‘What about the baby?’ Lawmaker delivers stunning speech to colleagues

A lawmaker in Great Britain’s upper house, the House of Lords, has delivered a stunning speech requiring thought about that nation’s abortion agenda, and industry.

Abortionists, in fact, operate routinely across the United Kingdom, and only face limited restrictions.

And while contemporary arguments over the deliberate destruction of the unborn often revolve around the “rights” of the women, it was Lord Curry of Kirkharle who added another dimension. He was addressing a proposal on the dispute.

His speech was provided to the Christian Institute for posting online.

The speech:

My Lords, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 exists for one clear purpose: to preserve the lives of infants capable of being born alive. Yet Clause 208 renders that Act null and void in relation to mothers who terminate the lives of their unborn children.

Many of the arguments advanced in support of these changes—arguments that would make the 1929 Act ineffective in relation to the nearly-born could, I fear, be applied with equal force to the newly born.

We are told that women in such situations are desperate; that the actions they take are profoundly difficult; and that we must sympathise with the immense pressures that lead them to believe they have no other choice, and I do agree that it is dreadful to think of the emotional distress of imprisonment but it is for the courts to decide an appropriate punishment. I do not dispute the reality of that distress, nor the compassion we owe to women in crisis.

Yet consider the case of Sarah Catt who terminated the life of her unborn child at 39 weeks: a fully formed, fully viable, beautiful little baby. In our debates, we speak of her distress, her pressures, her autonomy—but rarely, if ever, do we speak of the child itself.

I ask: will any Noble Lord rise today to explain the difference between a child’s moral status one hour before birth, and its moral status one hour after birth?

Will they explain why they support police investigation into one but not the other?

In terms of development, dignity, humanity, and existence, it is precisely the same child.

The unspoken question that hangs over these debates—the question we are implicitly instructed to ignore—is:

What about the baby?

So that is the question I will ask the House today.

What about the baby?

Many Noble Lords have, over the years, moved me deeply with their passionate and compassionate advocacy for protecting and safeguarding children. Yet on this matter, some appear to set that commitment aside, speaking as though the child does not exist.

But My Lords, we must not set our compassion aside. We must ask ourselves:

What about the baby?

We are told that late-term abortions occur because women are in great distress.

But what about the baby?

What of its distress?

We are told that a woman’s decision is private.

But what about the baby?

It will never have a private life or the chance to make decisions, because its life will have been ended.

We are told that investigating women over abortions is painful for them.

But what about the baby?

What about its pain?

Is the life of a child at 26 weeks, 32 weeks, or 38 weeks gestation so valueless that no questions should ever be asked about how it came to die, or whether the termination was lawful and justified?

Or whether it suffered?

We are told that these laws are Victorian. But so too are our laws on murder and on assault against the person. We retain those Victorian statutes because we value the lives of our fellow citizens and wish to protect them from harm.

Is the unborn child not also our fellow citizen? Is she or he not also worthy of protection?

So again, I ask:

What about the baby?

My Lords, telemedicine and pills-by-post have made abortion quicker and more accessible. That is presumably why the number of abortions has risen sharply since their introduction. In the most recent year for which figures are available, there were well over a quarter of a million abortions in England and Wales alone—figures that some celebrate.

But My Lords:

What about the babies?

A quarter of a million babies.

Do we feel no compunction, no compassion, for the unborn lives ended each year?

I beg those Noble Lords inclined to support the total deregulation of abortion up to birth to pause and ask themselves this single, question:

What about the baby?

What about the baby?