Pro-life activists led by Dr Joanna Howe and abortion abolitionists from Abolish Abortion Australia (AAA) clashed in an at-times intense but largely civil debate at Rydges World Square on 16 April.
The event was hosted by pro-life organisation Bird Flip and moderated by NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick.
Dr Howe, founder of Bird Flip, and her husband James Howe debated AAA representatives Todd Boaden and Elijah Harris on the proposition that Australian politicians are morally obligated to ban late-term abortions.
The debate followed AAA’s opposition to recent bills in South Australia and New South Wales – introduced by Sarah Game MLC and Ruddick – which sought to ban late-term abortions.
While the evening began with expressions of goodwill and ended with handshakes, exchanges during the debate were often sharp, at times taking a personal edge.
The Howes said the abolitionist position – calling for the total and immediate abolition of abortion while rejecting incremental reform – would, in practice, prevent support for laws that could save lives now.
They believe it is immoral…to vote for a bill which would ban late-term abortions,” said Dr Howe, who also voiced her strong support for the total and immediate abolition of abortion.
“The choice we have now is this: do we save some babies now and go back for the rest, or do we refuse and lose those we could save?”
In strongly worded remarks, she added: “To hold an abolitionist ideology is to hold an ideology of mass murder.”
Towards the end of her opening statement, Boaden and Harris smiled as she said: “I actually think it is crackpot and arrogant of you guys to wager on the lives of literally thousands, tens of thousands of unborn children in your approach, which has never worked.”
Opening for AAA, Harris acknowledged the Howes’ “genuine desire to save lives” but argued their approach was flawed.
“When we behold the injustice around us… we are called to pursue justice without compromise,” he said.
“Any approach that treats some lives as worth saving and others as not falls short of that standard.”
He argued that incremental bans risked “drawing lines” between groups of unborn children, rather than recognising equal dignity.
The debate drew a large and engaged crowd, with a mix of seriousness and frenetic intensity throughout the evening.
Cross-examination between the two sides tested the logic of each position.
In one exchange, the Howes posed a hypothetical about a bystander required to decide whether or not to let a group of children out of a burning house, had a malevolent arsonist placed a second group of younger children beyond rescue in the back of the house. The hypothetical was designed to press the Abolitionists on whether it could ever be morally justified to save some lives when others could not be reached.
Responding, Boaden mentioned his own experience as a firefighter and of leaving the service with post-traumatic stress, a moment which shifted the tone of the room and subdued the audience.
During their cross-examination, AAA representatives challenged the Howes on whether supporting incremental reform involved engaging in sins of partiality or omission, leading to a brief yet fiery exchange.
Both sides appealed to Scripture, particularly St Paul’s Letter to the Romans, in defending their positions – highlighting deeper theological differences underpinning the debate.
But despite the intensity on stage, the event concluded on a cordial note, with attendees speaking with both sides and taking ‘selfie’ photos with the speakers.
Story updated 28/04/26 to include additional quoting, and 1/05/26 to clarify remarks made by the Howes.
