Abortion....

The wrangle on abortion stems from the difference of opinion of the authors towards either being pro-life or pro-choice. Teo, who is for pro-choice, sees abortion as a matter of personal choice of the parents even after 24 weeks of gestation. On the other hand, Ser and Seto, who are for pro-life, remain firm on their point that a foetus is a person because human life begins at conception and thus abortion amounts to murder. While I do not deny the fact that I agree ‘the foetus is not a growth in the mother’s body, nor even a potential human being, but a human life who, though not yet mature, has the potentiality to grow into the fullness of humanity he already possesses’, I do not see eye to eye with the view that all abortions amount to murder. Instead, I think aborting a foetus with defects is a form of Euthanasia, where the future sufferings of the child will be impeded. Thus, I do agree with Teo that the abortion law should be reviewed, but to some extent.

At present, the abortion law states that it is illegal to abort a baby after 24 weeks of gestation, unless it can be proven that the foetus cannot live beyond a few days after birth. This denotes that no choice is left to the parents on abortion if defects of babies are discovered after 24 weeks, even if the mother’s life is at stake. While Ser makes a case that it is "gross injustice if we deny babies with disabilities the opportunity to live beyond the womb by emphasizing parental choice", is it being fair to the mother whose life is in jeopardy if the law forces her to give birth to the child? Ultimately, we should consider if the choice is justified, rather than completely denying parents of that choice, because it is the parents who will be the ones raising the child after all. Others may continue to argue that it is unjust to the child, but at the end of the day, they are not the ones who will be supporting the child, going through the financial and emotional strain. It is easier said than done. Will they be willing to donate money consistently to help these parents who have no choice but to abide by the law? Will they be agreeable to share the emotional burden of these parents? I doubt so.

In addition, if the child is to be born, will it be guaranteed that he or she will not be discriminated against by the society? Despite efforts made by the government to integrate people with disabilities into society, many are still seen by others with a different perspective. When the parents can no longer handle the financial burden on account of medical expenses, the child becomes a burden of the society. At such, will society be willing to help them? It may be mean increased taxes, more charities and added donations, is society ready for and complied to this? As I see it, the law may be bringing more injustice to the society this way. If in the first place, abortion of the child is allowed, the emotional strain on the child, financial burden on the family and liability of society will never find their way through. Perhaps the cases of suicide will decrease as well. Here, the abortion of the child is not an indication that his life is worthless, but instead, it reveals a worthwhile sacrifice, which put off the sufferings of society, his parents and himself.

In conclusion, I believe that abortion should still be a choice of the parents. However, the government can play an active role, especially in educating the people since young on the value of life and the significance of being responsible for one's actions. In this way, the exploitation of this choice will be minimum. Life is never fair. The fact that everyone is distinct has already proven so. We must not pine for things to be fair, but to work out a best way in which torment is minimized for all parties instead.