ST Letter: Harmful effects of abortion justify review

Angela Thiang (Ms)

ST link

Harmful effects of abortion justify review I REFER to Ms Lynn Lee’s column last Thursday, ‘Banning abortion won’t mean more babies’ and wish to make the following observations.

As a matter of historical fact, the act of performing an abortion was a criminal offence in Singapore until the enactment of the Termination of Pregnancy Act in 1969. Given that Professor Tan Seow Hon’s writing explored the reasons for the decriminalisation of abortion in 1969, there is nothing inaccurate or ‘emotional’ about the reference to abortion as a criminal activity. What is clear is that pre-1969, abortion was a crime in Singapore, not the other way around as Ms Lee asserts.

Following from this, Ms Lee’s speculation about Prof Tan’s motives being religious is unwarranted.

In any event, Prof Tan has not advanced any religious reasons. She merely summarised the reasons cited by parliamentarians in 1969 in support of the decriminalisation of abortion in Singapore, and examined if those reasons continue to be valid in the light of today’s circumstances and advances in medical capabilities. In particular, she made two points:

• Premature babies have a much better chance of survival than before, so concern for the viability of infants no longer weighs in favour of abortion; and
• We now know from long-term medical studies that abortion has adverse physical and psychological effects on women, which counters the assumption 40 years ago that abortion, if done by doctors, has no or minimal side effects and therefore does not harm women’s health. One needs no religious convictions to appreciate these medical findings, so I am unable to understand how Ms Lee arrived at the conclusion that ‘no adequate secular reason has been advanced’. I am concerned about the characterisation of rational, historically accurate and factually substantiated discussions on the issue of abortion as ‘emotional’ or religiously motivated. Such accusations target the individual who disagrees but do not actually address the factual issues at the heart of the debate.

If the reasons for decriminalising abortion no longer exist, and new evidence has become available to show the harmful effects of abortion on the very group of people abortion was previously thought to be benefit (that is, women and children), why is it ‘unreasonable’ to call for a review on the law on abortion?

Angela Thiang (Ms)

---

‘Ethically, should not wilful termination be equivalent to murder?’

DR GABRIEL OON: ‘I refer to the articles, ‘Time for Singapore to relook abortion law’ by Professor Tan Seow Hon (July 24) and Ms Lynn Lee’s comments in ‘Banning abortion won’t mean more babies’ last Thursday. The issues are emotive, whether from the religious right or those who defend women’s rights. Irrespective of whether we want a larger pool of babies here, the larger issues are about ethics. Should we not ask the more relevant human questions? Does society condone infanticide? Does it accept that a human baby is formed from the time of conception? Does medical science still need to prove that the baby is human, from the time of conception? Then, ethically, should not the wilful termination of the little baby’s life be equivalent to murder?’
‘Why should the mother have more right than the man in the street to decide to ‘keep’ her baby?’

DR ONG CHOOI PENG, Texas, USA: ‘I refer to Dr Phua Dong Haur’s letter last Friday, ‘Banning abortion will create more problems’. I agree that relooking the law on abortion is not the way to reverse the falling birth rate. The idea is to get more couples to want more children, not have to deal with more ‘unwanted’ children. On the other hand, this is a good time to relook a law that was never right in the first place. Dr Phua agrees that ‘there is evidence to suggest that life begins at conception’. As long as one acknowledges that the foetus has a life, the onus is on us to respect and to protect it. Why should any one of us have a right to determine that a child should, or should not, be born? Why should the mother have more right than the man in the street to decide to ‘keep’ her baby?’
‘Prof Tan had merely asserted that if the question of when human life begins is unsettled, we should err on the side of preserving what might well be a human life.’

MR KOO ZHI XUAN: ‘Ms Lee consistently suggests Prof Tan had called for abortion to be banned. That is simply untrue. Prof Tan stated her view categorically in her concluding sentence that Parliament should ‘review’ the law. In legal terminology, this simply means reconsidering the ‘reasons which undergirded’ the legalisation of abortion 40 years ago. Ms Lee also accuses Prof Tan of unsoundly using ‘emotional language’ for ‘labelling abortion as a criminal activity’. Prof Tan had merely asserted that if the question of when human life begins is unsettled, we should err on the side of preserving what might well be a human life. What is so emotional about this sober claim?’