When does human life begin? An advisory from the CBCP

Pinoy Templars' open letter to Sen. Pia Cayetano on the Plagiarism Controversy and the RH Bill

The following open letter was published by the mysterious "Pinoy Templars" a few hours ago on their blog. I am re-posting the letter here, for a record of events. I have shied away from posting on the RH-related plagiarism controversy surrounding Senators Sotto and Cayetano, due to the lack of time more than anything else. This is a lacuna that I intend to remedy as soon as possible with 'retrospectives' on the matter. - CAP. 

Dear Pia: Stop lying, stop denying

Dear Madame Senator:

We read with amazement the transcript of your press briefing in reaction to the plagiarism case you are now facing before the Senate ethics committee. There’s no way to describe your defense, but—to borrow your own word — a rehash.

Let’s cut to the chase. Stop lying to the public, Ma’am. Last August, after we exposed your plagiarism, you did a poor job of covering up the evidence. You see, last August 19, we found out that a crucial paragraph of your World Environment Day speech was unceremoniously lifted from the website of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), without any attribution.

The following day, you scrubbed your website, and voila! Footnotes magically appeared on the online text of your speech. We noticed, too, that you rewrote the second paragraph defining “Green Economy,” to make it appear that it was attributed to UNEP. Ma’am, that is not a technical glitch. That is deception.

You know why we know you reworded your speech after the fact? Because we checked the Journal of the Senate. This was the original text, which you lifted verbatim from UNEP:

“Practically speaking, a Green Economy is one whose growth in income and employment is driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.”

In your scrubbed website, you sandwiched the paragraph above between two new sentences:

UNEP defines a Green Economy as ‘one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing risks and ecological scarcities.’ Practically speaking, a Green Economy is one whose growth in income and employment is driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. [1] The theme ultimately challenges people to understand and support actions that stimulate a more environment-friendly economy. [2]

You take issue with the fact that your speech on “The Status of the Philippines in Achieving the Millennium Development Goals” was never delivered on the floor. But that does not change the fact that you plagiarized a PowerPoint presentation of a Department of Health official via a webpage with your name on it.

In August, you said: “If at any time, I fail to attribute, I immediately make the necessary corrections and amends.” Well, it took you two months to correct the World Environment Day speech and three years to correct the Millennium Development Goals speech—after we exposed your cut-copy-paste habit. In our dictionary, “immediate” means “occurring or done at once; instant.” Two months or three years is not immediate, Ma’am.

By the way, you might have overlooked your speech titled “Raising Awareness on Breast Cancer” delivered on October 2, 2010. You sure sounded like an expert in medicine and medical equipment when you talked about mammography and biopsy, without citing sources. Ma’am, you lifted sentences word-for-word from medical websites. Is that a technical glitch, too?

We understand your situation, and we know you don’t want to apologize because that will put you in the same boat as your colleague, Sen. Tito Sotto, the subject of vicious character assassination by your lobbyist-friends. You are also running for reelection, and for someone who graduated with “academic distinction, #7 in her class,” and was a member of the Honor Society, Order of the Purple Feather, to admit to plagiarism is such a shame.

Are your lobbyist-friends gonna file an ethics complaint against you like they did to Senator Sotto? A million-dollar question. But we trust your brother and fellow pillar of the emerging Cayetano political dynasty—ethics committee chairman Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano—to ensure that no one, not even his sister, is above the law.

Because if you escape this, you’d be setting a bad example to our youth, who will remember you next time they pass a plagiarized term paper in school: “Sorry, professor, it was a technical glitch.”

You know what, Ma’am? You can still do the public a great service. This time, please stop denying.

Stop denying the foreign abortion agenda behind RH. The RH bill is being pushed by people funded by the largest abortion provider in the world, International Planned Parenthood Federation and other pro-abortion groups. The legal framework for state-funded contraception is the same as that for legalized abortion. Lawyers like you should know that.

Stop denying that hormonal contraception increases the risk of cancer. No less than the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the WHO has classified birth control pills as Class 1 carcinogens, the same as asbestos and formaldehyde. This is scientific research, not opinion.

Finally, stop denying that life begins at fertilization, a clear constitutional precept. Conception is fertilization, as defined by books on law, biology, and pharmacology. This is important because pill manufacturers themselves have disclosed that hormonal contraceptives do not stop at preventing ovulation; they can also prevent implantation, which is an early abortion.

This is the truth. So, please, Senator Pia, stop lying. Stop denying.

Pinoy Templars

Posted by Elisa Sangalang

Why three Boholano congressmen are against the RH bill

(Originally published on this blog on June 21, 2012 at 3:30 AM. Some newer posts below):

From the Bohol Chronicle article Church mounts rally vs. RH Bill with solons' support (the emphases are mine):

Aumentado and 3rd district congressman Arthur Yap were present during the rally. 

In his speech, Aumentado argued that the highly controversial RH Bill is clearly unconstitutional. He added that the experts of the constitution assured that life begins at fertilization, not implantation as the RH Bill proponents would say.

     

"The law guarantees protection of all persons, including the unborn", Aumentado stressed out. 

For his part, Yap warned that if made into law, the RH BILL will take money away from his medical and scholarship programs. 

The anti-RH Bill rally in Blessed Trinity Cathedral was the first venue where Yap made a public pronouncement against the RH Bill. 

Among specific provisions in the RH Bill Yap is critical of is the appropriation on the supplies which is to be taken from the congressmen's Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) once it is enacted into law. 

Yap cited the provision mandating that the congressman's PDAF will be the source of fund for the contraceptives which will then be classified as essential medicine, the free access and distribution of family planning supplies and commodities, as well as the fact that the Mobile Health Care Service van that will distribute these contraceptives and other family planning literature and supplies. 

"That will be disastrous, since half of the population in third district are in class E," according to Yap. 

Presently, thousands are receiving medical assistance, scholarships, farm-to-market roads, livelihood funds, accident and life insurance cards under the Congressman's HEART program. 

If the RH Bill is passed into law, these benefits will be drastically reduced since funds will now be used to fund family planning programs. 

Yap also cited the Filipino nation's common ideals regarding life, protection for the family, mothers and the unborn, as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. 

Yap reminded the people that these beliefs are shared by all Filipinos and that these beliefs clearly show Filipinos are preferentially pro-life. 

First district congressman Rene Relampagos was not present during the rally. However, in a text message he sent to Uy, Relampagos said that he is with the Church's stand in opposing the RH Bill. In fact, Uy, with the consent of Relampagos, told the crowd that the first district solon is against the RH Bill. It maybe noted that Rep. Relampagos, who is a former seminarian, was the first Bohol solon to openly object the RH Bill.

When life begins

Is there a sinister motive behind the RH bill?

Dubious means
By Jose C. Sison

Questionable indeed are the styles used in pushing for the passage of the RH bill. Right now, the glaring ones are the apparent lack of transparency or attempts to conceal or misrepresent its real nature and purpose, and the use of incorrect and outdated statistics.

It is really quite ominous that up to now, there is still a lack of transparency about the bill’s real purpose. Its authors and backers still would not admit categorically that it is designed to impose on our country the population control policy of developed countries, particularly the USA as bared in the declassified National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200, or the 1974 Kissinger Report which is currently implemented by a foreign assistance program dubbed as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). This is the same policy backed up and funded by private foundations of American billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner and Packard as well as private NGOs particularly the International Planned Parenthood Federation of known abortionist Margaret Sanger, through which the USAID and other UN agencies funnel most of their funds.

Actually the RH bill itself uses the terminology “population management” instead of “population control” to dissimulate or feign its abovementioned purpose. Its authors also realize that population control is no longer necessary as the population growth rate has been steadily declining since the ’70s. But unfortunately in a rare moment of truth, one of its sponsors, Congresswoman Kimi Cojuangco of Pangasinan, nevertheless categorically admitted during an interpellation by Congresswoman Mitos Magsaysay, that the bill is indeed a means of population control, much to the chagrin of her co-authors. While she subsequently tried to play on words and claimed that the bill is not for population control but a “population measure”, its real purpose is now out in the open.

Another aspect of the RH bill where there is utter lack of transparency and obvious duplicity is its link to abortion. While the bill itself categorically provides that abortion is illegal, it is making available all sorts of contraceptives which cannot be totally dissociated with abortion. In fact some of the birth control pills have already been shown to directly cause abortion as they prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs or live embryo into the uterus.

Yet in an apparent attempt to justify the use of contraceptives, Senators Cayetano and Santiago, the sponsors of the RH bill in the Senate, have again revived the issue of when life begins. They are once more advancing the theory that life begins at the implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterus and not from the moment of conception or the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. They claim that this notion of life beginning at the moment of conception is one of religious belief only especially by the Catholic Church which is opposing the use of contraceptives.

Sad to say again that in this controversy, the RH bill proponents always end up dragging the Church and accusing it of trying to impose its rights and beliefs in a pluralistic society like ours. This issue however has nothing to do at all with religion. It is purely legal and has long been settled when the framers of the Constitution themselves accepted the scientific findings that life begins at conception, thus incorporating in our Charter a provision mandating the State to protect the life of the unborn child from the moment of conception (Article II Section 12). It is really unfortunate that Senators Cayetano and Santiago conveniently ignored or (deliberately?) veered away from this constitutional provision in their sponsorship of the RH bill promoting contraception.

For the nth time it has to be pointed out that no less than the US Supreme Court has acknowledged the link between contraception and abortion, not only because certain birth control pills and devices directly cause abortion, but also because the use of any kind of contraceptives invariably leads to or ends up in abortion. In fact, the Obama administration has openly admitted through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a US Congressional hearing that the terms “reproductive health, reproductive services and reproductive health rights” which are used in the RH bill, “include abortion or access to abortion”.

Most unfortunate however is the recent move of Malacanang changing the title of the bill to “Responsible Parenthood” Act, apparently to remove the taint of abortion associated with the term “Reproductive Health” and thus make it still look good. The title however is not as important as the contents. If the contents nevertheless provides for the use of contraceptives, then it is still about abortion. “Responsible parenthood” in its real sense does not involve the use of contraceptives.

Likewise dubious is the use of wrong and old statistics in pushing for bill’s passage. Its sponsors and backers repeatedly cite its importance in reducing the maternal mortality rate. They cite statistics showing that an average of 11 mothers die each day while giving birth. These figures however came out last 2004 yet. The latest ones show that only around four to eight women die daily while giving birth. In fact, the WHO statistics even show an average of only 4.6 maternal deaths each day. Moreover, the maternal mortality rate can be reduced by simply improving maternal and child health care which is the function of the DOH. There is no need for an RH bill to achieve this.

These dubious means of pushing for the RH bill’s passage somehow gives validity to the observation that there is some sinister motive behind it. Junking it therefore is the better move on the part of our legislators.

A doctor speaks out on the moment of conception and the definition of "abortifacient"

This is the document that is cited in the Filipinos for Life press release that, in turn, forms the basis of the following article on CBCP for Life: Debate over conception settled decades ago, lawmakers told.

****

The following questions are frequently asked in connection with the debates over the Reproductive Health bill:

1. What's the scientific basis of conception occurring at fertilization?

2. What contraceptives can therefore be considered abortive under that definition?

The following is my response. 

The key feature of a human pattern is its organization towards the production of a mature human body. Basic embryology teaches us that the instant of fertilization (the union of the ovum and sperm) is time zero of human development. Fertilization results in the formation of a new cell that is distinct from the cells that give rise to it, because the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo, as a stage in human development, possesses the material composition (genetic and molecular) and behavior (developmental pathway) necessary for its maturity.

Since LIFE is defined as an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction, and it is governed by the law of biogenesis, which states that all life comes from preexisting life, the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo, whether it has implanted on a woman’s endometrium or not, is ALIVE and is HUMAN.

Historically, the terms fertilization and conception were used interchangeably. However, in the 1960s, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) redefined conception as the implantation of a fertilized ovum, citing that the union of sperm and ovum cannot be detected clinically unless implantation occurs. Pregnancy was subsequently defined as the state from conception to expulsion of the products of that conception. This invariably changed the definition of conception from fertilization to implantation. Coincidentally, this redefinition was not brought about by any scientific breakthrough during that time but was made at around the same time that the first intrauterine device (IUD) was sold in the market and birth control pills were legalized in the US.

It must be emphasized that pregnancy is the state of the mother, not of the unborn. Therefore, non-implantation does not negate the status of the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo as a living human being.

The confusion over the term conception and whether it refers to fertilization or implantation is not a result of lack of scientific data but of verbal engineering. The implications of redefining conception are seen in the mechanisms of action of contraceptive pills and IUDs and whether they act as abortifacients.

From the pharmacologic standpoint, hormonal contraceptives (pills and injectables) have multiple mechanisms of action. Katzung’s Basic and Clinical Pharmacology 11th ed (2009) states that:

“The combinations of estrogens and progestins exert their contraceptive effect largely through selective inhibition of pituitary function that results in inhibition of ovulation. The combination agents also produce a change in the cervical mucus, in the uterine endometrium, and in motility and secretion in the uterine tubes, all of which decrease the likelihood of conception and implantation. The continuous use of progestins alone does not always inhibit ovulation. The other factors mentioned, therefore, play a major role in the prevention of pregnancy when these agents are used.”

(Note as well that in pharmacology textbooks, conception is used to refer to fertilization and is clearly distinguished from implantation.)

On the other hand, the IUD incites an inflammatory reaction on the endometrial lining. This inflammation acts as a spermicide AND as a means to decrease the likelihood of implantation should fertilization occur (Comprehensive Gynecology, 5th ed 2007).

By virtue of the ACOG/FIGO redefinition of conception, the post-fertilization effect of preventing implantation does not SEMANTICALLY equate to the abortifacient effect of contraceptive pills and IUDs, since abortion is technically defined (again by ACOG and FIGO) as the expulsion of all the products of conception before the twentieth week of pregnancy.

HOWEVER, this is in direct contradiction to the Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare statement which affirms that life begins at fertilization when it states that:

“All measures which impair the viability of the zygote at any time between the instant of fertilization and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion.”

It is therefore only logical that, if we subscribe to the scientific fact that human development begins at fertilization, the prevention of implantation terminates life. While it may be argued that the prevention of implantation is not the PRIMARY mechanism of action of these drugs and devices, fertilization can occur, as evidenced by breakthrough ovulations and contraceptive failures. A contraceptive failure is a human being. THUS, the SECONDARY mechanism of preventing implantation constitutes the abortifacient effect of hormonal contraceptives and IUDs.

However, it is logistically, technologically, and ethically impossible to determine which “successful” prevention of pregnancy is due to inhibition of ovulation, fertilization or implantation. This is where World Health Organization (WHO), medical societies and scientific journals use the term “no evidence” in reference to the lack of empirical data, and NOT to the fact that a phenomenon does not occur.

In this light, it is imperative that the precautionary principle, which states that:

“if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action,”

be applied. When science finds a plausible risk, social responsibility must compel us to protect the public from exposure to harm, until such time that further scientific findings provide sound evidence that ABSOLUTELY NO HARM TO LIFE will result from the action.

Ultimately, as human beings, our actions must always PROTECT LIFE in order to be truly PRO-LIFE, because we cannot afford to risk even one human life.

===================================================

Abraham Daniel Campo Cruz, MD

Instructor A, Department of Pharmacology, FEU-NRMF Institute of Medicine

Master of Science (cand.) in Pharmacology, UP Manila

Associate Member, Philippine Society of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology

Member, Filipinos for Life

Atty. Joe Sison responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas

A response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas' column, My Stand on the RH Bill

More questions

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Updated May 27, 2011

In taking a stand on difficult issues, it is always advisable to have an open mind and to consider all angles. The better attitude is to think that there are wiser and more intelligent people who are experts on certain fields and whose views are much respected and often cited. One of them is of course Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ. His opinions are really persuasive and count a lot to us who are still learning and trying to grasp the correct meaning and answer to certain constitutional questions especially those arising from the highly controversial RH bill that is now being heatedly discussed.

It is thus very fortunate that Fr. Bernas has categorically declared that he “adheres to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception” even if he is “aware that it is not considered an infallible doctrine by those who know more theology” than he does. This means therefore that to Fr. Bernas, contraception or “any action taken before, during or after the conjugal act which is aimed at impeding the process or the possible fruit of conception”, is morally wrong. It is morally wrong because it “separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act.” In other words it is like the spouses telling each other, “I love you as long as we do not give birth.” (Catechism on Family and Life (CFL) December 27, 2009).

Another very helpful clarification from Fr. Bernas is his unequivocal stand that “sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation” so that “there is already abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled” because the “Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected from conception”. This is very important because the principal authors of the bill anchor its legality on an entirely different and contrasting concept that life begins at implantation. Following Fr. Bernas’ pronouncement to which we adhere as we highly value his opinion on this issue, the consolidated bill (HB 4244) entitled “An Act for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, Population and Development” is therefore inherently unconstitutional.

It is inherently unconstitutional because its main purpose as reflected in its title is to depopulate our country by promoting, distributing and making available to the people especially the poor, a full menu of modern artificial methods of family planning that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ova based on the belief and concept espoused by its authors that life begins only at implantation. But in the light of Fr. Bernas’ explanation that is diametrically opposed to the authors’ concept of when life begins, the bill will in effect legalize the expelling of fertilized ova which is nothing but mass murder of innocent babies.

On this specific point alone, the RH bill should be junked. It is not necessary anymore to go into other constitutionally objectionable features of the bill like the provision on the mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents which is clearly against the constitutional provision recognizing the sanctity of human family and the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character as Fr. Bernas said.

We really look up to Fr. Bernas for guidance on this controversy but perhaps because of our limited understanding and intelligence, several questions still came up as we try to discern his stand on the RH bill, more specifically the following:

1. Can the RH bill nevertheless be enacted into law even if its underlying premise – that life begins at implantation – is clearly contrary to the Constitution mandating the State to protect the life of the unborn from conception or, as he said, from fertilization not implantation? This question still cropped up because of his statement that “if we have to have an RH law”, he intends “to contribute to its improvement as much as (he) can”.

2. Is it alright to have an RH law initiated by and originating from foreign countries and International organizations trying to impose a population control (“development”) policy designed to protect their own interest? This question also crops up because up to now the alleged foreign connection and intervention has not been denied or rebutted.

3. Since the bill prohibits abortion because it is an assault against the right to life, should the “question of scientific fact” on what are the abortifacient pills and devices be settled first so that the bill could already specify them or at least set guidelines in determining them before delegating this function to the Food and Drug Administration? How does the bill define abortion? Is it expulsion of fertilized ova at any time or only after implantation?

4. Are not the bill’s “valuable points in its Declaration of Principles and Policies that can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of the poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service” already part and parcel of existing laws promoting public health and welfare which are, or should be, given by the various departments and government agencies particularly the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare and Development?

5. Is it in accordance with the Constitution to spend public money for the promotion of “reproductive health” that entails the use of contraceptives just to have “a safe and satisfying sex” even if it runs counter to the religious beliefs of some sects like the Catholic Church? Can Congress appropriate public money to enforce the use of birth control pills and other contraceptives which is against the religious beliefs and moral convictions of some religious groups?

6. Is the Church or the people of God who merely voice their objection to the RH bill particularly to President Aquino in the exercise of their freedom to act on their religious belief really “compelling the President to prevent people from acting according to their own religious belief”? Are not other sects favoring the bill also doing this?

Indeed this RH bill has only caused deep division and serious rift among our people including some clerics. Our country will be better off without it. It is not so necessary after all. There are more effective and less divisive ways of licking poverty here.

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

An important legal resource: the 1986 Constitutional Commission declares that life begins at fertilization

See this as well: Behind the scenes on the 1986 Constitutional Commission's declaration that conception -- and therefore life -- begins at fertilization.)  

From the blog of Mr. Raul Nidoy:

Constitutional Commission: Conception = Fertilization

Records of the Constitutional Commission

R.C.C. No. 85

09-17-1986

...MR. AZCUNA: Commissioner Villegas is not in the hall at the moment, but the committee will be willing to answer.

MR. GASCON: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

As I mentioned in my speech on the U.S. bases, I am definitely pro-life, to the point that I would like not only to protect the life of the unborn, but also the lives of the millions of people in the world by fighting for a nuclear-free world. I would just like to be assured of the legal and pragmatic implications of the term "protection of the life of the unborn from the moment of conception." I raised some of these implications this afternoon when I interjected in the interpellation of Commissioner Regalado. I would like to ask that question again for a categorical answer.

I mentioned that if we institutionalize the term "the life of the unborn from the moment of conception," we are also actually saying "no," not "maybe," to certain contraceptives which are already being encouraged at this point in time. Is that the sense of the committee or does it disagree with me?

MR. AZCUNA: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, because contraceptives would be preventive. There is no unborn yet. That is yet unshaped.

MR. GASCON: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, but I was speaking more about some contraceptives, such as the intra-uterine device which actually stops the egg which has already been fertilized from taking route to the uterus. So, if we say "from the moment of conception," what really occurs is that some of these contraceptives will have to be unconstitutionalized.

MR. AZCUNA: Yes, to the extent that it is after the fertilization, Mr. Presiding Officer.

CONTINUE READING HERE

The RH Bill: the easy and lazy path

Key RH issue: When does human life begin?

POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr. (The Philippine Star) 

Updated May 15, 2011 12:00 AM 

WHAT TO DO: Judging from the ferocity of the debate raging over the Reproductive Health bills (plural), it is becoming clearer that the more prudent steps to take are:

1. For President Noynoy Aquino to prevent the deeper division of the country by not openly endorsing the RH measures and to just leave lawmaking to the legislature.

2. For the Congress to call back the bills for closer study, clarify the vague provisions, and amend the more contentious parts. There is no urgency to rush the measures before the arrival of the Three Kings.

3. For the Congress to publish the text of the RH bills. Many of those drawn into the debate have not even read the text of SB 2378 and HB 4244.

* * *

INQUIRY SOUGHT: The Senate should heed a citizens’ petition for it to look deeper into SB 2378 (The Reproductive Health Act) and HB 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011).

Citizens Ma. Andrea S. Mandigo, Eric B. Manalang, and Norman V. Cabrera have asked for an inquiry on (1) the abortifacient action of family planning methods and contraceptives, and (2) the side effects on women who use them.

The Petitioners cited discussions of the 1987 Constitutional Commission describing the moment of “conception” as synonymous to fertilization — when the ovum is fertilized by the sperm.

Among the questions in the current debate is whether human life begins at fertilization (conception), or implantation of the fertilized egg in the womb, or some days/weeks after implantation.

* * *

WHEN LIFE BEGINS: The Constitution (Section 12, Article II) says: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

The discussion in the 1987 Constitutional Commission indicates a consensus that conception is synonymous to fertilization, and is therefore the moment “when human life begins.”

Still, it will be best for the RH law to define that moment as clearly as possible. There should not be any dark area in or around this pivotal point.

If human life begins upon conception or fertilization, the killing of the unborn human being, such as by preventing its implantation in the womb, is legally and morally wrong.

More so if the unborn child already developing in the womb is destroyed deliberately, as in abortion.

* * *

SIDE EFFECTS: Against this background and other medical facts, the artificial methods of “contraception” sought to be promoted under RH 4244 bill using taxpayers’ money are put in question.

The petitioners presented documented medical findings of serious side effects associated with the use of certain contraceptives, such as breast cancer, cervical cancer, hardening of the arteries, heart disease/stroke, among other problems.

The Department of Health should have data on this. It cannot feign ignorance of the negative side effects. And if it is aware of them, how can it justify its endorsement of artificial contraceptives?

* * *

ABORTIFACIENT: Many readers, some of them doctors, most of them women (some of whom admitted having used some of the contraceptives being promoted), said:

• Most, if not all, oral and injectable contraceptives are abortifacient (inducing abortion) or have abortifacient properties. During the times when they do not prevent ovulation, their abortifacient properties take effect.

• Oral and injectable contraceptives thin out the inner lining of the uterus. This makes the uterus unable to support a fertilized egg — who is already a human being enjoying protection under the Constitution.

The fertilized egg is prevented from implanting on the interior lining of the uterus, and is therefore killed through lack of nutrition. This is abortion, which is a crime.

Even “Depo Provera” or other similar substances, which are injected every three months, have the same abortifacient properties.

• There are also many pills, such as mifepristone (also known as RU 486), which are outright abortifacient. They do not even try to prevent conception. They can kill even a two-month-old child in the womb.

* * *

EASY, LAZY PATH: These pills with abortifacient effects are widely distributed by the government!

The RH bills being supported by President Aquino SEEK TO GIVE LEGAL BASIS for this mass killing of unborn Filipinos.

It seems the President is taking this easy and lazy — not necessarily straight (tuwid) — path, because his administration is unable to do its job of upgrading food production, education, public health and livelihood.

(The rest of the column is about an electoral controversy in Lucena)

Is pregnancy really viable only after implantation in the uterus?

(Ms. Lorayes is simply arguing in favor of the position that life begins at conception / fertilization, and it is solely for that reason that I've posted her letter to the Inquirer editor. I have no knowledge of her position regarding the RH Bill and other moral controversies regarding human life and sexuality. CAP)

Cases show life begins in fertilization 

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 03:16:00 01/04/2011

IN HER December 15, 2010 column “A new form of ‘sexting,’” Rina Jimenez-David stated that “scientific opinion has it that a pregnancy is viable only after implantation in the uterus.”

That is true—in general. However, there have been a few, very, very rare cases where ectopic pregnancies, in which the fertilized ovum implants outside the uterus, produced live births. In 1999, there was a case of multiple births in the United Kingdom in which one baby developed in the fallopian tube while twins developed in the uterus. On April 12, 2008, an Englishwoman, Jayne Jones, delivered a live birth at 28 weeks from a pregnancy which developed in the fatty covering of the large bowel. On May 29 of the same year, an Australian, Meera Thanagarajah, delivered a full-term, living baby from an ectopic pregnancy which developed in the ovary.

The controversy, actually, is not over when a pregnancy becomes viable, but over when life begins: at fertilization or at implantation in the uterus? As these unusual ectopic pregnancies show, life begins at fertilization, not at implantation in the uterus. With the advances in in vitro fertilization, human life can even begin in a Petri dish, or whatever container is used in this process.

—ARACELI Z. LORAYES,

112 Guava Drive,

Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City

Behind the scenes on the 1986 Constitutional Commission's declaration that conception -- and therefore life -- begins at fertilization

(See this as well: An important legal resource: the 1986 Constitutional Commission declares that life begins at fertilization.)

Conception is fertilization

By BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS

December 16, 2010, 11:00pm

MANILA, Philippines – In the Philippine Constitution of 1987, conception is defined as fertilization, the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm. This was the majority decision (32 to 8) of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 convoked by the late President Corazon Aquino. This majority decision was made after the most thorough debate in which some of the most articulate members of the Commission raised their objections, bringing up some of the issues that are now being revived by the population control advocates. Some raised the issue of personhood. They claimed that the fertilized ovum is not yet a person, even quoting Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Others maintained that the fertilized ovum is not yet viable and, therefore, cannot be considered a human being.

Despite all these objections, the majority decided that conception should be defined as the moment of fertilization.

I was the sponsor of the provision and had to answer all the objections. For the sake of constitutionalists, lawyers, and Supreme Court justices, let me describe how I defended the position that the fertilized ovum is already a human being. To the question, is the fertilized ovum alive? My answer was: “Biology categorically says yes, the fertilized ovum is alive. First of all, like all living organisms, it takes in nutrients which it processes by itself. It begins doing this upon fertilization. Secondly, as it takes in these nutrients, it grows from within. Thirdly, it multiplies itself at a geometric rate in the continuous process of cell division. All these processes are vital signs of life. Therefore, there is no question that biologically the fertilized ovum has life.”

To the second question “Is it human?,” my answer was: “Genetics gives an equally categorical ‘yes.’ At the moment of conception, the nuclei of the ovum and the sperm rupture. As this happens, 23 chromosomes from the ovum combine with 23 chromosomes of the sperm to form a total of 46 chromosomes. A chromosome count of 46 is found only – and I repeat, only – in human cells. Therefore, the fertilized ovum is human. Since these two questions have been answered affirmatively, we must conclude that if the fertilized ovum is both alive and human, then, as night follows day, it must be human life. Its nature is human.

It must be stressed that the question about the fertilized ovum being human has to be settled by the natural sciences. In contrast, the question about personhood, that is, when does God put a soul into the fetus goes beyond the natural sciences. It is a philosophical or theological issue and cannot be settled by resorting to empirical evidence. That is why when Commissioner Blas Ople asked me whether there is in jurisprudence anything that will help determine the approximate moment of conception, I replied that only natural sciences have the answer. In my reply, I said: “I would like to read this specific statement by natural scientists about when human life begins. This is taken from the Handbook on Abortion by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Wilke. The most distinguished scientific meeting of recent years that considered this question of when human life begins was the First International Conference on Abortion held in Washington, DC, in October, 1967. It brought together authorities from around the world in the fields of medicine, law, ethics, and social sciences. They met together in a think tank for several days. The first major question considered by the medical group was: When does human life begin? The medical group was composed of biochemists, professors of obstetrics and gynecology, geneticists, and so forth, and was represented proportionately as to academic discipline, race, and religion. For example, only 20 percent were Catholics. Their almost unanimous conclusion, 19 to 1, was as follows: ‘The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg which is the fertilization or, at least the blastocyst stage and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life (the blastocyst stage is shortly after fertilization and would account for twinning).”

It was, therefore, the intent of the large majority of the framers of the Constitution of 1987 to define conception as fertilization. No amount of further debate will change that. Only a charter change can modify that conclusion. It is, therefore, futile for the population control advocates to suggest that conception should be defined as implantation. They will have to move for an amendment of the Constitution for their view to prosper. In the meantime, any contraceptive device (e.g. the “morning after” pill, the IUD, etc.) that can be medically demonstrated to be abortifacient, i.e. killing the fertilized ovum before implantation, will always be declared unconstitutional, whether or not the RH bill is passed. As far as the present Constitution is concerned, attacking the fertilized ovum is killing a human life. No amount of philosophizing can change that. For comments, my email address is bvillegas@uap.edu.ph.