We refer to the discussion around the Termination of Pregnancy Act, triggered by Associate Professor Tan Seow Hon’s commentary, “Time again to review abortion laws” (April 1).

We wish to highlight scientific literature and evidence for this discussion, while considering the dignity and circumstances of the women and girls involved.

Obstetrics and gynaecology specialists at the National University Hospital studied the profile of women presenting for abortions in Singapore.

The studies were published in the scientific journals Contraception (2002) and European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (2012).

Firstly, not everyone who turns to abortion does so out of a sense of complacency or a “cavalier attitude towards the worth of the unborn”.

The 2002 paper identified a demographic of women who are less likely to use contraceptives due to religious reasons, and more likely to turn to abortion as a last-resort measure of fertility regulation.

Compared to others, a higher proportion of these women sought an abortion due to financial reasons.

Secondly, while A/P Tan is correct that contraceptives are sold widely and contraception information is “readily available” online, we are less sanguine about the Internet being a boon to accurate contraception education; not everything online is true.

Comprehensive education regarding reproductive health would play a more substantive role in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

According to the 2012 paper, a “lack of proper sexual education and awareness of contraceptive measures may have a major contributory factor to such an increasing trend in teenage pregnancy terminations”.

“In Singapore, all schools are to provide sexuality education regardless of race or religion. Despite that, there has been an increasing trend in teenage abortions.

“This is likely because each programme only gives the students minimal exposure of 4–8 hours per year each, and an opt-out programme is available to parents as well.

“Various improvements could be made, such as increasing the duration of these programmes, and educating students not only on abstinence (but also) accessibility to contraception.”

Regarding the suggestion that limiting abortion would increase adoption, the Ministry of Social and Family Development statistics indicate that the annual adoption rate has been steady at about 400 children since 2008, that is, no great demand.

The Government subsidises in-vitro fertilisation treatments, making it more attractive to try for children than to adopt “someone else’s baby”.

It is illogical to encourage women to carry unwanted pregnancies to full term without assurance that a suitable family will adopt the baby.

Are these unwanted babies to be “deposited”, like in the old days, or will they become wards of the state if no family adopts them?

As Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said last year, having a “baby drop” system may inadvertently encourage unwanted pregnancies and births. We echo this concern for the welfare of children born of unwanted pregnancies.

The issue of unwanted pregnancies is complex, with many underlying causes. Seeking to restrict abortion without due consideration of these causes is hurtful to the persons and families involved.