Assignment 3.

Banning abortion won't mean more babies

Section:	Review
By:	LYNN LEE
Publication:	The Straits Times 31/07/2008
Page:	28
No. of words:	1022

DECLINING BIRTH RATE

BY LYNN LEE

CORRESPONDENT



ANTI-ABORTIONISTS will have us believe that by embracing their cause, we can ensure the stork will come.

Want to boost baby numbers? Limit access to abortion, ban it even, and Singapore's depressing birth rates would be history.

Assistant Professor Tan Seow Hon is among proponents of this view.

In these pages last week, the law professor suggested that since Singapore wants more babies, it would be timely for Parliament to review the law on abortion, with a view to banning it.

Abortion has been legal here since 1970. The law was further liberalised four years later and has stayed roughly the same since. A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy of up to 24 weeks without restriction.

It is simplistic to believe that removing this right will have a positive and lasting effect on Singapore's baby numbers.

Firstly, abortion is a tool to terminate pregnancies; it does not cause people not to have children. Prof Tan confuses an effect of abortion (fewer babies) with the cause of falling birth rates (couples not wanting babies). Banning abortion will not lead couples to want more children.

The reasons couples give for rejecting reproduction or opting for minimal baby-making have been repeated ad nauseum. They range from not wanting to raise children in an overly-competitive society to a lack of financial resources to bring up more than one or two children.

The Government is correctly trying to address these concerns through a slew of schemes. How successful they will be remains to be seen.

Secondly, banning abortion may cause a temporary spike in births, but at a terrible cost.

If abortions were banned, with women having no other choice but to deliver children they don't want, Singapore would boast an average of 12,000 more infants each year, according to abortion statistics from the last five years.

This is not a small number, certainly. It would mean over 50,000 babies born here each year, bumping up the total fertility rate (TFR) from the current abysmal 1.29 to roughly 1.7, a somewhat less abysmal figure. For a population to reproduce itself, the TFR needs to be at least 2.1

But what price are we prepared to pay to temporarily increase the TFR?

How many teen parents would we be prepared to accommodate – for an average of 1,300 abortions were performed on women below the age of 20 in 2005 and 2006?

How many babies suffering from birth defects should society be prepared to look after?

Prof Tan asserts that the reasons the Government gave for instituting the Termination of Pregnancy Act some 40 years ago are no longer valid. She is right on one count: Population control for economic advancement is no longer necessary. Singapore now needs to expand, not decrease, its population to ensure economic growth.

But it would be heartless to see babies as just potential cogs in the proverbial wheel. Every child deserves a chance at the best possible quality of life – one they are more likely to have if they are wanted by their parents and they are healthy. Allowing women the option of abortion helps ensure that as many babies as possible are wanted and healthy.

Prof Tan suggests counselling women to welcome unwanted pregnancies, and programmes to help women deliver unwanted babies to be given up for adoption to couples unable to conceive.

These are sound suggestions. They can be instituted by the state or anti-abortion civic groups – without having to remove the option of abortion.

What is unsound is Prof Tan's labelling of abortion as a criminal activity. Clearly, it is not; the law allows for it; it is legal. So why such emotional language?

The choice of words suggests an argument impelled more by religious conviction than by concern for Singapore's fertility rate. Many look at abortion through religion-tinted lenses. They see it as "criminal" because they consider it murder; and they think it is murder because they believe life begins at conception.

They have every right to hold such views. But we should be clear about the source of their views. As the American philosopher Robert Audi points out in his book, Religious Commitment And Secular Reason: "the reason for (the) belief that personhood begins at conception may be less what the arguments for this show than a confidence in authority, say papal or clerical authority, or a sense of intuition on the matter, perhaps a sense of intuition taken to be religiously inspired".

It is to be expected in a multi-religious society like Singapore that religious (or even non-religious) convictions of all kinds will undergird views on social policy. And we should welcome and encourage citizens to explain their stands, regardless of whether religion (or the lack of it) has shaped their views.

But the rules should be different when it comes to advocating for or against a particular public policy, a point Professor Audi also makes in his book. Citizens, he says, must feel obligated and be willing to offer adequate secular reasons, especially when they support laws or public policy that restrict the liberty of others.

Prof Tan herself made this point in a commentary last year on how both religious and non-religious arguments have a place in society.

She cited as "attractive" American philosopher John Rawls' idea of public reason: that citizens should offer reasons in public debate that they think are reasonable for others as free and equal citizens to accept, even if the positions they are advocating are undergirded by religious convictions.

This must mean that anyone who advocates laws that restrict the rights of others must be transparent about his or her motivations: Do the secular reasons he advances stand on their own or are they a camouflage for religious convictions?

In Singapore's case, no adequate secular reason has been advanced in the recent calls to ban abortion.

The reasons Parliament advanced some 40 years ago for the Termination of Pregnancy Act remain reasonable. We would pay a dreadful price if we were to allow unreason to unravel this law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that there are 42 million abortions carried out worldwide every year and 115,000 abortions carried out every day? The Singaporean government has been trying desperately to increase the birth rate of Singapore, and the thought of banning abortion here in Singapore has arose, such as the article above states. Is banning abortion really a good solution to solving the problem of low birth rates, and are the implications too much of a cost we should pay?

Firstly, how do we define abortion? According to Wikipedia, abortion is the removal or expulsion of a mammalian embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. Could we define abortion as murder too? According to Wikipedia, murder is the unlawful killing of another human with a malice aforethought. If we do consider a fetus to be human, then yes, it is equivalent to murder. We all know that murder is morally wrong, since murderers are convicted and punished. If abortion is equivalent to murder, it has to be morally wrong too. Abortion also not only causes harm to the fetus, but to the mother too. 10000 women die every year because of unsafe and illegal abortion. Even if safe abortion is carried out, there are still risks involved. Seeing that it causes harm to both the baby and the mother it should be banned.

Secondly, banning abortion might prove to be a midas touch on the current birth rate situation. According to the article, 50000 more babies would be born each year, and that would certainly help the situation of Singapore's birth rate, increasing the total fertility rate from a 1.29 to a 1.7. Considering it brings about positive results, abortion should be banned.

If we dive deeper into the argument, we see some limitations in them.

People have the freedom of choice. Couples have the choice whether or not they want a baby at that point in time. They might not want a baby due to certain circumstances, and they have the right to choose whether they want to abort the baby or not. Picture a scenario where a very poor couple has a child. They do not have the money to go through the nine months of pregnancy, and they are not ready to carry the burden of a child at that point in time. Having a child would simply mean more problems, and they should not have the child. They have a choice to whether or not to abort the child, and abortion should not be banned simply because the couple has a choice, and we shold respect their choice.

Secondly, we talk about abortion being helpful or not to increasing Singapore's birth rate. According to the article, we see that the effect of abortion in Singapore is less number of babies. However, this has nothing to do whatsoever with Singaporean couples not wanting babies. Even if abortion is banned, the mindsets of Singaporean couples would still remain as "We do not want babies, but we have no choice because we cannot abort them." As stated in the article, banning abortion would not lead couples to wanting more children.

My opinion on this is that abortion should not be banned. This is simply because it does not really help at this point in time, and that we should respect the choices of the people. Additionally, from the article, we see that not many couples would comply to the new law, and that it would not be an effective measure to increase Singapore's birth rate. Even though it is the killing of a human life, what we wish for and need should be the number one priority, If one cannot afford to carry the burden of having a baby at this point in time, then they should have the choice to abort it. After assessing the implications caused by banning abortion, I say no, abortion should not be banned.

Assignment 2.

"Democracy brings about stability."

What is democracy? According to Wikipedia, "Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives." To put simply, democracy is just a system that gives citizens of a country a choice to elect their leaders to represent them and their various constituencies. Having a stable society simply means that conflicts are minimal, there is peace in the country and that everyone is living happily. So, does democracy bring about stability?

Firstly, democracy would bring about stability. Firstly, democracy gives "power to the people". Citizens have a right to decide who they want to represent them. They made their voices heard. In Switzerland, citizens are to vote every Sunday to decide whether certain policies proposed by the government should be implemented. If you put yourself in a situation where you can shape your lives with your own hands, instead of letting others choose for you, why not choose yourself? Provided citizens vote wisely, democracy would definitely bring about stability.

In another case, democracy would bring about stability, which is when parties are very evenly matched, and there is no overly-dominant party. If there were a few parties that are evenly matched, the resulting ruling party would definitely do a better job. the ruling party would know that the other parties are very close behind them, and would fear not being elected again at the next general elections. By having a few closely matched parties, pressure would arise on the ruling party, hence they would take a step further to ensure that the people's needs are satisfied, which would in turn create a stable society.

If we dive deeper into whether democracy indeed brings about stability, we find loopholes and limitations to democracy.

To start off, we know that democracy would give people a choice to decide what they want, since they vote for the people whom they want representing them. However, there is not one case in the entire world where everyone has a common view and votes for the same person. We have never seen a 100% win over another party, provided two or more parties are present. This just shows that not everyone will be satisfied. When not everyone is satisfied, how can it be that the society has reached a common agreement on things, and how would it be rid of conflicts? The majority always gets its say, and the minority would just have to quietly accept. Consequences could be dire if no attention is given to these issues. Take the case of Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers are already staging a "rebellion". Has it ever struck us that one day it might happen to us? As long as we people remain different or have differing viewpoints, not everyone would be satisfied. Therefore, democracy would not bring about a stable society.

Another point to note would that chances of corruption would increase. Why so? When a member of a party wants to win the election in his constituency, chances are that he might resort to bribery to persuade people to vote for him. Even in parliament, to successfully propose a bill, you need votes from all members. Corruption within members of parliament might occur too. When there is corruption, can the government still be trusted? Will the people have faith in them? My answer is no. After losing confidence in their leaders, the citizens would be like lost sheep. Without having a reliable government, how would the society be stable then?

In my opinion, decisions made by the people are the most important factor in determining whether democracy would lead to stability. The people affect all the benefits and limitations of democracy stated above. They can make a benefit of democracy into a limitation, and vice versa. Why so?

When we look at democracy being giving power to the people, we often assume that the people are making the right choice. What if they are not? If they vote for the wrong party, or the wrong leader, consequences are dire. We say democracy gives people what they want. What if what they want is not necessarily the best they can have?

Yes, the majority would get what they want, and the minority would not, but this might not lead to a conflict. If the people's mindsets are that they accept the decision made by the majority, and that they know it is for the better, they would calm down and accept it. The mindsets of people matter a lot in determining whether democracy would bring about stability or not.

Democracy is like mixing chemicals. With the correct mixture of chemicals, you might get something amazing. However, if mixed with wrong chemicals, consequences might be disastrous. Why do I say so? If you have 2 parties - one being extremely strict yet reliable, and the other being extremely lax and unreliable, and a group of citizens who think that the former are too strict and decides to vote for the latter, consequences would be disastrous. In another case, if you replace the citizens with those who know that the strict laws implemented would help them in the long run, results would be good since they would choose the right government for themselves. Therefore, I feel that whether or not democracy would bring about stability depends on the people.

Commentary: Teenage Issues

Section:	Home
By:	ELENA CHONG
Publication:	The Straits Times 12/02/2008
Page:	H4
No. of words:	272

A TEENAGE girl lost a dare and had to give a man a kiss.

But after the smack on the lips, the man took it further, meeting her in a toilet near a condominium pool, where they then had sex.

The problem: She was only 15 at that time, underaged under the law.

Six months later and heavily pregnant, the teen reported full-time national serviceman Muhammad Firdaus Samsudin De Rozario, 23, to the police.

Yesterday, he was sent to jail for four months for having had sex with a girl under the age of 16.

This was Firdaus' second such offence. In 2000, the then 16-year-old had been jailed for three months after admitting to multiple charges of having had sex with an underage girl.

In the latest case, the girl alleged in her police report that she was 15 when she had sex with her "ex-boyfriend" in the toilet on Dec10, 2006.

When the facts were read to him in court, Firdaus denied being that "ex-boyfriend", but pleaded guilty.

A district court heard that the girl had gone to the condominium in Choa Chu Kang with her female friend to meet two male friends.

Firdaus, who knew the two men, joined them later.

The group drank beer and started playing a game of "truth or dare".

During one round, the girl was dared to kiss Firdaus.

She obligingly did so.

After that, Firdaus walked towards the toilet near the swimming pool.

The girl followed him in and they had sex.

The offence carries a maximum punishment of five years' jail and a $10,000 fine.

ELENA CHONG




There have been many cases of teenage sex in Singapore, and such is the example stated above. Here is a startling fact: The number of teenage abortions in 2005 was 1279 and the number in 2006 was 1391. Just over a year, the number of cases have risen by over 100. You many ask - Why is this happening? In the above case, the teenage girl only had sex with Firdaus because of a dare to kiss him.

Firdaus was sentenced to four months in jail, and it was his second time having sex with an underage girl. Many may ask - Why did he do so? After reading the article, we do not know. We will not know the reasons he had, nor why the girl obliged. What are the reasons contributing to their actions? Why did they dare her to kiss him in the first place?

Surveys have shown that parents have to pay more attention to their child. Would the cause of the above case be due to parenting problems? Nowadays, teenagers are thinking that their friends are closer to them than their parents and family members. When a teenager was asked "Who is closer to you, your parents or your friends, and why?" His answer was "Of course my friends are closer! My parents don't really care, they just give me my pocket money and go off to work, and I spend most of my time with my friends." Parents are not spending enough time with their children, and when their children are in the "rebellious stage", they have to give more of their time to their children. Most families have both parents working until late hours and leave their child at home himself. Parents must show more care and concern for their children and make sure they do not go astray. Without their love towards their child, he mindset will be that of "I can do whatever I want, since my parents don't care about me."

Influence by friends also plays a big part in the problem that teens face. If they are already not cared for by their parents, they would turn to their friends. If their friends are of bad influence, there is a very high chance that he would want to blend in with his friends, and also do commit these illegal acts. Friends also have to show more concern for the teenager, and if they know that he already is being neglected, they should help him and not encourage him to do all the illegal things.

Most importantly, the society has to show more regard to these teenagers, and not discriminate them. Many are disregarding them, thinking "They are just teenagers, if they go bad, then they cannot be saved." They have to put in more effort to help these teens and they cannot discriminate them because of their differences.

They are human too. We have to respect them and help them in times of need. They are still growing. We can change them.

<500>

Opening.

1st post of this blog.

This is for an english assignment that I'm supposed to do. I did not choose to do it, but apparently it is a neccessity. If not I can say bye to my grades.

Let's hope I do a good job. Let's get my 4.0.