Don’t force parenthood by restricting abortion access

We are disturbed by the implication, in the recent debate on abortion access, that people should be made parents against their will.

In her commentary, “Time again to review abortion laws” (April 1), Associate Professor Tan Seow Hon stated that with less abortion access, “some may have to learn the hard way, but ... many more would organise their sexual relationships differently”.

This suggests, without evidence, that many who seek abortions have deliberately chosen not to use contraception.

Abortion is more invasive and risky than preventative contraception. Why would someone with adequate information choose it over condoms, a pill or an intrauterine device?

The failure lies in Singapore’s sex education. A judgmental, biased focus on abstinence hurts people’s ability to make informed choices about contraception and reproductive health.

Assoc Prof Tan ignores the possibility of pregnancies resulting from rape, failed contraception or women’s lack of power to demand contraception during sex. She also dismisses the danger of backstreet abortions.

A 2007 global study of abortion by the World Health Organisation shows that regardless of whether the law is restrictive or liberal, most women decide to terminate an unplanned pregnancy.

Where it is illegal, though, it is likely to be performed by poorly trained providers under unsafe conditions, and can be fatal for the woman. The study found that the best way to reduce abortion rates was to make contraception more accessible.

Assoc Prof Tan suggests that because abortion access was expanded decades ago to curb population explosion, this is irrelevant today, implying that the State should control our reproductive systems for demographic goals or nation building.

This denies our autonomy over our bodies and lives. Denial of abortion is tantamount to violence and was criticised recently by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Assoc Prof Tan blames women for seeking abortions. This ignores the extremely low foetal viability in the early stages of pregnancy and projects human identity on a blastocyst, embryo or foetus.

This rhetoric presents women with only two choices: Coercion into motherhood or accepting the stigma of supposed murder.

Similarly, in “Abortions: Require parental consent for those below 21” (April 4), Focus on the Family Singapore ignores the likelihood that girls under 21 may be at risk of family violence if their unwanted pregnancies are disclosed without their consent.

Its suggestion also ignores the possibility that they may be pregnant due to sexual abuse by a family member. Everyone is entitled to medical privacy and can choose to whom they wish to make disclosures.

It is important to teach contraception, support single mothers and liberalise adoption, but these are not alternatives to access to legal abortion, which allows every woman to safely choose what is best for her: Parenthood, abortion or adoption.