I must applaud you for these brave viewpoints. It is not a politically correct statement to make especially about abortions, but who cares! It is still an opinion and a valid one for some at that!

I just have a clarification to make. Not all single mothers are single mothers because of a mistake before marriage. Most of them, are separated from their husbands or divorced (perhaps through no fault of their own). Some are also widows. So, any policy should not discriminate on the basis that all single parents are social problems, that can be corrected by disincentives.

I wish to present my views in the following points:

1) Change in attitudes among young people

I believe this is a major factor as to why there is little birth rate in Singapore. As we all grow up in a much better, peaceful and prosperious living environment, material comfort has silently replaced the idea of breeding next generation as the top priority among young working people, even more obvious among women. I say this because there are more women than men in Singapore.

2) Too expensive cost of living

Ever since Singapore progressed into the 21st century, prices have been going up all the time. Although they may drop at times, but the overall effect is still an increase and NOT a decrease. This is something I don’t quite understand. If our economy is always claimed to be in good condition, why prices must go up but then our wages don’t? I think different cost of living also affects the people’s mindset to have babies. In the past, although things were cheaper back then, the people of the past lived much happy than present-day people, thus having the mood to have many children. Also, they have not much to spend on entertainment.

“The moral ramifications of this crime against unborn humanity are far reaching and fearful to consider.

Even if one does not believe in the sanctity of an unborn human being, consider that if all pregnancies in Singapore were carried to term, our birth shortfall from the replacement level will be more than halved. Currently Singaporeans are about 23,000 births short of replacing themselves.

We need to do more — much more — to reduce the staggering abortion rate in Singapore. For a start, we need to strongly restrict the use of on-demand abortion as a method of contraception for married women. This was based on an extremely liberal and cold-blooded approach to population control in Singapore during the 1970s and has no place in baby-scarce 21st century Singapore.

Married women should be strongly discouraged — even prevented — from having an abortion without any good reason.

Firstly, I believe parental instincts will kick in once the baby is born, so abandonment should not be an issue.

Secondly, for single mothers who are unable or unwilling to look after their own children, there needs to be a better system for giving up babies for adoption, and for adopting local-born babies. Currently the system is so onerous that couples who wish to adopt prefer to adopt from orphanages in China than from their fellow Singaporeans.

Thirdly, the social sector needs to be expanded for more children’s homes to look after kids who are not able to get adopted out. It may sound cruel to have a child born into an orphanage, but I believe that every life is precious and we can never predict what great contributions a child may make to God’s great earth in the future, regardless of his or her circumstances during childhood.”

Hi Gerald,
i dun totally agree with your stance on abortion.

firstly, you may have wrote that abortion is an inhuman act. yet if parents who cant take care of their children n dun wish to carry the ‘burden’ of having the child n let the child born for the sake of avoiding ’sin’, do you think the child will be able to have a caring environment when his/her parents are not mentally ‘prepared’ to have and tk care him/her in the 1st place?

secondly, i think we shld look beyond the numbers and think of the parents’ position too. we are humans with rationality, with emotions, with symphathy. look at the previous baby bonus, why are the govt still failing to have more newborns? cos sgporeans are humans with own mind and body; and they weight the pro-cons, they wana ‘develop’ themselves 1st before settling down etc. when we want to think of the unborn child, dun u tink we have to spare a though for the parents as well. they are human too. yes they may have made a ‘mistake’, who doesnt? isnt number simply another product of humans bias and depends on the person who intepretate it?

Thirdly, if we cant spare a though for the parents and give them their freedom to excercise their self-responsibilities. i think we are being v.selfish to them. this is not liberal at all. feminist fight for abortion rights for women to control their body, i agree to that and suggest that it extent to couples as they should have their freedom to choose what they wan. what is morally wrong for you, may be even more so to the parents who give birth to their child and eventually abandan or not providing a caring home environment to grow physically, mentally n personally.

Fourthly, i strongly oppose that we should start discourage couples who wana abort. to me it restrict plp’s freedom to choice. secondly, using such methods may not make them think appropriately their decision to abort, but enforcing ‘extrinsic motivators’ on them. (e.g. they give birth just to avoid being condeemed by society – the feeling of fear) will they be able to make a proper choice then? and are we gg to create a type of social status on abortion couples like criminals?
who r we to condeem or even discourage another human being just for the sake of numbers (i m glad in this case that our goverment is not (or have not yet) resorting to such method)?

Fifth, i do not agree that parental instinct will kick in if its not a person’s choice to give birth. though it is not absolute to all, i still think its v.naive to think that human beings are so simple in the head. so many factors play a part to how and what we are s a person (some of which we take for granted). who is gg to be responsible for the child if the parents instincts are still not cultivated? again it will be the parents fault, not the state, not you or me or anyone else. that is forcing rather than encourging plp to develop self-responsibilities.

Sixth, is giving one own baby away to others more human than abortion? imagine you are not ur parents child, but of someone you dun even koe. n one day u found out or u may realise it sooner during ur childhood (in an orphanage), what will the impact be for child development?

finally, do you koe that the children home i am volunteering for currently, have to let the child go out n create their own life by 16-18 years. all except one doesnt make it to tertiary education. (the exceptional one may make it to ITE, the first child to study to ITE) their life is not all fantastic i can tell u. they have strict rules to follow. they have to earn their time to play games for more then 20 mins at the pc (15-20 mins per day if i m not mistaken is given). they dun have a set of own toys, revision books to study. mos things are shared. they are only able to go out for recreations, planned by the management and/or voluntees. i wonder do they even haf the choice to choose where they wana go (like our kids or when we are young). they need donations to support their lives. if i am allowed to ask them or probe more into their lives, i would do that.

now tell me, can the number explain ‘unintended’ children who lack of the care from their parents, can these numbers make us aware or understand their plight. can u imagine being them for one day or even providing ur future kid with such unnurturing conditions? is it fair of those interested in statistics to implement/discourage certain rights at the expense of plp?
you are different gerald, cos you planned to haf one, you excercise your freedom and self-responsibilities to be a father. not everone have the capabilities or enviironment to do so.
i am not advocating for couples to abort whenever they like, i just hope that we can always spare a though for others b4 wanting to implement, restrict and/or encourage/discourage a certain way of life.
i too also think that abortion is cruel, but if a child were not part of the parents plans and resulting to ‘unwilling’ parents to cultivate a burden mentality, the child may not receive the care and nurturance it ought to receive. that to me is even and v.v.v.v.v.v.cruel to the child.

n if anyone here thinks that having a child will lead to happiness, that could b a form of self-deception too. anyone interested i can send you links on y you should not give birth to a child becos you lack or wan to find happiness. ur plans might backfire.

[...] hope this never comes to pass. (PS. You’re going to need to read his article first before reading the [...]

Heres a little secret I would like to share.

1) Provide free education and you will see huge returns

2) Provide minimum wage pegged to the standard of CURRENT living

3) Provide free medical benefits with world class standards

4) Reduce your pay packets

5) Have the Singaporean mentallity that true blue Singaporeans come first

6) Provide welfare for the jobless and old folks

7) Do not enable the price of PUBLIC housing to escalate into space, this will wipe out the couples retirement CPF funds and future.

Will the country go bankrupt with the above, ????

funny – govt keeps touting that we HAVE free education from pri one to sec 4.
But that pre-primary education cost a bomb – at least $100 a month?
But if you need help – go get vouchers from PCF hahahaha!
I hope too that preprimary education be free, based on the lowest fees in the PCF market, and other richer parents can upgrade if they want to. That will ensure our kids all get the same chances in life.

Kudos to Secret on your insights.

what about –

8) cancel NSF for boys

9) Free education in local uni for all Singaporean boys and girls

10) More local uni places for all students who qualifies for uni – unlike current situation where you not only need min grades, but GOOD GRADES.

11) Remove need to pass 2nd language (Chinese eg) to go to local U

12)

It is because we know that uni places are expensive (cheapest is still 20k currently? ) and limited places, that is why all current parents Kow pei kow bu about the intense pressure in primary and secondary schools – ultimately trying to get into limited local U places

I find it interesting how religious conservatives try to sneak in an anti-abortion agenda under the guise of “preventing low birth rates”.

Very opportunistic I must say.

Free education, better salary, cheaper HDB flats for Singapore Citizens, shorter working hours, etc, all these measures will help instead of baby bonus.

on point 12 of more secret formula?

the reason why places in local unis are so tight is becos govt giving away these places to foreigners & giving them scholarship (i.e. singaporean taxpayer monies) to fund them…also, the local unis need to earn money so have to give places away to foreigners coming here to study cos’ they pay up to 3 times more than local students for tuition fee…
hence, it has always got to do with MONEY! It has always been the rationale behind every policy here..

Hi Gerald,
Congratulations on your impending fatherhood.
I am pro-choice.
But having said that there are too many women who are taking a frivolous attitude towards abortion.
Yes some even view it as a form of contraception.
Real Reasons for abortions include wrong sex of baby/ poor work-life balance if due to unexpected pregnancy/ lowered std of living with one more mouth to feed.
Of course there are other more “legit” reasons- unmarried mothers etc.
The pro-life and pro-choice will never be able to agree.

Dr.Huang

[...] Bonuses for a Dying Breed – TOC: The stork is still not quite convinced – TOC: Changed Singapore Dream: Fleeing The City of Possibilities – My Singapore News: Changed [...]

In short, the government is NOT doing what they SHOULD do, but ONLY doing what they PREFERS to do.
And this is applicable not just towards the matter of Low Births, but in all other problematic issues all these while.

your stance on abortion is pointless. focus on the family is more likely to spend your money in their anti gay mongering.

secret formula has a point.

if you want babies. simple,
a) pay people market value for them.
b) for people who want to abort, pay a fair market value to keep the baby
c) if they want do not want to rear the baby, have the state take care of the baby. I don’t see why SAF will not want to rear a child from 1-16 and then bond them for the next 40 years. (oh wait, citizens have free will?) but I’m sure something can be done on the level of indoctrination.. (ie: for every 10 kids raised by saf, some will probably stay on as a career soldier)
d) reduces barriers to adoption, create markets for unwanted pregnancies to be sold to adoptive parents

everything has an opportunity cost, having a baby really crimps one’s style. be realistic or be doomed to fail.

ways back in the 60s and 70s – the govt “encouraged” parents to stop at 2 – and it took around 30-40 years before most family have 1-2 children. It will take another 30-40 years to see if the process could be reversed. But I do not think that it will happen. There is not way parents can afford to stay home to look after children like mothers of my time. Full time job 24/7 looking after a string children.

Now most parents are all professionally qualified – so why stay home? unless it was like the olden day where most mothers do not have an education at all.

Situation has changed.

one of the ways govt can really have mothers staying home and have more children is to give out family support like some countries – the neighbour opposite us has 10 children – and get about $3K(tax free) a month! With the husband working.

However much the govt is giving out now in the form of incentives like leave, bonus, rac relief is all but eith a one time payment or negligible – if you go for it – you have been tricked into going for the carrots.

It is also not in the mind of parents to have more children – small family is so much more managable. In the olden days – it was pure night entertainment where parents are concerned – no so much that having children was their plan at all. And there was no control at all.

Now after having two kids – the wife/husband would be shouting “Cut! Cut!”. or else there will be extra expenditure buy rubber tubes….lot of them…..or face accidents … just be liked my younger brother – with 4 beautiful girls!!!!

Cheers!!!

Perhaps that would be one of the way…..

Low birth rate is good. It is a signal to shift to lower gear, trim excesses, reeducate, renounce and renew.

Take heed to what the body is saying and let it take its natural courses. Time to rest from all foolish labors and artificial procreative measures.

Pushing the body to produce when it is telling you to rest is pushing the next generation and everyone else to their demise. We probably have reached the optimal number before everything goes down hill from now.

Therefore, do not incentivise for more births when the nature of economics has not permit it.

Embrace the new reality.

Shalom.

admit it, this country is paying for the sins of the fathers. the obvious solution is to undo the sins of the fathers since it was them who built an elitist society enriching mostly their own coffers at the people’s expense.

what you sow is what you reap. you can’t change the immutable laws of nature by adopting an economy that favors the rich!

as much as you can’t buy love, you can’t buy babies too without the country suffering from the consequences of ‘commercial babies’ or commercial everything.

yeah, hands off the abortion rate, please. people’s rights over their own bodies are not up for grabs here. you can’t just arbitrarily decide to sacrifice the rights of some people for the supposed greater good of others.

regarding women supposedly using “abortion as a method of contraception”, where are the statistics on this? your statement is meaningless without hard data, although it certainly has shock value. i don’t have any statistics myself, but it seems like a stretch to suppose that women would subject themselves to an invasive procedure such as abortion quite so frivolously. if it was a failure to use contraception at all, then what is needed is more education; and if it was a failure of contraception that was used, then that is no reason to force pregnancy.

Me concurs much with zj of #Post 3.

Encouraging single mothers to bring up their child/children have much societal and family implications and complexities. Single women are unlikely to remain celibate their entire live, many prefer to co-habitate nowadays than to be legally/officially married. One who is pregnant and chose not to marry the father of the child is likely to choose another mate or even mates later and this(these) mate(s) and his family may not want the child/ren of another man.

Despite the above-mentioned, giving single mothers who wish to have child/ren equal treatments to that of legally married women certainly deserves considerations. I would even go as far as to say that all mothers, legally married and otherwise(such as foster parent) be given personal incentives to be mothers. They can be given a cash bonus, contributions to their CPF Medisave Accounts and be given rebates in medical/hospitalization fees etc.

Animals are by nature procreative, so is human, one reason why abortions are so common go to show this natural inclination and so was the Stop At Two Legislation. Left to their natural nature, most female species will procreate by the bunch just liked before the Stop At Two Legislation.

There are many ways to encourage procreations, it is really how our wise leaders want to reverse their their Stop At Two Damages.

patriot

Why would anyone, thinking about it sensibly, use abortion as a method of contraception, rather than a condom, a pill, or a diaphragm? While most abortions, performed in the appropriate clinical setting, go smoothly, there are still higher medical risk, greater hassle and increased cost involved in terminating a pregnancy compared to simply using a preventative method. This strongly suggests that most people, provided with appropriate information about their choices, would use a preventative method to begin with.

Interestingly, organisations such as Focus on the Family support abstinence-only sex education, which discourages the teaching of factual information about how to prevent pregnancy and to handle the health aspects of sexual relationships in a safe and practical way. The upshot of funding organisations such as theirs is that fewer and fewer individuals would have the knowledge that empowers them to use preventative forms of contraception, rather than face unwanted pregnancies.

Moreover, consider the message you send to women if you specifically make abortion unavailable to *married* women, as you suggest. Especially given that marital rape is still not considered, under the Penal Code, to be rape. You are saying, essentially, that marriage means sexually and reproductively enslaving women: because once married, a woman can be raped by her husband and forced to bring a child to term against her wishes. What kind of a life is that for women? What kind of a vision is that for marriage? If that’s what my marriage would mean for me legally, I for one would never get married.

Your proposals would result in women having less ability to prevent themselves from becoming pregnant to begin with, and then forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. As if all the attendant health risks, pain and discomfort of pregnancy did not exist or did not matter. These are not trivial and nobody should be required to endure them in the name of economic policy. As explained below:

http://www.glass-castle.org/blog/2008/07/responding-to-tan-seow-hon.html
http://www.glass-castle.org/issue4letters.html

- Jolene (http://www.glass-castle.org)

The govt’s major problem is the low birth rate, but they seem to ignore the real root of the problem as stated earlier.

With the influx of foreign talent and with the great foresight to boost the population to 6 million , and with GIC and our CPF investments making so much money, I think we can let the working people support the old and poor folks (Welfare) as they have helped build this nation with their bare hands.

Likewise, when we hit our golden years, we have a new generation to support us so we don’t end up collecting tin cans and washing toilets.

Once again will the Country go bankrupt with this sudden explosion of population ?

Please don’t throw money at these problems, get your FORMULATION OF POLICIES right to begin with.

I just wonder why, with all the fuss created in the ST’s “Mother’s Day” issue, that the enhanced Baby Bonus Scheme still doesn’t do much to assist stay-home moms.

It seems to me that there was little consideration towards how Infant Care services are at least double to triple the amount Child Care services are, and thus there are mothers like me, who in a way, has chosen to stay home because my monthly salary would barely cover the costs of Infant Care. If there can be subsidies for child care/infant care, I don’t see why the money cannot be given as cash payouts to the mothers/grandparents who care for the child full-time.

Also, I agree with some of the above opinions that implementing shorter working hours would definitely help increase birth rate. I think many of the working population barely have time to sleep, let alone socialise, get married, and have time to procreate.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Abortion is taking away a human life. In other words, it’s killing a human being. It’s not a good argument that the children who will otherwise be born will feel unwanted, will not be given proper care and will not thrive. Who is to deny the possibility that they may still grow up to be fine? Why take the right from them to live?

Women should have power over their own bodies but it should not include the power to take away another life so that their careers would not be hindered, because they’re not ready to be mothers, etc. Why choose to have the child in the first place and then kill him/ her?

James:

Women should have power over their own bodies, BECAUSE they are the only ones who bear the cost of carrying a fetus, spiritually, mentally, physically and monetarily.

A fetus that is incapable of independent existence outside the womb cannot be considered an independent entity. Unless YOU are willing to carry the child in your body?

I can tell you when I will support government bans on abortion. When one day a fetus can be extracted from a woman’s body without causing harm to HER AND the fetus, and being kept alive in some kind of artificial womg until it is able to survive outside of a womb-environment. Until that day happens, I am absolutely against any sort of government control over a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body.

Govt just disclosed (it’s about time!!) that more than 1/3rd of S’pore’s population are foreigners and PRs!!!

There are 480,000 PRs and still growing rapidly!!

James, your terminology is politicized, and it reflects a pro-life framing of the issue of abortion. There is no “human being”, no “they”, no “child”, if, as many pro-choicers hold, a fetus is not a human being in the first place.

No matter what justification is given, your stance entails that the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the woman carrying it. This seems morally questionable to say the least, no matter what alternate scenario is raised in which the opposite occurs – i.e. where the fetus (now considered as a human being) is aborted.

In short, this is not a simple issue and it doesn’t involve spades.

The govt should focus on aiding stay-at-home mums. Thus far, govt measures are aimed mostly at working mums, to the detriment of stay-at-home mums. Is the govt implying that the children of stay-at-home mums are not S’poreans??

I did not intend my article to become a debate about abortion. But since it has turned into one, I shall just address some of the differing views.

zj,

“firstly, you may have wrote that abortion is an inhuman act. yet if parents who cant take care of their children n dun wish to carry the ‘burden’ of having the child n let the child born for the sake of avoiding ’sin’, do you think the child will be able to have a caring environment when his/her parents are not mentally ‘prepared’ to have and tk care him/her in the 1st place?”

The ends don’t justify the means. We don’t kill a baby just because we think the parents won’t be good parents. This is a flawed, utilitarian approach that disrespects the intrinsic worth of life. Who are we to predict what kind of life the child will live? And even if it isn’t the happiest of lives (what defines happiness?), is that reason to end it before it begins?

YE,

“regarding women supposedly using “abortion as a method of contraception”, where are the statistics on this?”

Over 60% of abortions are performed on married women. I’m sure they are not all victims of rape or incest.

It’s good that you recognize the pro-life framing of the abortion debate. Can you also acknowledge the pro-choice framing of the debate, specifically that the foetus is part of the mother’s body to do as she pleases with it?

Han,

“Women should have power over their own bodies”

A foetus is in her body, but that does not make it part of her body. It has its own brain, heart, and yes, its own soul. Ask any pregnant mother (who intends to keep the baby) whether she believes she is carrying another life in her. Her answer will almost always be Yes.

I must applaud you for these brave viewpoints. It is not a politically correct statement to make especially about abortions, but who cares! It is still an opinion and a valid one for some at that! – Ravi Philemon (#1)

I did not intend my article to become a debate about abortion. But since it has turned into one, I shall just address some of the differing views. – Gerald (#26)

LOL

Gerald (#26): The pro-choice camp provides a plural solution for all both camps. Those from the Pro-Life camp who can´t bear to abort can keep the baby for a variety of reason such as ethics, morals, respecting the life of the baby, while those from the Pro-Choice camp enjoys the benefits they perceive from aborting the baby.

Gerald:

“The ends don’t justify the means. We don’t kill a baby just because we think the parents won’t be good parents. This is a flawed, utilitarian approach that disrespects the intrinsic worth of life. Who are we to predict what kind of life the child will live? And even if it isn’t the happiest of lives (what defines happiness?), is that reason to end it before it begins?”

Hmm! Very interesting Gerald! I agree with you that the ends do not justify the means. Now, let us reflect on what you wrote in your piece.

Since we have a shortage of childbirths in Singapore, therefore we must “Married women should be strongly discouraged — even prevented — from having an abortion without any good reason.”

Hmm. Women are viewed as numbers, as baby making machines to make up the numbers for children in Singapore. As such, taking away that choice is justified. Now, let me ask, is this also not a utilitarian approach? Is this also an instrumentalist view of a human being? That the person is living not for their own purpose, but for some other purpose as determined by a government authority?

This is hypocrisy, is it not? You are more than willing to argue against use of government power if it is something you do not agree with, but you are perfectly happy to argue for the use of government power to COERCE other people to live according to the rules of YOUR religion.

“A foetus is in her body, but that does not make it part of her body. It has its own brain, heart, and yes, its own soul. Ask any pregnant mother (who intends to keep the baby) whether she believes she is carrying another life in her. Her answer will almost always be Yes.”

You missed my point. I did not say that the foetus is part of her body. What I am saying is that she alone bears the cost of carrying the child. For that very reason she alone should have the choice as to whether to carry the child or not. And by cost I do not just mean money, but everything else etc etc etc.

A perfect counterpoint to your argument about utilitarianism is the natural rights argument. The surest thing a person owns in this world, is their own body. They alone should have the right to decide how their body is to be used. Passing a law taking away a person’s right to decide what to do with their own body violates that natural right. You have already demonstrated such tendencies with your support for criminalising homosexual sex, so it is no surprise that you also seek to extend government control to over a woman’s body as well.

It is no coincidence that most countries in the world ALLOW for abortion, but prohibit beyond the first trimester. This is a compromise made according to how likely the foetus is able to survive without a womb. Essentially, a foetus is using another PERSON as a life support system. Does that person not have a choice in how their body is used? If a foetus is able to survive without the womb, then it is deemed to be capable of independent existence. If it is not, then surely another person cannot be compelled to be a life support system for a foetus that has no prior existing life.

You (Gerald) wrote:
“The ends don’t justify the means. We don’t kill a baby just because we think the parents won’t be good parents. This is a flawed, utilitarian approach that disrespects the intrinsic worth of life. Who are we to predict what kind of life the child will live? And even if it isn’t the happiest of lives (what defines happiness?), is that reason to end it before it begins?

‘we’ refers to who? u or me or someone else?” tis is not abt ‘we’ .
its abt the parents (n only them) who will decide whether to abort based on their situations. no one shld teaches them what to do (becos we r not them). its they who will b responsible for their actions (before and aft abortions) and even if they allow the child to b born, its also they who will be responsible in nurturing them. you, me or others are not gg to feed the baby for them. whether they will cultivate any so-called ‘parental instinct’ (like how u naively stated) i am not sure?

what abt the life of the parents, do you regard their ‘instrinsic worth’ as a human
to make decisions for themselves as a form of self-responsibility? does enforcing responsibilities onto others make it a more ‘intrinsic worth of life’?

your overall views (esp e last comment) on abortion is basically Infringing on the rights of the parents to choose. your views doesnt justify y couples’ should not abort n it is only gg to make plp’s lives more fearful (by external motivators) and less ‘instrinsic worth of living’.

We have a major disconnect between the govt and the people on the ground.

I think we have the emperors new clothes syndrome, where we seem to turn a blind eye towards the obvious. Singapore has poor family friendly policies.

There isn’t a need to look for a needle in a haystack, just take a look at our declining birth rate, and you can tell why humans in Singapore don’t want to have children.

Now heres the solution,

1) Import the population to save the economy ?

2) Create family friendly policies (not by throwing money on the left, and collecting on the right ! )

3) Implement minimum wage, Education for FREE, provide welfare and medical to the needy…. I can never understand why EDUCATION cost so much in dollars…

4) Last but not least, NS for all men who are staying in Singapore for more than 2 years, This is good for the nations defence just like the FT’s contribute to this economy

Sorry I know this is out of context, but does AVA screen everything that is placed on our shelves for consumption and sale?? or they wait for someone else to scream “bloody murder” before they have a total recall and issue warning to people who are selling these items ?

Always thought we had world class this and that……… proactive versus reactive ?

Maybe we need to setup ANOTHER commitee, maybe call it the SING-ALONG-COMMITEE

Jolene @ #21 says, “Why would anyone, thinking about it sensibly, use abortion as a method of contraception, rather than a condom, a pill, or a diaphragm? While most abortions, performed in the appropriate clinical setting, go smoothly, there are still higher medical risk, greater hassle and increased cost involved in terminating a pregnancy compared to simply using a preventative method. This strongly suggests that most people, provided with appropriate information about their choices, would use a preventative method to begin with.”

This is a simplistic and naive argument. Nobody plans when to have sex. Not even married couples. Most times, it just happens and it is too late to look for contraceptives. A 2003 research paper of Women’s Health & Action Research Centre says, “In many countries, more than 50% of the population has unprotected penetrative sex before the age of 16, without contemplating the consequences and without accurate information or contraceptive protection.” So, when unwanted pregnancies occur, abortion is a ‘natural’ choice.

[A 2003 research paper of Women’s Health & Action Research Centre says, “In many countries, more than 50% of the population has unprotected penetrative sex before the age of 16, without contemplating the consequences and without accurate information or contraceptive protection.”]

And of course we know who we can credit with the excellent accomplishment last night: religious conservatives like Gerald and FotF who don’t want teenagers to be taught full and accurate scientific information on contraception and birth control.

correction: “last night” substitute with “mentioned above”

I am only thinking from the view of single/ widowed/ divorced/ sahm mothers with children under their care.
Actually I do not understand why children from ’standard’ families get incentives, and those from families I listed above don’t get the same treatment (as if the children are at fault).
Even if TFR is not a key issue (which is not the case), how does this stack up against the portion of our pledge which says, ‘….. regardless of race, language or religion, to build a demoncratic society, based on justice and EQUALITY……’. ?
I get the impression the essence of the pledge has not been followed through, unless someone can offer me insights that reconcile this contradiction.

let us be very clear. the govt is selective in its implementation of baby policy. Theirs is still very economy based and ‘targeted assistance’.

if you are a SAHM, you do not get anything.
If you are jobless and have a 3rd child, you do not get any maternity benefits at all, and the father does not get any maid levy. All these point towards the women as an economic digit, where you MUST be producing a salary and THEN you get maternity benefits.

(and that is another reason why our abused maid syndrome comes about from all these, pointedly discouraging SAHM as caregivers!)

I was happy when the govt announced that all babies must be covered with insurance when they are born. But I was aborred to read that if the babies are born with congenital disease, eg hole in the heart, they are not covered.

Again, economic sense comes in. But hey, you as a govt cannot have your cake and eat it! You cannot be going around saying c’mon, have a baby, but if your baby is diseased, you are all alone. Regardless of race language or religion or disability, you are a child of this universe, this country.

Why must a child born with a diease have a poorer quality of life?

It brings to mind the paralympics hero. Laurentia, with her spastic illness, would our government be able to encourage her to flourish in singapore? Why did she have to go to UK for training? How much did it cost their parents?

Pathlight school for autism. How long is the queue? How much do the kids have to pay to get in? Why are they not under MOE and get free education like every other able bodied child.

You are the child of the universe (Singapore). No less than the trees and the stars, you have the right to be here. (Les crane desiderata)

I find it strange that the govt will subsidise fertility treatment but not give free medical treatment to babies born prematurely. Something is not right here. We should give treatments to ALL Singaporean babies because they are our assets. Then we will have a better quality of life for the parents as well. A nation of care givers to all babies. (forget about targetted approach and vouchers – where many low middle class citizens will not qualify). If this comes true, then we know the govt is sincere in wanting a bigger population, not just ‘healthy’ babies.

It all comes down to you being a economic digit in Singapore

its Singapore Inc, this is the reason why we all must exercise our vote in the right manner and do away with scare mongering tatics that surface in the MSM from time to time.

Whats there to lose ? Look at the current situtation is it getting any better ?

If the govt has imported the population to boost the economy, what does this mean for every Singaporean ? I am very keen to know.

“If the govt has imported the population to boost the economy, what does this mean for every Singaporean ?”

Dear money comes first; do kindly allow me to attempt some opinions, many of which are clues from You and this blog itself.

Answers: Money comes first, power comes second and citizens come thereafter but behind third which is fame(or infamy ?) Names of of leaders are inscribed everywhere in Community Clubs, Tertiary institutions and Industrial Buildings etc, etc.

Conscience is dead in SIN and even kids know how to say ‘You die, your business’ with full understanding of its’ meaning.

I believe the Singapore Constitution does not stipulate that Elected Leaders must look after their citizens. As such they are not obligated to such duty nor are they failing or neglecting their duties. They are empowered to lord over us though.

In any case, Singaporeans themselves are not free from all blames too, the Mandate of our Leadership comes from the Citizens. No?

Yours Faithfully: patriot

patriot

Ravi:

Most people have sex in a bedroom. If you expect to be sexually active you can keep condoms there, or carry one in your wallet. A woman who expects to be sexually active can take the pill or carry a diaphragm in her handbag. And there’s also emergency contraception which is a pill with something like 85% chance of preventing an unwanted pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sex (this can be used where condoms break for instance).

With appropriate sex education we can encourage a culture where people think frankly and fearlessly about their own sexuality – and therefore will in fact be far less “naive” and think about sex in a far less “simplistic” fashion, and realise that they need to take precautions. I live in the UK and women here are much more open about discussing forms of contraception. Better sex education and less prudish attitudes to sex means you know the score and can take control of your body much more effectively.

Jolene

you only tackle the symptoms of a problem when you pay to encourage people to have more babies. you cannot solve the situation and the problem until you find the root cause of declining births. stupid people always advocate “pay and pay” because it is popular to do so.

Jolene, Times magazine reports that in the UK where “women here are much more open about discussing forms of contraception” and have “Better sex education and less prudish attitudes to sex” and “know the score and can take control of your body much more effectively.” the number of abortions in England and Wales in 2007 went up by 2.5 per cent compared to the previous year. Britain’s teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in western Europe. Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the charity British Pregnancy Advisory Service, says, “Women try hard to avoid becoming pregnant when they don’t want to become a mother, or aren’t able to bring up a child, but unintended pregnancy still remains a significant public health problem…sometimes couples can fail to use contraception properly. Women who are then faced with a difficult decision about a pregnancy need the option of accessible abortion care available to them as early as possible – and as late as necessary. “

Tying incentives to productivity potential is plainly unethical. A simple policy for all babies regardless of background and defects is one I would support vehemently because for a policy to work, it must not only be easy to understand, but also easy to commnicate across to the public among all social classes. A pro-baby policy should be one that addresses economic and social condition that encourage people to have babies and not use a stick-and-carrot scheme to coerce people who unintentionally get pregant to keep the baby.

The cost of living is one of the main consideration for many Sinkaporean when deciding whether to start a family and having one child, the next consideration is when to have a second. I am speaking from my own experience. We had been married for many years and age was becoming an issue when one start planning to start a family. Living space and child care were also a major factor. Not every family is lucky enough to have parents who is happy to look after their grand children. In my case, both my parent passed away before we even consider to start a family. The obvious solution was for us to set a side a sum of money each month for over a number of years before we start a family. I am please to say, my children are all grown up now and completed their university education.In modern Sinkapore, the constant rising cost of living is making life immeasurably more difficult for young family to start a family. Gahment financial assistance obviously is welcomed but other facilities e.g. nursery, day care centres should be available at affortable prices for all Singaporean family and not just restricted to those who are on high income. If the gahment truly want sinkapoerean to increase the local birth rate they had to do more and it is not a bad idea to throw open a debate on the subject to hear what Singaporean think .