Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

“It was the best of laws, it was the worst of laws, it was the law of choice, it was the law of consequence…”

The First Law: Freedom to Choose

Seven years ago, Queensland passed the 2018 Termination of Pregnancy Act, a landmark piece of legislation that legalised abortion on request up to 22 weeks’ gestation, and beyond that with the approval of two doctors, effectively up to birth.

Advocates praised it as a modern recognition of reproductive rights, a step toward compassionate healthcare, and an affirmation of a woman’s bodily autonomy. It was, for many, a law of progress and empowerment.

The Second Law: Protection of the Unborn

Yet within Queensland’s Criminal Code, another statute remains. Section 313¹ states that it is a criminal offence to “cause the death of an unborn child” during an assault on a pregnant woman. The punishment? The same as for killing a born human being—up to life imprisonment.

Here, the unborn child is not abstract. It is defined, protected, and given legal value in its own right.

The Paradox

Two laws. Two realities.

In one courtroom, a baby at 38 weeks can be legally aborted under medical justification.

In another, the same baby—if lost due to a violent crime against the mother—is treated by law as a murdered person.

This is not simply a clash of policy. It is a clash of legal definitions, of moral frameworks, of who is protected and when.

The Problem

To underscore this paradox, there is a problem with the underlying matter of intent.

One law concerns the death of an unborn child as a result of a violent criminal act.

Even though there may have been no intent to kill that unborn child, under this law, the offender can face life imprisonment!

Compare this with the other law, which allows unborn children to be aborted up to birth.

In every one of these cases, there is the clear intention to kill the unborn child, yet under that law, the perpetrators do so with complete judicial immunity.

Quite literally, every abortionist gets away with murder!

The Question on the Unborn Child

How can the same government define an unborn child as life worth protecting in one case, and in another, as a medical option to be legally ended?

Can we affirm women’s agency while maintaining legal consistency regarding the value of unborn life?

What does it say about our collective conscience when the value of a child depends not on their humanity—but on the context in which they are harmed?

Conclusion

The Tale of Two Laws is not merely a legal anomaly. It is a moral mirror, asking us to look squarely at what we believe about life, freedom, and justice when these collide.

Like the divided cities of Dickens’ novel—London and Paris—these two laws may coexist, but not without tension. They expose a fracture in our legal and ethical reasoning.

And perhaps the greater question is not which law we should uphold—but whether we have the courage to confront the disquieting contradiction between them.

___

Image via Adobe.

1. Queensland Criminal Code, Section 313(2): “A person who unlawfully assaults a pregnant woman and thereby causes the death of a child before its birth commits a crime.” [↩]