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

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

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 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)

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.

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.

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

‘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’.

“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.

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.

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.

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.