A petition against abortion has recently emerged and I am encouraged by the timing of it.
Firstly, we are actually in our jubilee i.e. 50th year, of the Abortion Act.
Jubilee is significantly a year of “release” (Lev 25:8-10). Land sold or mortgaged are returned to the poor, debts owned are cancelled, even slaves are set free at God’s command.
These jubilee principles point to God’s love for the under-privileged and His intent to help them find liberty, so much so that he compelled society to be sacrificially generous during the jubilee. It foreshadows the real liberty meant to be found in Christ, who proclaimed (when He started His ministry),
“He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor..to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed..”
If we are in the jubilee year of the Abortion Act, who would God expect of the Singapore society to be sacrificially generous to? Who are in captivity and oppressed? That’s right, the unborn who are aborted.
Secondly, the petition was fully Bible-espousing.
Singapore is a secular society (and no one is trying to change that) – but this precisely means all views have equal rights to be aired, spoken, as long as it is not harm promoting. The secular logic of the injustice is also not lost in the religious jargon – let me summarise: 1. Killing of innocent is wrong; 2. Government should punish those who kill the innocent; 3. The unborn child is as any human life; 4. Those who passively accept the killing of the innocent are guilty as well; 5. That the Singapore Parliament legalised the killing of unborn children in 1969 is wrong, needs to be repealed and there should be a social outcry. Not too difficult to catch ya?
Thirdly, the petition calls for members of Parliament to publicly repent.
My first thought was, should members of Parliament share Christian convictions about abortion? Then I realised, to understand that abortion is the murder of a human life is a matter of science. And while these Parliamentarians weren’t the ones who passed the Abortion Act, they are now responsible if this law stays in place. This terrible genocide does require a great outcry, and I hope our Parliamentarians realise it.
The petition may be strong and religious in its language, but it is scientific and justice-driving in its nature. There is nothing wrong to be serious, even angry, with the injustice of abortion, and using one’s own preferred language to drive a peaceful, lawful, civil protest petition on it. I hereby support Hau Tzeng in his endeavor and state my agreement with his views. In fact, I am elated I could through this petition, witness my stand for abortion in this year of jubilee. A recent IPS survey shows that 60.3% Singaporeans believing abortion is never (or seldom) justifiable. Truly, if this is a democratic society, should not our Parliament note our disagreement with abortion? I am thankful Hau Tzeng has broken this silence. I hope more would stand against this holocaust of the unborn and sign the petition.
Additional Q&A Segment on Common Objections to banning Abortions:
1. Is the unborn truly a human life or just a (non-living) clump of cells?
At which point is the “clump of cells” a life? I.e. when left uninterrupted, these cells will develop into a full-bodied baby. Aborting this process then would be the murder of a life. This process actually begins right from conception i.e. the moment of fertilization. That fertilized egg is called a zygote. Right at conception, the zygote already contains all the genetic code (DNA), responsible for instructing how these cells should multiply. Within weeks, the human form becomes noticeable. All of us came through this process.
2. Isn’t abortion necessary if pregnancy endangers a mother’s life?
First, it can be easily explained why for a pregnancy above 20 weeks, abortion is never necessary to save a mother’s life.
By 20 weeks, abortion will a tedious procedure to be performed in an emergency. This is because it involves the process of dilation – a hours-to-days long process where the mother’s cervix expands to considerable size. The more straightforward solution would be a C-Sect surgery. The C-Sect surgery delivers the baby alive.
In other words, abortion after twenty weeks is a lengthy procedure, which is counter intuitive in an emergency where the mother needs to be relieved of her pregnancy in order to save her life.
For pregnancies below 20 weeks, I supply a quote from an excellent article that explains this:
“Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.”
– Association of Pro-Life Physicians
This video on a neonatologist who is regularly consulted to advise on mothers with high risk pregnancies affirms that even in the most high risked pregnancies, there is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure.
In other words, abortion is never necessary to save a mother’s life. But if in any case this is even challenged, the pro-life philosophy is as such:
When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, and both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. And if through careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. – Association of Pro-Life Physicians
3. How about women who are raped? Would you support abortions in such cases?
Jennifer Christie, a mother from rape, describes common misconceptions pro-abortion activists made about women pregnant from rape:
“Every time someone hears of a woman conceiving a child in rape, the response is usually horror, disgust, or pity. Yet I’ve read hundreds of accounts from the women themselves and their responses are not at all horrified or disgusted. There are some common sentiments that are expressed again and again. The baby felt like a light in the darkness. The baby was the good within so much bad. There was something to look forward to.”
“Women who have just experienced violence and violation are not healed by further acts of violence and violation. Nothing about that makes sense. I’ve met countless women who abort after rape and live with that guilt and regret. I’ve never known anyone who was sorry she had her child.”
Back in 1979, in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn, MPH, MS, found that 75–85% of victims did not abort their children. Here’s what the study revealed:
- Pregnant rape victims in the study felt that abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children’s bodies.
- They reported a belief that their child’s life may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. The child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act, but perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose.
- After their own victimization, the thought of victimizing their innocent child through abortion was repulsive to them.
- Victims reported a sense that getting through the pregnancy meant conquering the rape. While the perpetrator was selfish, she can be generous. While he was destructive, she can be nurturing.
In a smaller Elliot Institute study published in 2000, outcomes reflected similar viewpoints:
- Nearly 80 percent of the women who aborted their children after rape reported that abortion was the wrong solution, that it only increased their trauma.
- None of the women who gave birth to a child conceived in rape expressed regret or wished they had aborted instead.
As a counselor, the psychology displayed by victims of rape who got pregnant cannot be neglected. I have personally housed a single mother who said she was pregnant from rape and her only child was her salvation. How can we argue against the voices of the victims?
4. Would banning abortions lead to back alley victims?
I understand this is a powerful rhetoric, but statistics in countries that had banned abortions showed that this argument is simply untrue.
Poland (3 deaths per 100,000), where abortion is only allowed in rare cases and Malta (9 deaths per 100,000), where abortion is completely banned, have lower maternal mortality rates than the United States (14 deaths per 100,000), where abortion is legal (video source above).
Another country, Chile, banned abortion in 1989, and their maternal deaths dropped from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 women.
How is this possible? Prof. Elard Koch, lead author of the study in Chile, observed that abortion-minded women displayed a vulnerability profile marked by coercion and fear, which accounts for nearly 70% of the reasons women considered abortion.
Simply put, most women would not even have to face pressure from their family or loved-ones to abort – if abortion is made illegal. These women and their families would simply settle for the humane and automatic option of giving birth, and to give up the child for adoption if need to. With this simplified, healthcare, social and educative services can all be better directed to support women with unwanted pregnancy more specifically towards adoption. Society also becomes more responsible such that unexpected pregnancies decrease.
Dr. Koch states, “it is a unique natural experiment conducted in a developing country.” During the fifty-year period under study, the overall maternal mortality rate dramatically declined by 93.8% – from 270.7 to 18.2 deaths per 100,000 live births – making Chile a leader in maternal healthcare outcomes in the Americas.
This story is consistent even in Africa, where abortions are still restrictive. Abortion-related maternal mortality in Africa is less than half what it is in developed countries.
The higher maternal mortality rates in pro-abortion countries point to an often unknown point: Abortion is in itself harmful. It always kills a child and it harms the mother psychologically and physically, with complications including deaths. It is simply hypocritical to promote abortion as a women’s rights issue, when information about the mental health issues and physical complications surrounding abortion are hidden from women. This must stop.
Women like June Bai and Jennifer Heng have bravely stepped out to talk about their shame, pain and regret from abortions at an age where they did not know better.
Let’s champion whole new perspectives around this issue so no more innocent lives be it babies or women be harmed. Join us, sign this petition now!