Arguments that should be aborted

It is important to address the mischaracterisation of Associate Professor Tan Seow Hon’s commentary, “Time again to review abortion laws” (April 1), in replies published yesterday.

She stated — simply and clearly — that we should reconsider our legal stance on abortion and buttressed the need for this by highlighting the function of law in expressing society’s choices. It is odd that her words were misconstrued.

It is also unclear why her personal “views aligned to conservative ... groups”, referred to in the letter “Focus on lifestyle issues and not abortion laws”, should have a bearing on her commentary.

To remind ourselves, the gist of her commentary is to encourage individuals to think about an important issue: Abortion.

Mr Jason Cheng noted, in “Let pregnant women make their own moral choices”, that the example of North Dakota was a “bad one”.

Assoc Prof Tan presumably highlighted North Dakota to show how other jurisdictions have calibrated a different balance between preserving a baby’s life and a mother’s choice.

Mr Cheng addresses only the latter, lamenting that “six weeks is hardly enough time for a woman to recognise her pregnancy”. Without acknowledging the first element in this balance, he fails to appreciate the relevance of the example.

If a fetal heartbeat can be detected after six weeks, should we take this as a sign of life?

If so, like in North Dakota, should we protect life at this juncture? Or should we prioritise the mother’s choice?

Whatever the answers, we should think through the questions deeply. This is all Assoc Prof Tan asks of us, and it is not too much to ask.