1. Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 28, col. 891 (04 8, 1969)Google Scholar (Minister for Health). The Minister, Mr. Chua Sian Chin, made these comments during the Second Reading of the Abortion Bill 1968 (so labeled as it was introduced on Dec. 3, 1968; see Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 28Google Scholar, col. 2). The debates during the Second Reading lasted from April 8 to 10, and will subsequently be referred to as the “Abortion Bill of 1968, Second Reading.”

2. Approaches on abortion vary across different jurisdictions, from being illegal under all circumstances without exception to strict regulation where abortion is permitted only to save the woman's life—to moderate regulation where abortion is additionally allowed for the woman's health or mental health to laws that liberally allow abortion for socio-economic reasons or without restriction as to reasons (varying gestational periods). See World Abortion Laws 2008 Fact Sheet, Center for Reproductive Rights (Nov. 20, 2008), http://reproductiverights.org/en/document/world-abortion-laws-2008-fact-sheet.

3. I wrote a column, Time for Singapore to relook abortion law, The Straits Times, July 24, 2008, making some of the arguments raised in this paper, after another writer had recommended that abortions be less easily available, in Make abortions less easily available, The Straits Times, July 19, 2008. A spate of letters and articles followed: Medical veteran backs relook of abortion law, The Straits Times, July 28, 2008; Banning abortion won't mean more babies, The Straits Times, July 31, 2008; Banning abortion will create more problems, The Straits Times, Aug. 1 2008; It is a slippery slope when we take it upon ourselves to decide who deserves to be born and who does not, The Straits Times, Aug. 1, 2008; Special needs, but just as human, The Straits Times, Aug. 1, 2008; I hope we have become more civilized and humane, and not the opposite, The Straits Times, Aug. 1, 2008; Young doctor's account of abortion in the heartland, Straits Times Online, Aug. 1, 2008; Harmful effects of abortion justify review, The Straits Times, Aug. 4, 2008; Ethically, should not willful termination be equivalent to murder?, The Straits Times, Aug. 4, 2008; Why should the mother have more right than the man in the street to decide to ‘keep’ her baby?, The Straits Times, Aug. 4, 2008; Prof Tan had merely asserted that if the question of when human life begins is unsettled, we should err on the side of preserving what might well be a human life, The Straits Times, Aug. 4, 2008; Academic rebuts view on her article about abortion, The Straits Times, Aug. 6, 2008 (my response); Reviewing law on abortion timely in view of its adverse effects, Straits Times Online, Aug. 6, 2008.

4. Government has no plans to ban abortion, The Straits Times, Aug. 29, 2008. After that, the debate continued in the public square: Have committee to review abortion law, The Straits Times, Sept. 2, 2008; Abortion: Access to information needed, not legal amendments, Straits Times Online, Sept. 4,2008.

5. Rise in number of abortions, teen cases also up, The Straits Times, July 26, 2007. In 2006, there were 12,032 abortions, up from 11,482 in 2005. The number of abortions for those under 20 also went up, from 1,279 to 1,391.

6. Cap. 324, Sing. Stat., 1985 Rev. Ed.

7. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1.

8. Id.

9. Fifteen Members were absent. See Sing., , Parliamentary Debates vol. 29, col. 349 (12 1969)Google Scholar. The Third Reading was held over two days (Dec. 23 & 29). The debates during the Third Reading will be subsequently referred to as the “Abortion Bill of 1968, Third Reading.”

10. See, e.g., Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement (Macedo, Stephen ed., Oxford Univ. Press 1999)Google Scholar; Gutmann, Amy & Thompson, Dennis, Democracy and Disagreement (Belknap Press Harv. Univ. Press 1996)Google Scholar; and Habermas, Jurgen, Between Facts and Norms 287-387 (Mass. Instit. Technology 1999)Google Scholar.

11. Rawls, John, The Law of Peoples, With “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” (Harv. Univ. Press 1999)Google Scholar [hereinafter Rawls, The Law of Peoples].

12. See, e.g., the dialogue on the casino, reported in Casino: Not fruitful to keep arguing, says PM, The Straits Times, Apr. 27,2005.

13. See, e.g., a call by pro-choicers and pro-lifers for abortion laws to be reviewed occurred in relation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the United Kingdom.

14. Department of Statistics Singapore, Highlights, http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/c2000sr2/highlights.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2011).

15. Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966, excerpted in Tan, Kevin & Ll-Ann, Thio, Tan Yeo and Lee's Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore 1020,1025 ¶ 38 (2d ed., Butterworths Asia 1997)Google Scholar.

16. U.S. Const, amend. I.

17. Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 rev. ed.), art. 15(2). [hereinafter Sing. Const.].

18. Sing. Const, art. 152(2).

19. Sing. Const, art 153.

20. Sing., White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony, Cmnd. 21 of 1989, ¶ 6.

21. Id. at ¶ 5.

22. Cap. 167A, Sing. Stat., 2001 Rev. Ed.

23. Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 56, col. 326 (18 07 1990)Google Scholar (Minister for Home Affairs—Professor S. Jayakumar).

24. Cap. 167A § 8(1)(a) & 8(2).

25. §9.

26. See, e.g., the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim's remarks in the Forum on Ethnic Relations held in 2002: Let's redefine common space, says minister, The Straits Times, Oct. 25,2002.

27. Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Declaration on Religious Harmony, http://appl.mcys.gov.sg/Portals/0/Files/Deciaration_Eng.doc.

28. Making Singapore an Interfaith Hub, The Straits Times, Aug. 9, 2006; see also the country report on Singapore, Human Rights Commission, http.//www.hrc,co.nz/hrc_new/hrc/cms/files/documents/25-May-2007_l3-46-30_Singapore_Country_Report.doc (last visited Mar. 18,2011).

29. Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 80, col. 54 (04 18, 2005)Google Scholar (Proposal to Develop Integrated Resorts). The “integrated resort” is the Singapore government's term for a recreational resort with a gaming component. See Loong, Lee Hsien, Proposal to Develop Integrated Resorts (04 18, 2005), available at http://app.mti.gov.sg/data/pages/606/doc/Ministerial%20Statement%20-%20PM%2018apr05.pdfGoogle Scholar.

30. Id.

31. A note of thanks to my former student research assistant Ervin Chan for his research assistance on the AWARE issue. The roles for faith-based groups, The Straits Times, May 16, 2009; The virtues of secularism, The Straits Times, May 20, 2009; Countries that have allowed religion in politics have created more issues, The Straits Times, May 21, 2009; What a secular organization means in Singapore, The Straits Times, May 22, 2009; Secularism practised in S'pore ‘does not exclude religion,’ The Straits Times, May 27, 2009; Facts outshine faith, The Straits Times, May 28, 2009; Disingenuous absence of a vital fact in NMP's speech, The Straits Times, May 29, 2009; Reflecting one's spiritual view not the same as imposing one's religious sensibilities on others, Straits Times Online, May 29, 2009; Militant secularism and takeover by stealth—what's the difference?, Straits Times Online, May 29, 2009; A different opinion of secular humanism, Straits Times Online, May 29, 2009; Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann's speech in Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 86 (05 26, 2009)Google Scholar.

32. The bishop of the Anglican church noted that there was a need for “appropriate rules of engagement and language of discourse” in a multi-religious society, and the pulpit was not to be used to organize and drive the process of change in a civil society group, even though individual Christians could contribute in any matter of social concern, and churches could be involved in public square discourses “within the rules of engagement in a multi-religious society” (Questionable takeover but crucial service, The Straits Times, May 15, 2009).

33. A vote of no confidence was secured against this committee at a subsequent extraordinary general meeting (New guard ousted, The Straits Times, May 3, 2009).

34. This agenda included AWARE's sexuality education program offered in schools, which the Ministry of Education suspended (Sexuality 101, The Straits Times, May 10, 2009). The episode will have to be the subject of another article.

35. Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 86 (05 18, 2009)Google Scholar. See also 3 recent events show importance of harmony, The Straits Times, May 19, 2009.

36. Religious groups must be mindful of differing views, says DPM, and Exercise restraint, mutual respect, tolerance, The Straits Times, May 15, 2009.

37. Exercise restraint, mutual respect, tolerance, The Straits Times, May 15, 2009.

38. Religious heads welcome Govt's position, The Straits Times, May 15, 2009.

39. Rawls, The Law of Peoples, supra note 11, at 131.

40. Id. at 143-44.

41. Id. at 132-33.

42. Id. 148.

43. Id. 132.

44. Id. at 136.

45. Id. at 136-37 and 169.

46. Id. at 143-44.

47. Rawls, John, Political Liberalism 152–53 (Comm. Univ. Press 1993, 1996)Google Scholar [hereinafter Rawls, Political Liberalism].

48. Finnis, , Seegers Lecture: Public Reason, Abortion, and Cloning, 32 Val. U. L. Rev. 361, 365 (1998)Google Scholar.

49. Id.

50. Id. at 363-64.

51. Id.. at 364.

52. Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice 136 (Belknap Press Harv. Univ. Press 1971)Google Scholar.

53. Id. at 12.

54. Audi, Robert, Religious Commitment and Secular Reason (Cambridge Univ. Press 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55. Greenawalt, Kent, Religious Convictions and Political Choice (Oxford Univ. Press 1988)Google Scholar.

56. Macedo, Stephen, In defense of liberal public reason: Are slavery and abortion hard cases?, 42 Am. J. Juris. 1, 11 (1997)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed [hereinafter Macedo, In defense]. He considers Rawls's political liberalism as characterized by excessive reticence.

57. Id. at 2, 6.

58. Id. at 13.

59. For a helpful reference, see Kee, Ho Peng, Abortion in Singapore: A Legal Perspective, 42 I.C.L.Q. 382(1993)Google Scholar.

60. Cap. 224, Sing. Stat., 1985 Rev. Ed., § 315. The relevant provisions in Singapore are as follows: Under § 312 of the Penal Code, subject to the TPA, any person (including the pregnant woman herself) who voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry is liable to be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to three years, or with fine, or with both. Imprisonment may extend to seven years if the woman is “quick with child.” Under § 313, if miscarriage is caused without the consent of the woman, the term may be for life or extend to 10 years. Under § 315, for an intentional act causing a child to die before or immediately after birth, in a case in which the child is capable of being born alive, the offender is liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine or both, unless such act is immediately necessary to save the life of the mother, and subject to the provisions of the TPA. The child is presumed to be capable of being born alive if the woman is in the 28th week of pregnancy. These may be compared with the provisions dealing with the death of the mother or an act amounting to culpable homicide if it had caused death. Under § 314, if the intended act of miscarriage causes the death of the woman, the imprisonment may extend to 10 years, or if the act is without the consent of the woman, the term may be for life or extend to 10 years. Under § 316, a person who knowing that it is likely to cause the death of a pregnant woman, does an act which, if it caused the death of the woman, would amount to culpable homicide, in a case when the quick unborn child dies but the woman does not die, is liable to imprisonment of up to ten years and fine. Notably, the latter section refers to the “death” of the quick unborn child.

61. Cap. 324, §10.

62. § 3(3), amended by the Employment of Foreign Workers (Amendment) Act 2007 (No. 30 of 2007, Sing.).

63. Implied from § 4(1).

64. §4(1)(b).

65. §4(1)(a).

66. §6.

67. §7.

68. § 11.

69. Termination of Pregnancy Regulations 1999 Rev. Ed. Sing., Rule 5.

70. Rule 5(2).

71. Rule 6.

72. No. 24 of 74.

73. No. 32 of 80.

74. In the Second Reading of the Bill, Mr. Chua Sian Chin said that this ground redressed legal ambiguities rather than substantially changed existing law: Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, cols. 861-62. Prior to the statute, the law specifically recognized as the only ground of abortion that was for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, but this had been interpreted to allow physicians to preserve the woman's physical and mental health. But physicians might have been concerned about the risk of criminal liability even when the woman's health was endangered and specific enunciation through the statute redressed this.

75. Cap. 324, § 5(2) read with § 6.

76. §5(3).

77. §5(5).

78. §8(2).

79. Explanatory Statement, Abortion Bill 1968, No. 40 of 68.

80. The delay occasioned by the need to go before the Board was a reason for the change in the law. See Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 33, col. 1109 (11 6, 1974)Google Scholar. The debates during the Second and Third Readings of the 1974 Bill will subsequently be referred to as the “Abortion Bill 1974 Debates.”

81. After the debates during the Second Reading, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill, which was considered in the Committee, reported without amendment, read a third time, and passed: Abortion Bill 1974 Debates, Id. at col. 1137.

82. Abortion Bill 1968, Third Reading, supra note 9, col. 293.

83. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, col. 866.

84. Id. at col. 867.

85. See, e.g., id. at cols. 893 & 978.

86. Id. at cols. 898-99. In any case, during the Second Reading of the Abortion Bill 1974, it was suggested that the objective of reduction in the number of illegal abortions was not reached: Abortion Bill 1974 Debates, supra note 80, col. 1106.

87. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, col. 877.

88. Id. at cols. 881-82.

89. Id. at col. 882.

90. Id. at cols. 882-83. This point was reiterated by the citation of some studies in the debates at the Second Reading of the Abortion Bill 1974: Abortion Bill 1974 Debates, supra note 80, col. 1105.

91. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, cols. 978-79.

92. Twenty-three weeks. See generally, “Abortion Time Limits,” British Medical Association (May 2008), http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/reproduction_genetics/Abortiontimelimit.jsp; and for a specific example: “Premature baby to stay for checks,” BBC News Feb. 20,2007, http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/americas/6377639.stm.

93. See, e.g., Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com (last visited Mar. 18, 2011); contrast “Abortion and breast cancer: There is no link,” Feminist Women's Health Center (Jan. 6,2009), http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/abcancer.htm.

94. See, e.g., Zaitchik, Alan, Viability and the morality of abortion, 10 (1) Phil. & Pub. Affairs 18 (1981)Google ScholarPubMed; Hope, Donald, The hand as emblem of human identity: A solution to the abortion controversy based on science and reason, 32 U. Tol. L. Rev. 205Google Scholar; Kreeft, Peter, The unaborted socrates 61–62 (IVP 1983)Google Scholar; cf. Sheehan, Katherine C., The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, 32 U. Tol. L. Rev. 229, 246–47Google Scholar. Indeed, other criteria offered as indicative of when life begins or becomes worthy of protection have also been contested. See, e.g., the idea of quickening: Lugosi, Charles I., When Abortion was a crime: A historical perspective, 83 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 51 (2006)Google Scholar; the zygote: Milby, T.H., The new biology and the question of personhood: Implications for abortion, 9 Am. J.L. & Med. 31, 40 (1983–1984)Google ScholarPubMed; cortical brain activity: Perry, Michael J., Toward a Theory of Humans Rights 58 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2006)Google Scholar.

95. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, cols. 890-91.

96. Id. at col. 874.

97. Id. at col. 895 (Mr. Ng Kah Ting).

98. Id. at col. 895.

99. Id. at col. 974.

100. Id. at cols. 897-98. See also the views of Mr. Sia Khoon Seong (at col. 973) and Mr. Ho See Beng (at col. 1027).

101. Id. at col. 1021 (Mr. Conceicao).

102. Id. at col. 1040.

103. Singer, Peter, Sanctity of life or quality of life?, 72(1)Google ScholarPediatrics 128 (1983)Google Scholar.

104. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, col. 1035.

105. Id. at cols. 980-81.

106. Id. col. 954.

107. Id. at col. 956.

108. Id. at col. 1043.

109. Id. at cols. 981-82.

110. See, e.g., Kudos to women, but low birth rate worries PM, AsiaOneNews, Aug. 5, 2009, http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20090805-151177.

111. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, cols. 878-79. Contrast the views of Inche Rahmat bin Kenap (cols. 972-73) and Mr. Sia Khoon Seong (col. 975).

112. Abortion Bill 1974 Debates, supra note 80, col. 1115 (Mr. Ivan Baptist).

113. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, col. 864. Woodbridge Hospital was a mental institution.

114. Indeed, a parliamentarian's citation of Biblical passages in another sitting was brushed aside by Mr. Chua, who said he did not consider these passages to be authorities. Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1 were cited by Dr. Augustine H.H. Tan in the second Reading of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill 1980. See Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 39, cols. 1553, 1554 respectively (11 28, 1980)Google Scholar.

115. See, e.g., Abortion Bill 1974 Debates, supra note 80, col. 1100 (Mr. Chua Sian Chin).

116. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, cols. 877-78.

117. Unlike debates in the West where much had since been said about the right of the woman to control her own body, autonomy of women did not feature as much, even though one parliamentarian referred to the new regulations as necessary for the “full emancipation of our women.” Id. at col. 984 (Mr. Yong Nyuk Lin). Mr. Chua in the Third Reading also referred to the main purpose of the Bill as being to “liberate our women from the tyranny of unwanted pregnancies” (and to ensure that each child was a wanted child): Abortion Bill 1968, Third Reading, supra note 9, col. 341.

While the right of women was spoken for outside of the situations of life and health (Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, col. 864), a female parliamentarian objected to male parliamentarians purporting to speak for women by suggesting that abortion did not involve suffering, noting that many women who went for abortions were the less well off who lacked nourishment necessary after such procedures (Abortion Bill 1968, Third Reading, supra note 9, cols. 335-36).

118. Rawls, The Law of Peoples, supra note 11, at 170.

119. Rawls, Political Liberalism, supra note 47, at 243-44, n. 32.

120. Rawls, The Law of Peoples, supra note 11, at 169, n. 80.

121. Id. at 170, n. 82.

122. Finnis, , Abortion, Natural Law and Public Reason, in Natural Law and Public Reason 75, 89 (George, Robert P. & Wolfe, Christopher eds., Georgetown Univ. Press 2000)Google Scholar. [hereinafter Finnis, Abortion and Public Reason].

123. George, Francis Cardinal, Law and Culture, 1 Ave Maria L. Rev. 1, 9–10 (2003)Google Scholar. See also Beckwith, Francis J., Thomson's “equal reasonableness” argument for abortion rights: A critique, 49 Am. J. Juris. 185 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

124. Finnis, Abortion, Natural Law and Public Reason, supra note 122, at 88.

125. Glenn, Gary D., Abortion and inalienable rights in classical liberalism, 20 Am. J. Juris. 62, 71 (1975)Google ScholarPubMed.

126. Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 159(1973).

127. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, col. 889.

128. As, for example, was the argument made by Thomson, Judith Jarvis, A Defense of Abortion, 1 Phil. & Pub. Affairs 47 (1971)Google Scholar.

129. Abortion Bill 1968, Third Reading, supra note 9, col. 340.

130. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, col. 876.

131. Id. at col. 1039.

132. Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 39, col. 1554 (11 28, 1980)Google Scholar.

133. Brown, Harold O.J., Death Before Birth (Thomas Nelson 1977)Google Scholar cited in Davis, John Jefferson, Evangelical Ethics: Issues facing the church today 134 (2d ed., P&R Publ'g 1985, 1993)Google Scholar

134. Swomley, John M., Abortion and public policy, 13 St. louis U. pub. L. rev. 409, 416–17 (1993–1994)Google ScholarPubMed. The employment of the slavery analogy has not been without criticism. It has been noted that most white Americans today would not conceive of themselves owning slaves, and likening abortion to slavery appeals to moral certainty on the slavery issue and transposes such certainty illegitimately to a controversial issue. See Threedy, Debora, Slavery rhetoric and the abortion debate, 2 Mich. J. Gender & L. 3 (1994)Google ScholarPubMed and Koppelman, Andrew, Forced labor: A Thirteenth Amendment defense of abortion, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 480, 487 (1989–1990)Google Scholar. As a comeback, it may be noted that those who invoke the slavery rhetoric may not be employing it metaphorically but may see the nature of the rights at stake as comparable in the cases of abortion and slavery.

135. 410 U.S. 113. In Roe it was held that the woman had the right to make choices as to her body without the interference of the state. See also Hanisberg, Julia E., Homologizing pregnancy and motherhood: A consideration of abortion, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 371 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDonagh, Eileen L, My body, my consent: Securing the constitutional right to abortion funding, 62 Alb. L. Rev. 1057 (1998–1999)Google Scholar. One writer analyzed abortion in terms of property law and considered the relationship between the fetus and the woman as one of license: Goldberg, Jeffrey D., Involuntary servitudes: A property-based notion of abortion-choice, 38 Ucla L. Rev. 1597–1657 (1990–1991)Google Scholar. Laws may restrict the woman's right in various ways: They may punish the abortion provider or less commonly, the woman. They may require a 24-hour waiting period (as in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health 462 U.S. 416), or parental consent for minors seeking abortions, or they may prohibit use of public funds and facilities for abortions. In the United States, anything that restricts the privacy right of the woman after Roe must be tested for consistency with it. See Schmidt, Catherine Grevers, Where privacy fails: Equal protection and the abortion rights of minors, 68 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 597 (1993)Google ScholarPubMed, n. 5, 598, for examples. Since Roe, the United States Supreme Court decided in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 that the privacy right protected by the due process clause was only infringed when abortion restrictions pre-viability placed an undue burden on the woman's constitutional right to decide to terminate a pregnancy. In that case, it was held that ‘informed consent’ requirements, a 24-hour waiting period, the provision for parental consent and reporting and record-keeping requirements of the Pennsylvania statute did not impose an undue burden, whereas the spousal notification provision did. Commentators have critiqued the waiting period as demeaning in suggesting that women make rash decisions and as affecting poor people who may have to take more than a day off work, or even more if clinics do not open every day. See Law, Sylvia A., Abortion compromise—inevitable and impossible, U. Ill. L. Rev. 921, 940–41 (1992)Google Scholar.

Judicial activism in finding of such a privacy right have been critiqued; see e.g., Gerard, Jules B., Roe v. Wade is constitutionally unprincipled and logically incoherent: A brief in support of judicial restraint, 15 Am. J. L. & Med. 222–26 (1989)Google Scholar.

136. Hope, Donald, The hand as emblem of human identity: A solution to the abortion controversy based on science and reason, 32 U. Tol. L. Rev. 205, 206–07 (2001)Google ScholarPubMed. While some feminists have cited the equal protection argument for abortion, others have pointed out that this suggests that women may only be equal when they are able to choose not to bear children, which perpetuates the view that mothers cannot be truly equal as motherhood interferes with professional success. See Mentane, Kristina M., When equal protection fails: How the equal protection justification for abortion undercuts the struggle for equality in the workplace, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 2657, 2681–82 (2001–2002)Google Scholar.

137. The sources were the International Code of Medical Ethics published by the World Medical Association, the International Conference on Abortion held in Harvard in 1967, and a professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Leeds University. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, cols. 896-97.

138. Id. at col. 955 (Mr. Tay Boon Too). Mr. Ho Kah Leong stated specifically (at col. 971) that he was a free thinker but took his view about the protection of fetal life based on his conscientious rationalization.

139. Id. at cols. 1037-38. See also Abortion Bill 1968, Third Reading, supra note 9, col. 285.

140. Abortion Bill 1968, Second Reading, supra note 1, col. 1049.

141. Abortion Bill 1968, Third Reading, supra note 9, cols. 325-26.

142. Mr. Ng said (Abortion Bill 1974 Debates, supra note 80, cols. 1125-26):

Sir, it would seem that whenever a question of ethics is raised, the Minister would be like an ostrich, burying his head in the sand and refusing even to look up to the argument. Sir, I am told that even the most obstinate or determined ostrich must come up for air. So we may still hope that the implications of this Bill will be examined rationally, impartially, and without emotion. After all, if we were to think that the Minister is a man without any concern for ethical principles, we would surely be doing him an injustice … Unless the Minister wishes to be a complete ostrich, therefore, I think he will have to consider whether or not there is anything unethical about abortion. It is not a religious dogma or presumption of ethics. I opposed the former Bill because it was concerned about human values and that the then Bill would not be good for our country.

143. Macedo, In defense, supra note 56, at 17-19.

144. Id. at 16-17.

145. Id at 27-28.

146. See, e.g., his critique of Sandel. Id. at 29.

147. Robert P. George & Christopher Wolfe, Natural law and public reason, in Natural Law and Public Reason, supra note 122, at 51, 61.

148. Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 39, col. 1551 (11 28, 1980)Google Scholar (Dr. Augustine H.H. Tan).

149. For example, in relation to teenage abortions (Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 45, col. 440 (03 8, 1985)Google Scholar; Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 72, col. 963 (11 13, 2000)Google Scholar; and Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 76, col. 41 (02 28, 2003))Google Scholar; abortions generally (Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 47, col. 1105 (03 24, 1986))Google Scholar; abortions performed by government and private doctors (Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 50, col. 1237 (03 23, 1988))Google Scholar; measures to discourage abortion (Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 54, col. 510 (08 31, 1989))Google Scholar; and teenage pregnancy (Sing., , Parliamentary Debates, vol. 45, col. 164 (06 1. 1998))Google Scholar.

150. Termination of Pregnancy Regulations, supra note 69.

151. Government has no plans to ban abortion, The Straits Times, Aug. 29, 2008.

152. Rise in number of abortions, supra note 5.

153. See, e.g., Abortion Bill 1974 Debates, supra note 80, col. 1116. Indeed, in the debates it was noted that many have bought into family planning: Abortion Bill 1974 Debates, cols. 1131-32.