Lynn Lee says when it comes to abortion, Singapore is quite unique.

BEST known for its conservative stance on a host of civil liberties, it might surprise some that the Republic stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the world's most liberal nations for its pro-choice stance on abortion.

It's pretty ironic. But the numbers speak for themselves.

Singapore is among 54 countries – including France and the US - where an abortion can be performed regardless of reason, according to the US-based non-profit group, Centre for Reproductive Rights.

And this is out of 200 countries listed on the centre's 2007 World Abortion Laws map.

However, there is a caveat for pregnancies terminated here. They must be done within 24 weeks, or within the first six months.

It's not the case for our neighbours. In the Phillipines, abortion is a total no-go. Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong and Thailand ban it in varying degrees. For instance, Indonesia allows it to be carried out only to save the mother's life; while an abortion can be performed in Malaysia as long as a woman's mental health is at stake.

Despite recent calls to review Singapore's pro-choice law, the Government unreservedly said on Wednesday that the law would remain as status quo.

Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan said in Parliament that the decision has previously been debated at length and is one that respects "the different views that some community and religious groups" have. He also pointed out that abortion is a fractious issue.

He is spot on. 

MP Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC) who tabled three questions on the topic, was interested, among other things, to know if the Government would lower the 24-week limit for abortions since Singapore now needs more babies. Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, with one question, wanted the Minister to "affirm the fundamental right of women to choose" whether or not to have an abortion.

I am inclined to agree with another point Mr Khaw made – that it would not be wise to reopen the abortion debate. The issue will always be argued from a variety of moral, religious and medical grounds, with no possibility of a consensus.

So, instead of just focusing on the law, why not focus on ways to promote alternatives to abortion?

Pro-life groups could lead the way by spearheading sensible schemes to provide options for pregnant women who do not want to keep their baby.

One conceivable possibility: A service to match pregnant women considering abortion with people who are looking to adopt.

Here's another: Offer teens with unwanted pregnancies a place to turn to for advice and shelter, similar to what community agency Beyond Social Services has done through its Babes programme.

These groups might want to get some inspiration from Juno - a recent independent film about a pregnant teen who chooses to keep her baby. The turning point for her comes when she meets a classmate outside an abortion clinic, who tells her that her baby "has fingernails". What power there is in that lone image.

It's time then for pro-lifers to put the legal issues aside and refocus on unlocking the pregnant power of their lobby.