Consistency in protecting under-21s from abortion and its harmful effects

This letter was sent to Voices@TODAY but was not published.

Abortion is an invasive surgical procedure that can cause common complications like bleeding and infection, and more serious ones include injury to the womb and surrounding organs. Various studies also show that abortion contributes to maternal mortality, increases the risk of breast cancer and the risk of miscarriage. Considering the implications of abortion on a child's present and future health, why is there no minimum legal age for abortion and no parental consent is needed? (“Set minimum age for women seeking abortion”; 15 Aug).

In a review for medical professionals of the impact of abortion on women’s physical and mental health in Australia, a woman who undergoes an abortion is six times more likely to commit suicide, 30% more likely to suffer from depression and 25% more likely to suffer from anxiety compared to a woman who gives birth.

Many women are ambivalent about pregnancy and abortion. Women rarely see babies themselves as a threat, and instead feel positively towards them.  However, it is the related experiences, like the future stress and difficulty of parenthood, financial stress, loss of freedom, pressures to abort from their partners that many women may see abortion as the only solution.

Health professionals do not always recognise the complexities of women’s lives and are at risk of presuming in favour of abortion.

Most parents love their children and discipline them for their best interests at heart. When parents learn that their child is pregnant, it is natural that parents would be disappointed, angry and even feel that they have failed in their roles as parents. 

In the best parent-child relationship, the child may not voluntarily discuss the issue of abortion as she does not want to disappoint or burden her parents. Guilt, fear and shame push the child away from her parents, leaving her feeling alone and helpless. Even the best counsellor cannot provide the sense of security, vital support and comfort that only parents can provide.

Without parental consent for abortions, parents are kept in the dark about their child's predicament and the child makes a rash decision without considering other alternatives like raising the child up with the support of her parents or giving the child up for adoption.

Truly there is a need for the Government to review the Termination of Pregnancy Act, to be consistent in protecting under-21s from all life-altering activities, including abortion, where another precious life is at stake.

The Case Against Abortion: An Interview with Dr. Francis Beckwith

"I answered the "religious argument" charge this way: "Wow, I thought you were going to claim my argument was bad." The audience let out a chuckle. 

That gave me an opportunity to explain to them that terms like "religious" and "secular" are adjectives that do not appropriately modify reasons or conclusions for the purpose of assessing the quality of an argument. The appropriate adjectives we apply to arguments or their parts are terms like "good," "bad," "sound," "unsound," "valid," "invalid," "strong," "weak," "true," "false," and "plausible." Asking if an argument is "religious" is like asking how tall is the number 3...

The pro-lifer should remember that the central issue is, "What is the human community and does the unborn belong to it?" As my friend Greg Koukl puts it: if the fetus is a person, none of the popular arguments are relevant; if the fetus is not a person, then none of the popular arguments is necessary. Pro-lifers make a mistake by allowing the discussion to drift away from this central question.

Pro-lifers have to also remember that many who support abortion rights are well-meaning people who believe they are advancing a position consistent with the common good. This is why we should be patient, respectful, and careful when presenting our case. Having said that, we must also not shy away from saying that abortion is a grave evil that ultimately undermines the dignity of all human persons, including those who support abortion rights. 

After all, if a human being is intrinsically valuable by nature, then he or she may never lose that status as long as one is a human being. So, the reason why we affirm the intrinsic dignity of the unborn is the reason why we also affirm the intrinsic dignity of those who support abortion rights. There is a seamlessness that connects our pro-life position on abortion and the respect we ought to accord our political and moral adversaries." 

www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/beckwith_defendlife_dec07.asp

Do not underestimate the pitfalls of IVF

This letter was sent to Voices@TODAY but was not published.

As a Christian, I trust the authority given to our government to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right (“Why Singapore needs stronger safeguards against rise of religious and identity politics”, 2 August).

My faith compels me to treat everyone with respect. Our identity is not based on nationality, race or religion. If it is, harmony would be a shallow concept.

All humans are created equal but not all ideas are equal.

As a responsible citizen, I would evaluate existing policies and suggestions by political leaders with research, critical thinking and group discussions. 

Take for example the recent suggestion by the women’s wing of the ruling People’s Action Party that the age restriction of 45 years imposed on women who can turn to in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) to conceive should be scrapped (“PAP Women’s Wing calls for removal of age limit on IVF treatment”; 30 July).

There is no right to a child, whether to the couple who cannot afford IVF even with increased subsidies or to one who can afford it.

A child is a gift of life, not an economic good to be disposed of through abortion or to be wanted at all costs through IVF.

Science informs us that human life begins at conception. Just as abortion kills a life, IVF creates surplus embryos and subject many to wastage.

Currently, there is low awareness of increased risks of birth defects, complications during pregnancy, births associated with delayed childbearing, or the health risks and the long-term impact of IVF on both mother and child. I personally know of relatives and friends who suffered physiological, psychosocial and financial trauma through IVF, all these with no baby to bring home.

In 2013, over half of the 9,282 abortions were done on married women. What is being done to address the underlying factors that drive the highest abortion rate among married couples? These are children already conceived in the womb. How can we murmur against a low total fertility rate when we do not treasure what we have?

The sanctity of life ought to be respected and modelled to our future generations as seen in the high suicide rate among our male teens (“Male teen suicides in 2018 hit27-year high: SOS”; 29 July). Our children are watching us.

Do we love children for who they are or for what they are worth?

This letter was sent to The Straits Times Forum but was not published.

There is no right to a child, not even to those who can afford in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatments (“Make preschools more affordable, remove age limit for IVF, saysPAP Women's Wing"; 30 July). 

No advance in medical science can defy nature without grave consequences.

Currently, there is low awareness of increased risks of birth defects, complications during pregnancy, births associated with delayed childbearing, or the health risks and the long-term impact of IVF on both mother and child.

We would do well to evaluate every policy suggestion with diligent research and critical thinking. Have we learnt from history? Do we love children for who they are or for what they are worth?

The two-child policy introduced by the Singapore government during the 1970s to encourage couples to have no more than two children has been overtly successful. Message such as “Small families, brighter future – Two is enough” has been ingrained in the minds of generations thereafter. 

In our pursuit for economic growth, we did not need more children then.

The total fertility rate (TFR) dropped for four decades, from 1.82 in 1977 to 1.14 last year, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. 

Now that we have an affluent, aging population, where are our children? 

The campaign for this two-child policy was accompanied by the liberalisation of abortion up till 24 weeks of pregnancy. From 1970 to 2017, the total number of children lost through abortions is approximately 660,000. 

In 2013, over half of the 9,282 abortions were done on married women ("Abortions fall to30-year low"; July 27,2014). 

What is being done to address the underlying factors that drive these married couples to such desperation?

A child is a gift of life, with intrinsic value and of immeasurable worth.

The sanctity of life ought to be respected and modelled to our future generations, especially in suicide prevention (“Number of male teenage suicides hits record high”; 29July).