In his letter, "Arguments that should be aborted" (April 3), Mr Devathas Satianathan states that it is unclear how Associate Professor Tan Seow Hon's religious view is relevant. From Edwin Dai Weiyun - 03 April In his letter, "Arguments that should be aborted" (April 3), Mr Devathas Satianathan states that it is unclear how Associate Professor Tan Seow Hon's religious view is relevant. However, I would ask if her premise is that life begins at six weeks from conception, or possibly earlier, an interpretation that would be informed by her religious views. To say that her view on this has no bearing on her commentary is intellectual dishonesty. She also cited recent legislative developments in North Dakota, a Bible Belt state. Mr Jason Cheng responded, in "Let pregnant women make their own moral choices" (April 2), that six weeks is insufficient time for women to detect their pregnancy, which basically results in a de facto ban on abortion. Mr Devathas argues that, in the balance between preserving a baby's life and a mother's choice, Mr Cheng fails to acknowledge the former. Ironically, Mr Devathas fails to acknowledge the latter. Where he discusses a valid point is in the question: When does life begin? Answers to such a question, though, are varied across society and influenced by the religious views, or a lack thereof, of the individual. It is unwise and unconstitutional for the State to legislate or endorse the moral views of any religious group over other members of society. People who hold strong pro-life views are free to bring their babies to full term. The same liberty should be accorded to people who hold pro-choice views."