Open Letter to Alex Au, Political commentator and Gay Activist

Alex Au is a political commentator and gay activist based in Singapore. He writes thougtful essays at his webpage www.yawningbread.org . While thoughtful, it is by no means airtight. I came across his article "Singapore religious rightwing trains its sights on abortion" and i must say that i found his use of reason problematic on several fronts. I decide to write him the following letter appended below

_________________________


Dear Alex

I chanced upon your article entitled “ Singapore ’s religious rightwing trains its sights on abortion” and I must say that I do think your reasoning is problematic at several instances. May I respectfully highlight the following for your consideration.

(btw, Prof Tan is quoting my article in the Straits Times which started the debate, you can read if from my blog)

1. Characterizing those who disagree with you as attempting to impose their will on everybody else.

Your opening paragraphs characterized the so-called Christian rightwing as “american inspired" and "campaigning to impose their will on everybody else.” That seems to me pretty disingenuous. If I say that Alex Au belongs to the American inspired gay rights movement who is attempting to impose their agenda on everybody else in Singapore , you would surely take offense and rightly so.

Prof Tan (whom you consider as a rightwing representative) is simply in the business of influencing public opinion by writing an article. Come to think of it, so are you, hence your enormous output in an attempt to convince people of the rightness of your cause. You too are attempting to influence Singaporeans with your version of what’s best for Singapore so I would appreciate if you refrain from using this trope about imposing beliefs against so called right wing Christians.

2. Mischaracterization of Prof Tan’s position on abortion previously considered as a criminal activity

I think you may have misunderstood Prof Tan’s characterization of abortion as a criminal activity. She is not “unwilling to make a distinction between morality and law”. It seems to me that she is simply referring to the fact that prior to 1969, abortion is considered illegal and hence it was a criminal offense to perform one. As such, it would be a responsible thing to ensure that good moral reasons be provided to justify the overturning of such a law. Expedience should not be a consideration, especially when an issue involves what I would term fundamental human liberties.

For example, take a country known for its widespread practice of slavery although slavery remains illegal in its criminal code. What should the correct response be? To decriminalize slavery in the name of helping slaves get a better deal or to step up vigorous efforts to enforce the law? The answer seems obvious here.

Likewise, it would be necessary to first clarify whether the evil of abortion is on the same level as slavery, involving a fundamental human liberty or is it simply akin to cigarette smoking or gambling. The law can and should tolerate so called evils of the second order (i.e. cigarette smoking or gambling) but it should not tolerate evils of the first order (i.e. slavery, genocide, murder etc).

3. Clarification needed on your stated “moral queasiness” and “distasteful” attitude towards aborting a foetus but insisting that ultimately, it is the woman’s choice.

You mentioned that you find abortion distasteful and being morally queasy about this. Yet you did not state anywhere in your article what exactly are your qualms.

If abortion is akin to nothing more than an operation removing a cancerous tumor or a growth, then there is nothing distasteful about it.

If instead, a foetus is an individual, unique human being, then abortion entails killing an innocent human being. Arguing that it is acceptable in certain circumstances to kill an innocent human being is of course distasteful and morally queasy. Are you arguing for such a position without actually stating it explicitly?

4. Abortion and the nation’s birthrate

While it is true that it would seem simplistic to assume that simply banning abortions would solve the birth problem. Yet the point I think Prof Tan and myself are trying to make if you read my article is that it is ironic that while this country worries so much about our birthrates, we are taking away innocent human life (which we believe abortion to be) so easily and one might even say flippantly. Surely it is not unwise to encourage women faced with an unplanned pregnancy to see this as a potential unexpected blessing.

I am happy to continue this dialogue if you so choose.

Best regards
Nick Chui