“All this is a national tragedy and a stain on our collective moral consciences. Furthermore, with all our concerns over the low local birth rate now, why are we letting these 12,222 would-be Singaporeans have their innocent lives snuffed out?”

This is unnecessarily loaded language. These 12222 abortions occur because of various reasons, but the most proximal of which is that the woman has chosen not to carry the foetus to term. We allow this because we choose not to treat women in our society as second-class citizens, as baby factories and we accord them the right to bodily autonomy. Even if the local birth rate situation were an immediate crisis, I hope you would not advocate forcing these women to carry to term.

The current birth rate is of concern, but targeting abortions as a causal factor is missing the point. You claim in your comment that the government used abortion as a population control measure and that it was a reprehensible move. I ask that you reconsider this statement. Even if the population question then was out of the question, would you advocate not legalising abortion at all? Again, this question rests firmly on the bodily autonomy of a person.

Furthermore, I take issue with the first sentence, “All this is a national tragedy and a stain on our collective moral consciences.” By this statement, you therefore deem these 12222 people to have taken a less moral choice, without knowledge of their personal circumstances. This statement is sweeping and unwarranted. If you consider that significant additional suffering might have been created had these 12222 foetuses been carried to term (and no, child support is not sufficient remedy), this is in no way a tragedy.

I agree with JT’s last paragraph, the assumption that one who has chosen to undergo an abortion has made a less than moral choice is unfounded.

Gerald, this is strong and unnecessarily patronizing. not everyone agrees that “life” begins at conception–this is why foregrounding where you come from (your Christian beliefs) is only decent and appropriate, before you make pronouncements on the morality of abortions. As an atheist, I think the interests of the mother are more important than a foetus -up to a certain point-. I think at least with regards to abortion, the foetus deserves more moral consideration when it is demonstrably able to feel pain. so i think there’s a big difference between first trimester abortions and late-term abortions, and that there’s a big difference between a 3 month-old foetus and one that is 8 months old.

But of course not to Christians, because you think that at conception an embryo is as much a “life” as a baby. I don’t mean this as a slight, but I am saying it as it is–the way you see things is not how everyone might, or even most people might. and what you claim to be “moral” is again an imposition of your own beliefs, which you may not even be cognizant of.

I do agree with you that single moms need all the support they can get. But also, I must say that it is people like you who stigmatize those who, for whatever personal reasons, feel the need to make the difficult decision to abort a child. yes, it may be more difficult for some than others. but there’s a big difference between providing options and informing them and telling people that what they are doing is (to you) an unconscionable act. “our conscience demands it”? really? and who is this inclusive “our”?