetuses with conditions ranging from the life threatening to surgically correctable conditions such as cleft palates and non-fatal but uncorrectable conditions such as dwarfism.
    It is further noted that because at least some of these conditions cannot be detected until late into a pregnancy they may require late-term abortions.
    Currently the law in Victoria does not allow for abortion at any stage of foetal development solely on the grounds of foetal abnormality. Despite this, many abortions are performed primarily for this reason. A number of commentators have suggested that Victorian abortion law needs to be modified to allow for abortion specifically on the grounds of foetal abnormality.

    Arguments against late term abortions being available in Victoria

    1. The terms under which late-term abortions are often granted are inappropriate because they are too liberal
    Many opponents of abortion argue that there are either no circumstances or very few circumstance under which it should be available. Those who hold this view argue that the Menhennitt ruling is too liberal. They tend to argue that an abortion is only ever justified in order to save the life of the mother and that factors such as the mother's physical or mental well being are not significant enough to weigh against the life of the unborn child. They note that very few pregnancies which are ended late are life-threatening for the mother and that this is particularly the case where the foetus is aborted because of some late-detected abnormality.

    2. Late-term abortions performed because of a foetal abnormality are a distortion of the Menhennitt ruling
    Those who hold this view argue that even if the terms of the Menhennitt ruling are accepted then many abortions considered legal in Victoria still do not fall within the terms of this ruling. According to this line of argument, the Menhennitt ruling requires that two doctors have genuine reason to believe that the women's physical or mental health would be seriously endangered by a continuance of the pregnancy. Critics note that many abortions are performed without there being genuine grounds for belief that the woman is in serious danger. They argue that we have reached a point in Victoria where we have virtual abortion on demand and that this was not the intention of the Menhennitt ruling.
    It is particularly argued that late-term abortion sought because of foetal abnormality does not fall within the terms of the Menhennitt ruling.

    3. The crime of 'child destruction' gives a special legal status to a late-term foetus
    According to this line of argument, though a foetus may not have the standing of a person in law, the fact that Section 10 of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 refers to the offence of 'child destruction' when a viable foetus is killed indicates that the law recognises the special status of such a foetus. (A viable foetus is defined as one that has reached a stage of development where it would be able to survive outside its mother's womb.)
    Those who put this argument note that where the life of a foetus can be sustained outside the mother's womb, normally at between 24 and 28 weeks gestation, then the mother should no more be able to request the death of that foetus than she would be able to request the death of a new-born baby.
    Equally, it is argued, medical practitioners should not be able to abort an independently viable foetus because the mother does not want it to be born alive.

    4. A foetus is a separate entity even when inside the womb
    Those who hold this view argue that a foetus is a distinct entity with its own unique genetic coding and, while it is dependent on its mother for survival, this does not make it a part of her body which she can dispose of as she wishes.
    Those who hold this view argue that physical dependency should not mean that the life of a foetus has no legal protection. It is further argued that where a foetus is able to exist outside its mother's womb then its claim to have its life protected is even stronger.

    5. Physical deformities should not automatically be grounds for abortion, especially late-term
    Many critics of late-term abortion argue that physical deformities should not automatically be a justification of abortion. They note that abortions are currently performed for non-fatal abnormalities such as Downs Syndrome and dwarfism. It has also been noted that abortion can be performed for relatively minor and correctable conditions such as cleft palate.
    Critics of these practices argue that to use abortion in this manner is to use it as a quality control device. They further argue that such practices are based on the belief that the only life worth living is a life without conspicuous deformities. It is claimed that many people with deformities led useful lives or lives from which they gain some pleasure. Dwarfism, for example, does not seem to significantly reduce the career prospects of those with the condition. It is further argued that the decision as to whether life with a deformity is worth living can only be made by the person with the deformity.
    It is further argued that any society which performs abortions because of non-fatal foetal abnormalities is creating a climate in which only the apparently perfect will be tolerated. This could lead to the hostile treatment of anyone either born with a disability or who acquires one in later lief.
    It could also mean that mothers who wished to proceed with a pregnancy could feel pressured into an abortion because their children were going to be born with defects.

    6. Late-term abortion can pose a psychological and/or physical health risk to the mother
    It has been claimed that late-term abortions can pose a psychological and/or physical health risk to the mother. Factors which are said to contribute to possible difficulties are the size of the foetus and the length of time the mother has had to develop a relationship with the foetus.
    Among the methods used in late-term abortion is a method referred to as D and X or partial birth abortion. In this method, the cervix is partially dilated, the foetus' legs and torso are brought outside the mother's body and then the contents of the foetus skull are removed while it is still within the mother so that the foetus is born dead. It has been suggested that procedures such as this can cause physical injury to the mother, as well as being extremely traumatic for her.

    Further implications
    It seems highly unlikely that legal action will be taken against the doctors who performed a late-term, abortion at 32 weeks, of a foetus diagnosed with dwarfism. The apparent mental state of the mother would appear to bring the abortion within the scope of the Menhennitt ruling, that is, the abortion was performed in order to prevent a threat to the mother's life. The threat here was the woman's declared intention to commit suicide.
    It also seems unlikely that the case will provoke a move to clarify Victoria's abortion law as it pertains to abortions performed because of foetal abnormalities. This is an extremely controversial issue. Currently such abortions appear to be fairly routine. They are also performed for a range of conditions which, while debilitating, are not life-threatening.
    What this issue has the capacity to do is to bring to loggerheads those groups defending a women's claimed right to abort a foetus with abnormalities against those groups who speak for the disabled and who see current abortion practices as a threat to them. The debate raises not simply the issue of abortion, but also the issue of eugenics, deliberate attempts to breed supposedly superior people.
    This is such a contentious issue that it seems likely that both sides of parliament would prefer to leave it in its current undefined and relatively unexamined state.
    As the 1998 Medical Board of Victoria's report on late term abortions concluded 'It is unlikely that the ethical and moral issues related to late term termination can be resolved in view of the strongly held and widely diverse views of individuals and organisations within the community.'


    Newspaper items used in the preparation of this outline
    The Age
    12/11/99 page 3 news item by Julie-Anne Davies, 'Australia puts visa clamps on US abortion doctors'
    29/11/99 page 15 comment by Leslie Cannold, 'The anti-choicers' real target is women'
    3/7/00 page 1 news item by Meaghan Shaw and Darren Gray, 'Hospital calls in coroner'
    4/7/00 page 1 news item by Mary-Anne Toy, 'Doctors endorse dwarf abortion'
    4/7/00 page 14 editorial, 'When does abortion become infanticide?'
    4/7/00 page 14 letter from Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, 'Late-term abortion is different'
    4/7/00 page 15 comment by Julian Savulescu and Loane Skene, 'We must clarify our abortion laws'
    5/7/00 page 3 news item by Stephen Cauchi and Mary-Anne Toy, 'Dwarfism not a sentence of death, says spokesman'
    5/7/00 page 14 letter from Greg Byrne, 'Discomforting abortion questions'
    6/7/00 page 1 news item by Meaghan Shaw, 'Alert on pressure for more abortions'
    7/7/00 page 15 comment by Leslie Cannold, 'The horrible dilemma of the pregnant woman'
    8/7/00 page 3 (News Extra) analysis by Mary-Anne Toy and Caroline Milburn, 'Whose life is it anyway?'

    The Australian
    11/11/99 page 13 comment by James Murray, 'An innocent victim of this moral outrage'
    19/4/00 page 13 comment by Sophie Masson, 'Freedom's forgotten victims'
    3/7/00 page 3 news item, 'Three suspended over late termination'
    4/7//00 page 9 news item by Nicole Strachan and Ben Mitchell, 'Law may rule out abortion inquiry'

    The Herald Sun
    3/7/00 page 12 news item by Tanya Taylor, 'Hospital 3 suspended on abortion'



    Analysis section

    NOTE: Two items have been analysed for this issue outline

    Analysis of two letters dealing with late-term abortion

    Both letters were published in The Age. The first on July 4, the second on July 5. The first was written by medical ethicist Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, the second by Greg Byrne.

    Letter No 1.
    Written by Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, it was printed under the heading 'Late-term abortion is different'
    The letter writer is arguing against late-term abortion.

    This letter is written in a retrained, moderate style. Despite this it has significant impact. One of the reasons for this is the extremely assured tone in which it is written It has a six paragraph structure. Each paragraph is either a single statement or is made up of a series of statements. This is a very effective device as it makes much of what is being argued appear beyond contention.

    The opening paragraph sets the parameters of the letter's concerns. 'Late-term abortion is medically, legally and socially different from abortion because the child can be born alive.' This is a quietly powerful opening. It makes a large claim, that late-term abortion is different from other forms of abortion in virtually every way - medically, legally, socially. This is an effective beginning in part because it subtly suggests that some forms of abortion may be acceptable. This is likely to bring on side those who support abortion generally but are opposed to it in late-term pregnancies.
    Mr Tonti_Filippini is a prominent Catholic medical ethicist and it is unlikely that he supports abortion in any (or at least in most) circumstances. However, he has not identified himself as a medical ethicist at the foot of his letter. It is possible that he has neglected to do so because he does not wish to alienate that percentage of his readers who might believe he was speaking from a prejudiced position if they knew who he was.
    The opening sentence immediately supports its central claim with the argument that late-term abortion is different because the child is viable, able to be born alive. It is interesting to note that the author refers to a 'child' not a 'foetus'. This underlines the stage of development that has been reached. It is an appeal to the reader's compassion, as many people make a significant distinction between foetus and child in terms of the level of protection and respect for life to which each is entitled.

    The second paragraph effectively implies that late-term abortion is not necessary because where there is a grave risk to the 'mother or child' induced birth is likely to result in the live birth of the baby and, presumably, save the life of the mother as well. While it is the case that many third trimester births do see the child survive, what is interesting is the narrow bounds within which Mr Tonti-Filippini has limited his discussion. He has not considered late-term abortions that might be conducted because the foetus has either a fatal or seriously disabling abnormality. These are circumstances in which the parents may well wish the foetus not to be born alive. It would appear that Mr Tonti-Filippini does not consider these legitimate grounds for a late-term abortion, however, rather than argue this point, he simply ignores it.

    In his third paragraph Mr Tonti-Filippini again attempts to stress the needlessness of late-term abortion. He argues that it involves an extra element of choice. In an early abortion the foetus would be unable to survive outside its mother's womb, therefore, irrespective of whatever condition it is extracted in, its death is inevitable. Mr Tonti-Filippini indicates that this is not the case in late-term abortion where 'killing the child is a distinct choice, an additional procedure.' Again note the choice of words. The abortion is referred to as 'killing' and the victim of this 'killing' is a 'child'. Again this is an attempt to engender sympathy for aborted foetuses. From a logical perspective it is difficult to see that an early-term abortion is any more or less a `killing' than a late-term one. Both have the same objective, to prevent the birth of a live baby.

    In his fourth paragraph Mr Tonti-Filippini states that 'There is no medical evidence to show that late-term abortion is a remedy for mental illness or a suicidal state of mind.' This appears to be a direct reference to the Victorian woman who had her child, diagnosed with dwarfism, aborted at 32 weeks, because she was suicidal at the prospect of its birth. Mr Tonti-Filippini's general claim is confidently made however there is no evidence actually cited to support it. While it might appear commonsense that late-term abortions would be traumatic for the mother, it does not necessarily follow that a live birth would not have been more so.

    In hiis fifth paragraph, Mr Tonti-Filippini appears to be trying to arouse sympathy for women who have had abortions. He states that they can have serious complications, including 'severe grief' and 'mental illness'. This is likely to be a much more effective line of argument, than casting the woman who has had an abortion as the villain of the piece. In trying to present women who have had abortions as also victims, he is attempting to draw on side a set of readers who might otherwise object to the argument he is putting. He further suggests that these women cannot be held responsible for their abortions as 'the matter was determined by the doctors when the abnormality was diagnosed.' Again they are being cast as innocent victims.

    In his final paragraph Mr Tonti-Filippini refers directly to how late-term abortion is different in law. He notes that after 20 weeks' gestation the death must be registered and a death certificate issued. He also notes that there is an offence termed 'child destruction' which could apply in cases of late-term abortion. This is superficially quite effective as it is fairly detailed, appears accrate and seems to suggest that the law sees late-term abortion differently. However, the fact that a death has to be registered does not indicate that a crime has been committed, while there is not enough information given about 'child destruction' to determine whether or not this crime has been committed.

    Letter No 2.
    Written by Nicholas Greg Byrne, it was printed under the heading 'Discomforting abortion questions'
    This letter writer is also arguing against late-term abortion.

    Mr Bryne also makes a series of statements, but because a number of them are value judgements, they are more obviously contentious than the apparently factual statements made ny Mr Tonti-Filippini.

    Mr Bryne also begins with a very general statement, 'Many Australians are becoming uncomfortable about where abortion on demand is leading.'
    This is an apparently fairly moderate statement. The author claims that many, but not all, Australians are 'uncomfortable' about recent abortion developments. On the face of it this is an unobjectionable thing to say. The word 'uncomfortable' is fairly restrained. It is not as though Mr Byrne is claiming that 'All Australian are incensed at the recent developments regarding abortion in this country'. To suggest that many people are 'uncomfortable' or a little uneasy appears a moderate enough claim to be true. However, Mr Byrne may have overplayed his hand a little when he refers to the situation which currently pertains in Australia as abortion 'on demand'. Legally that is certainly not the case, as in Victoria and elsewhere in Australia two doctors have to judge that it would be seriously detrimental to the health or mental well being of the mother to proceed with the pregnancy. Though there are those who argue that this ruling has been too liberally interpreted, supporters of abortion would not argue that we have abortion on demand as its is always within the power of a particular doctor to decide that abortion should not be made available in a particular case. It is also possible, as happened in Western Australia three years ago, that doctors who are judged to have interpreted the law too liberally can be charged with having performed 'an unlawful abortion'. This, supporters of more liberal abortion laws are likely to be immediately alienated by Mr Byrne's opening statement. Mr Tonti-Filippini's, because less obviously partisan, is likely to draw in a wider audience.

    In his second paragraph, Mr Byrne cites former Monash philosophy professor, Peter Singer. Professor Singer is cited as defending his position on infanticide within the first month or so of birth, by claiming it is no different from abortion. Professor Singer is set up as someone whose support of infanticide the reader is meant to find repellent. From this position Mr Byrne then argues that if infanticide is abhorrent then abortion is abhorrent because Professor Singer has said they are the same thing, The problem with this argument is that the reader has to accept that infanticide and abortion are the same thing. There are those who believe, for example, that the foetus' relatively early stage of development means that it is not an independent life and therefore cannot be murdered. There is also something slightly contradictory about Mr Byrne's use of Professor Singer. On the one hand he attempts to discredit him by suggesting that his endorsement of infanticide is abhorrent, on the other hand he tries to get the reader to accept Professor Singer's claim that abortion and infanticide are the same.

    Mr Byrne then introduces the slippery slope argument. Effectively he is arguing that any form of abortion is wrong because it will lead to worse things. 'One can't draw a line somewhere and say that killing is OK up to a point but not beyond.' This does not seem a very convincing argument. Our criminal justice system spends a lot of time attempting to determine just when it is OK to take a life. There are now a whole range of defences, including self-defence and provocation, which indicate that there are circumstances where the law judges it is allowable to take a life. Mr Byrne's argument also begs the question of whether, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, abortion actually does take a like. There are those who argue that until a foetus is independent of its mother's body it has no separate exitence and so its termination cannot be referred to as a 'killing'. Again, as with Mr Tonti-Filippini, note the repeated use of the word 'killing'. This is again an emotional appeal, attempting to make the reader feel disapproval and distress about abortion.

    In his fourth paragraph Mr Byrne attempts to use Singer once again, in exactly the same way as he has in the proceeding paragraph. However, this paragraph is only a restatement of his former contention. "Either killing is right in Singer's thesis or abortion is wrong - an that means all abortion.' This appears to be an overstatement as it makes no allowance for that large group of people who see a significant distinction between a newly born baby and a developing foetus.

    Mr Byrne simply restates the same point, even more directly in his final paragraph. He claims, 'There is no specific number of weeks after conception. Killing is killing and it is either right or wrong.' These are very absolute statements and both are open to dispute. It is possible to contend that the period of time after conception does make a significant difference. There are certainly laws in Australia which will allow foetal experimentation up to a certain point but not beyond. It is also the case that our criminal code makes significant distinctions between different types of killing. Even with regard to late-term abortion the act can be referred to as 'child destruction'.

    Unlike Tonti-Filippini a majority of Mr Byrne's contentions are highly debatable. This means that Mr Byrne tends to be appealing to the converted. Those who began his letter disagreeing with him are unlikely to have shifted their position