An interesting judgement that sneaked under most peoples' radar was passed down by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in March this year.

It is the matter of: R v David John IBY [2005] NSWCCA 178 which involves the court reinterpreting the meaning of 'born alive' from the older rule that required the baby to breath of its own, to a baby breathing with artificial assistance, such as a respirator:

The key paragraphs being:

64 The context in which the rule arises for present consideration is a context in which the Appellant wishes to avoid criminal responsibility for manslaughter of a baby which was injured as a late term foetus, indeed was fully developed in perfect condition and within a week or two of actual birth. In the current state of medical technology and with the extremely low rate of stillbirths in the Australian community, the born alive rule, if it is to survive at all, should continue to be applied, as Ellis DCJ did, so that any sign of life after birth is sufficient. This happens to be consistent with the authorities.

65 It is also the approach which conforms best with contemporary conditions. It is now virtually certain that a newborn baby which shows any sign of life would have lived but for the conduct, said to constitute manslaughter or dangerous driving, inflicted on the baby late in the mother’s pregnancy.

The Judges did not apply the WHO definition:

“Live birth is the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live born.”

The full judgement can be found at:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2005nswcca.nsf/a16acdaf45f305714a256724003189f5/4d344cd3699e4c55ca256ff8007e5398?OpenDocument

One interpretation that is capable of being made is that a third trimester termination, where the child shows signs of life, can be considered manslaughter.

Reason, all I can say is excellent post! One gold star for you and please post again :)

Hamlet, in most countries around the world, abortion is accepted in the first tremester. Fair enough.

Al, sometimes you need to see the big picture. 85% of the population agree that abortion should be available, even many Catholics. Of those left, the majority are Catholics and a few Fundies. Plus of course your lady down the road. No other group has a worldwide campaign against contraception and abortion, as the Vatican has.
IMHO the whole issue is more about the so called infallibility of
the pope then anything else. If this pope changes his mind over what the last pope said, voila, eggs on lots of faces, so they can't back down. Fact is that even 80% of US catholics think that they are wrong, including 50% of US Catholic priests (see Economist (25/01/2001)

Most countries where hunger and starvation is occuring, Niger, Ethiopia etc, have birthrates around 4-5%, compared to our 1.4%. Women in these countries are largely denied empowerment to choose the size of their families. Genocide in Rwanda is largely attributed to too many people crowding too little space. The more food that is sent to deal with it, the more people will create even more starving babies, without some kind of family planning in place. It urgently needs to be dealt with.

Reason is correct, without biodiversity, humanity won't survive either. Our species is the first which evolved to be able to change the planet significantly. We have a moral obligation not to wreck it completely, but preserve it for all species in a sustainable way, for future generations. Bonobos and other species have a right to this planet too, not just wall to wall humans, in the name of religious dogma.

Hamlet,
I see where you are coming from. In deed, late term abortions are problematic at best – horrendous at worst.

Would it not then be best that any desire to abort be considered and made available at the earliest opportunity? To avoid the later, very grey and emotive issues? Better sex education, better support to teenagers in discussing and feeling comfortable with their sexuality are a start.

At the end of the day though, who has the right to decide for a woman – at any stage – that she must carry a pregnancy to term? And who will carry the subsequent responsibility if the woman was against such decision?

Yes, there are issues of personal responsibility – but to remove a choice, as I see it, must be balanced by another taking on the responsibility of the choice that was removed.

Thanks Yabby. I’ll keep the star and hopefully add to the collection!

And welcome to the most interesting world of OLO… some ‘interesting’ folk around here, as I’m sure you’ve seen.

Reason

I would agree that if a termination is to take place it is better that it takes place early.

You ask the question:

"At the end of the day though, who has the right to decide for a woman – at any stage – that she must carry a pregnancy to term? And who will carry the subsequent responsibility if the woman was against such decision?"

The relevance of this question bears on the personal liberty of the woman concerned, obviously, and the use to which her body is being made of the 'foetus' that she is carrying. To take this to the nth degree, this question may be re-phrased as:

"Right up to the time that contractions start or the baby breathes of its own, who has the right to decide for a woman – at any stage – that she must carry a pregnancy to term? And who will carry the subsequent responsibility if the woman was against such decision?"

Until recently when a woman killed her child who was under 12 months old she was not generally charged with murder but infanticide. Women who have committed infanticide were generally placed on good behaviour bonds. So, who has made the decision that a woman would be held responsible for the life of her offspring?

It is worthwhile reading

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/DP31CHP5

to see a view of how society really views the nature of the products of conception.

Sorry, I am a bit angry here, but at what point do we hold a person criminally responsible for the life of another? Do we wait until the foetus has been out of the womb for twelve months? Or perhaps we only hold life dear when the fourth child has been killed, as in the case of Kathleen Folbigg?

I would say, and will continue to say, that when the product of conception is able to have at least a fair chance of life outside the womb, then termination should not be an option. The woman carrying the child gave up her rights by failing to have an early termination,

To return to the original question, i.e. whether the pill RU 486 is safe for women, I quote from an item in the Melbourne Herald-Sun of November 14, page 28: "Senator Warns Of Pill Danger". "Women in remote areas may be at risk of dying without access to surgical care if the abortion drug RU 486 is made available to them," a Liberal Senator and obstetrician has warned.

Senator Alan Eggleston who practised as an obstetrician for 20 years, is urging the Howard Government to resist pressure to change the ban on the abortion drug." "The main trouble with RU 486 is that it may result in an incomplete miscarriage, leaving the woman in danger of potential life-threatening haemorrhage and infection" Senator Eggleston said.

How can a warning from a man with Eggleston's 20 years obstetric experience be ignored?

At least nine women have died overseas using RU486, and dozens of others have suffered serious after-effects - usually from remnants of the fetus remaining in the womb and becoming septic.

Senator Eggleston concluded: "The potential for problems in country areas where quick access to a surgically equipped hospital was not always possible should raise serious concerns about the wisdom of of making this medication generally available ", he said.

And if abortion becomes illegal and women resort (as they have throughout history) to illegal, unsafe, backyard abortionists to terminate unwanted pregnancy in sordid despair, will you be as concerned about their health, then?
Everything to do with reproduction is risky, childbirth, pregnancy, abortion, contraception, the lot, by all accounts this drug compares well.