My latest foray into ST Forum writing that didn't get published, probably because there were many similar letters castigating the writer for her "emotive" outburst. Looking forward to see her next piece on this issue, if ever.
I refer to Ms Lynn Lee (ST, 31 Jul 08) response to Ms Tan Seow Hon (ST, 24 Jul 08) on the subject of abortion legislation.
Taking Ms Tan’s commentary at face value, Ms Lee’s response seemed almost as emotive as what she had charged A/P Tan’s article for.
Nowhere did Ms Tan allude to banning abortion as her desired end-state for Singapore. In fact, beyond the first paragraph which mentioned rendering access to abortion harder as one avenue of boosting birth rates in Singapore, it was a concise piece revisiting the original basis for legalising abortions and putting forth arguments why a review is timely.
Upfront, I agree with Ms Lee that limiting access to or banning abortion to boost birth rates is a non-starter. However, Ms Lee failed to address A/P Tan’s counter-arguments to the three social goods originally advocated by the government then to support the legalisation of abortion. Saying that abortion option helps ensure that as many babies as possible are wanted and healthy is a personal affront both to the many Singaporeans who respect the sanctity of life enough to commit to bringing up less “healthy” children, and to these children, that their quality of life is somewhat less fulfilling than healthy ones.
There is no need for Ms Lee to steer the debate into one of religion and secularism. Rather than pointing the finger at Ms Tan’s views as religiously motivated, we should ask what secularism’s dogmas on abortion and the beginning of life are. If secularism’s stand is that the woman alone is the final arbitrator on this issue, then we should allow for abortion beyond the current 24-weeks window since medical advances can ensure the physiological well-being of the woman beyond this current limit.
The 24-weeks window was originally articulated based on the medical community’s ability to sustain life outside the womb. Given the medical advances in the last 40 years, it is plausible for us to refresh the legislation based on this medical “definition” from which life “begins”.
Secularism does not have all the answers. If it was the sole basis from which the society makes all decisions, then we would not need to have this debate on the ethicality of stem-cell research. We could, in good conscience, grow petri-dish foetuses for up to 24-weeks for the good of the rest of the living Singaporeans who were fortunate enough to be given the right to life.
