Abstract
All jurisdictions in Australia permit, within specified parameters, the
performance of an abortion by a qualified medical practitioner. Yet most
jurisdictions also maintain an offence of child destruction. This article argues
that the offence of child destruction may protect the foetus from early in the
second trimester of pregnancy, and thus overlaps with the otherwise lawful
practice of medical abortion. This situation creates a site of conflict and
confusion for the criminal law, and results in serious legal uncertainty as to
what constitutes a lawful medical abortion. The article contends that the most
appropriate and effective resolution of these issues is to abolish the offence of
child destruction.
performance of an abortion by a qualified medical practitioner. Yet most
jurisdictions also maintain an offence of child destruction. This article argues
that the offence of child destruction may protect the foetus from early in the
second trimester of pregnancy, and thus overlaps with the otherwise lawful
practice of medical abortion. This situation creates a site of conflict and
confusion for the criminal law, and results in serious legal uncertainty as to
what constitutes a lawful medical abortion. The article contends that the most
appropriate and effective resolution of these issues is to abolish the offence of
child destruction.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-26 |
| Number of pages | 26 |
| Journal | Sydney Law Review |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 |