Response to a news article

SCORING OWN GOALS - PERILS OF PASSION

AS SINGAPORE attempts to become a global city like London and New York, there will bbe more diversity, more debates and moral issues that generate plenty of emotion.

But if the recent debate on Section 377A is anything to go by, Singaporeans have a lot to learn about how to persuade others of the rightness of their cause.

...

In fact, the moralists' silence on heterosexual anal sex is disconcerting, given that many of them consider it perverse or unnatural.

...

As a supporter of a woman's right to abort and the Government's stance on abortion, I find the silence of moralists on this issue deafening.

...

-- TODAY, Thursday, November 15 2007, p. 10 [Online source]

I would like to respond to certain allegations made here by Mr. Adrian Tan in this newspaper column of his.

First of all, I disavow the title of moralists. No one is forcing anyone to be moral; what we want is for the State not to approve of immorality. No one here is talking about going on a witch hunt for homosexuals and imprison them (or in places like Iran, to stone them). As such, Mr. Tan should stop using such careless labels. Of course, if you want to paint everything in black and white, then why can't we use the label 'Immoralists' for people who are not 'moralists'? I would rather call myself a Defender against the Legislative Approval of Immorality.

Mr. Tan does have some valid points to make though. It is true that there seems to be some selectivitiy in the application of morals. I will hereby respond to these issues he has raised up in this post here and rectify the holes he has spotted.

Regarding heterosexual anal sex, let it be put on record that I am against it. That said, the reason why at least for me I am not decrying its decriminalization is because there are no other issues involved, whereas the decriminalization of homosexuals sex acts would necessitate the implicit approval of homosexuality. I would prefer the law on heterosexual anal sex to be left unchanged, espeically since now we have seen that the repeal of this section has provided the homosexual activists ammunition against our position.

Regarding abortion, let it be put on the record that I am against abortion. Abrtion is murder, and Singapore will have to answer someday for the thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands of lives she has killed in the womb. The action of the Singapore government in this record is abomitable and is extremely detestable. Abortion right activists typically are so selfish that they only talk about the women's right to abort, not of the infants' right to live. So does human rights apply only to those with the ability to make a conscious decision? One wonders why they don't push for legislature that allows all people to euthanize their mentally retarded dependents, as these people are not able to make a conscious decision either way like babies in their mothers' wombs.

So yes, we oppose abortion. As for me, I will remain consistent in my opposition to homosexuality AND abortion AND heterosexual anal sex, though the oppositions are in varying degrees depending on the seriousness of the offences. That others may be inconsistent is inconsequential to me. In fact, since Mr. Tan has issued a challenge, I propose that we should tackle the issue of Abortion again. Let us tell the Singapore government that it has no right to murder babies just because the mother or society wants him/her dead.