Civil and women groups' response to the government's proposal to legalise abortion in rape and incest cases had better be slow and well thought out because of the vexatious and philosophical nature of the issues raised by it. Your report Slow reaction to proposed changes to abortion law refers.

Just because a foetus is not developed and out of the womb does not mean that there it has no life. Growth and development begin immediately after conception. It is already life. And all life aspires to survive and continue.

Can we abort that life?

Does the mother's emotional trauma and negative stigma and the embarrassment of a pregnancy arising from rape and incest outweigh the life of an innocent child?

The mother's questions, "Under such circumstances, can I not let this child live?" and "Do I choose to bring this child into the world when I cannot give it love and care due to the circumstances of its conception", are morally wrong.

To the first question, the sins of the biological father should not be inflicted on the innocent child. To the second, there is also no certainty that the mother's animosity towards the child will not change after birth.

Instead the correct question should always be  or to spare the child being born with grave deformities (like three heads or no hands and legs) which is a form of mercy killing.

To spare the mother, a rape and incest survivor, the stigma and trauma of carrying to term such a child — this is neither humane (unless one concludes a foetus is not life or entitled to life), nor is it rational because trauma is a result of the inability to distinguish the biological father's heinous acts from the innocence of the offspring.

And the part about stigma, that's more the immediate society's fault and problem of stigmatising mother and child when they should be sympathised, supported and assisted.

I agree with your reader Jian that if the government claims to be humane, and want to spare women victims from being forced to love and care an innocent child against her natural inclinations, it should marshal its resources and set up an agency to play "father" for these unwanted children, and not kill them.

Our government, which touts itself to be humane and religious, has no moral and rational justification to legalise abortions for rape and incest cases just because it refuses to spend money to ameliorate the situation of the victim-mothers to save innocent children.