A friend of mine from the World Youth Alliance Asia Pacific who presented WYAAP's stand on the RH Bill in Congress last Wednesday informed me that the Chairman of the Committee hearings on the RH Bill said that he would like to have a session on when the start of life begins.
Apparently, it was Cong. Golez from Bacolod who gave the question as well as Cong. Biazon from Muntinlupa. They were saying that they understand that conception means fertilization but it seems that other people in the hearing were saying that conception means implantation.
In last Wednesday's hearing, the question was brought up and there were definitely people in the panel who were saying that life begins at implantation. When the time of the hearing comes, set on Dec 15, they most probably be bringing in their doctors who will justify their claim.
So, really, when does human life begin? What does science say and prove?
I refer you to the paper entitled: "When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective" published by Maureen Condic, PhD, an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is director of the University of Utah School of Medicine course in Human Embryology. She has published and presented seminars in the U.S. on issues concerning science policy and the ethics of biological research.
In summary, she has written: "Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos."
According to Dr. Condic: "This way of thinking about human development as a process rather than as an event is compelling to many because it is similar to our thinking about the much more familiar process of manufacturing. A car is not a car until it rolls off the assembly line—until then it is a bunch of parts in the process of becoming a car, but not there yet. Similarly, a cake is not a cake until it comes out of the oven—until then it is a variously gooey mass of flour, sugar, eggs, and butter that is gradually becoming a cake. However, a profound difference exists between manufacturing and embryonic development."
"The difference is who (or what) is doing the “producing.” The embryo is not something that is being passively built by the process of development, with some unspecified, external “builder” controlling the assembly of embryonic components. Rather, the embryo is manufacturing itself. The organized pattern of development doesn’t produce the embryo; it is produced by the embryo as a consequence of the zygote’s internal, self-organizing power. Indeed, this “totipotency,” or the power of the zygote both to generate all the cells of the body and simultaneously to organize those cells into coherent, interacting bodily structures, is the defining feature of the embryo."
The above explanation may be too "techy and complicated" for comfort, but for anyone willing to understand something of value and of important consequences, one begins to see that what she is saying is true and definitely logical and tenable.
Definitely then, life couldn't have begun at implantation. That process won't happen until 5-10 days or so after conception/fertilization. It's not even logical to think so.
As what Dr. Condic said: "Why has it been so difficult to define when a human life begins? Why has the view that life begins at syngamy (or at even later developmental stages) been so compelling for so many scientists and physicians? Those who advocate syngamy as the beginning of life appear to find it intuitively obvious that syngamy completes the unique events of the first cell cycle and produces “full union” of the gametes; until syngamy occurs, the “process” of fertilization is still underway. Those who advocate an even later point for the onset of life do so on the basis of a similar argument: the embryo has not yet fully formed until specific structures or processes are in place; until these “defining” events occur, the process of fertilization (or of embryo formation) is still underway. Clearly, if fertilization is seen as a process rather than as an event, then prior to the completion of this process the zygote is not yet fully present. Based on this view, the cell that results from the fusion of sperm and egg is not a new individual but, as expressed recently by a colleague, merely “a unique human cell in the process of becoming a new human, but not there yet.”
In other words, it's simply refusing to believe what is obvious, willfully or not. And good scientists go by available evidence, at least usually, normally.
So, when does human life begin? At fertilization, at conception! Anyone who says otherwise, let him be... (fill in the blank, I leave it to the reader)
Apparently, it was Cong. Golez from Bacolod who gave the question as well as Cong. Biazon from Muntinlupa. They were saying that they understand that conception means fertilization but it seems that other people in the hearing were saying that conception means implantation.
In last Wednesday's hearing, the question was brought up and there were definitely people in the panel who were saying that life begins at implantation. When the time of the hearing comes, set on Dec 15, they most probably be bringing in their doctors who will justify their claim.
So, really, when does human life begin? What does science say and prove?
I refer you to the paper entitled: "When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective" published by Maureen Condic, PhD, an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is director of the University of Utah School of Medicine course in Human Embryology. She has published and presented seminars in the U.S. on issues concerning science policy and the ethics of biological research.
In summary, she has written: "Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos."
According to Dr. Condic: "This way of thinking about human development as a process rather than as an event is compelling to many because it is similar to our thinking about the much more familiar process of manufacturing. A car is not a car until it rolls off the assembly line—until then it is a bunch of parts in the process of becoming a car, but not there yet. Similarly, a cake is not a cake until it comes out of the oven—until then it is a variously gooey mass of flour, sugar, eggs, and butter that is gradually becoming a cake. However, a profound difference exists between manufacturing and embryonic development."
"The difference is who (or what) is doing the “producing.” The embryo is not something that is being passively built by the process of development, with some unspecified, external “builder” controlling the assembly of embryonic components. Rather, the embryo is manufacturing itself. The organized pattern of development doesn’t produce the embryo; it is produced by the embryo as a consequence of the zygote’s internal, self-organizing power. Indeed, this “totipotency,” or the power of the zygote both to generate all the cells of the body and simultaneously to organize those cells into coherent, interacting bodily structures, is the defining feature of the embryo."
The above explanation may be too "techy and complicated" for comfort, but for anyone willing to understand something of value and of important consequences, one begins to see that what she is saying is true and definitely logical and tenable.
Definitely then, life couldn't have begun at implantation. That process won't happen until 5-10 days or so after conception/fertilization. It's not even logical to think so.
As what Dr. Condic said: "Why has it been so difficult to define when a human life begins? Why has the view that life begins at syngamy (or at even later developmental stages) been so compelling for so many scientists and physicians? Those who advocate syngamy as the beginning of life appear to find it intuitively obvious that syngamy completes the unique events of the first cell cycle and produces “full union” of the gametes; until syngamy occurs, the “process” of fertilization is still underway. Those who advocate an even later point for the onset of life do so on the basis of a similar argument: the embryo has not yet fully formed until specific structures or processes are in place; until these “defining” events occur, the process of fertilization (or of embryo formation) is still underway. Clearly, if fertilization is seen as a process rather than as an event, then prior to the completion of this process the zygote is not yet fully present. Based on this view, the cell that results from the fusion of sperm and egg is not a new individual but, as expressed recently by a colleague, merely “a unique human cell in the process of becoming a new human, but not there yet.”
In other words, it's simply refusing to believe what is obvious, willfully or not. And good scientists go by available evidence, at least usually, normally.
So, when does human life begin? At fertilization, at conception! Anyone who says otherwise, let him be... (fill in the blank, I leave it to the reader)
No comments:
Post a Comment