XN000022-1981-02-11 — Page 6

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1981

5

+TO SAY THAT A FOETUS OF LESS THAN 24 WEEKS IS LIFE WHICH IS EXPENDABLE IS TO ME PURE LEGAL FICTION.

+GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PUT FORWARD COGENT REASONS WHY THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW THE DESTRUCTION OF DEVELOPING HUMAN LIFE IN THE MANNER PROPOSED.

SAID.

+OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE TREADING ON VERY TENUOUS GROUNDS, MR #ONG

HE POINTED OUT THAT ACCORDING TO MEDICAL OPINION, THE EXISTING LAW, BASED AS IT WAS ON MEDICAL GROUNDS, ALREADY SUBSTANTIALLY COVERED MOST OF THE NEW PROPOSALS.

*WHY THEN DO WE NEED TO INTRODUCE THESE CONTROVERSIAL AMENDMENTS?+ HE ASKED.

THE HON WONG LAM WARNED THAT THE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW ABORTION ON DEMAND FOR WOMEN UNDER 17 WITHOUT REQUIRING THEM TO GIVE ANY REASONS WAS TOO INDULGENT AND WOULD BRING ABOUT MORE DISADVANTAGES THAN ADVANTAGES.

IT NOT ONLY INDIRECTLY ENCOURAGES GIRLS UNDER 17 TO BE MORE CASUAL IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX, BUT ALSO DISRUPTS THE CONCEPT OF ETHICS WHICH IS OF IMPORTANT CONCERN TO THE CHINESE.

+ IT WOULD ALSO HAVE A BAD INFLUENCE ON SOCIAL MORALITY, + HE SAID.

MR WONG BELIEVED THAT THE MAIN REASON FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT UP SUCH A PROPOSAL WAS PROBABLY THE BELIEF THAT WOMEN UNDER 17 WERE NOT CAPABLE OF FULFILLING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A MOTHER.

+1 TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THIS VIEW, + MR WONG STRESSED.

+JUDGING FROM CASES OF CHILD ABUSE AND PARENTAL NEGLIGENCE IN HONG KONG, THOSE WHO HAVE FAILED TO FULFIL MATERNAL RESPONSIBILITIES ARE NOT NECESSARILY WOMEN UNDER 17, MANY OF WHOM, I BELIEVE, HAVE SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE FULLY CAPABLE OF SUCH DUTIES.

+BESIDES, EVEN IF YOUNG MOTHERS ARE UNABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THE IR CHILDREN, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO HELP THEM IN A POSITIVE WAY. E.G. EY ENCOURAGING THEIR RELATIVES, SAY THEIR GRANDPARENTS, TO HELP RAISE THEIR CHILDREN, AND NOT GO ABOUT THE ISSUE NEGATIVELY BY WAY OF THE SHORTCUT OF ABORTION. +

HE THOUGHT THIS PROPOSAL WAS CONTRADICTORY TO THE BASIC HUMANITARIAN SPIRIT OF THE BILL.

THE HON ANDREW SO SAID THAT HE OPPOSED CLAUSE 4 OF THE BILL ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT CONNIVES AT AND ENCOURAGES OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BY ALLOWING AN INNOCENT, HELPLESS CHILD TO BE HARMED AND DESTROYED BEFORE IT HAS AN EXISTENCE INDEPENDENT OF ITS MOTHER.+

+TO DESTROY AN UNECAN CHILD IS TO DESTROY LIFE, FOR EVEN SCIENTISTS CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS ANY PERIOD BETWEEN CONCEPTION AND CHILD BIRTH WHEN THERE IS NO HUMAN LIFE,+ HE SAID.