Reconceiving conception

Last week’s discussion regarding the RH law  the constitutionality of which is currently being debated in the Supreme Court  elicited several passionate yet polite reactions. I had surmised that if the nature of condoms and IUDs (intra-uterine devices) is to prevent conception, then they cannot be classified as abortifacients since that would require that conception had already taken place. In the interest of presenting other perspectives and a balanced outlook, I will briefly summarize the points brought to my attention.

The first point raised is that conception begins at fertilization and that fertilization marks the beginning of life with a soul. The second point is that unlike a condom, contraceptives such as IUDs and “the pill” are abortifacients as they have the secondary effect of working to prevent implantation of the ovum should they fail to prevent fertilization. The argument is that when a contraceptive device prevents the fertilized ovum from attaching to the uterine wall, it is — in effect — aborting a child.

With regard to the first point, our Constitution is clear in that it protects the life of the child from conception. Most medical authorities agree that conception begins upon fertilization which, at the very minimum, is at the budding stages of life. However, as I noted last week, even religious authorities such as St. Augustine believed that merely having life does not automatically confer a soul. He posited that there was a grace period between the stages of embryo inanimatus and embryo nimates which lasted a few days before a fetus became infused with a soul. Some would argue that these are debates best left to theologians and not to courts of law. Regardless of whether a child has a soul upon conception, our Constitution recognizes such child to be alive from that point and mandates that the State protect him or her. From such a perspective, drugs such as the “morning after pill” may be considered abortifacients. However, the real question, to my mind, shall be to what practical extent ought that legal protection be given?

*      *     *      *

The second point presents a more complex issue. The question is whether devices which prevent the attaching of a fertilized ovum to the uterine wall may be considered abortifacients. If the answer is “yes,” then many women who use such contraceptives are potentially guilty of the crime of abortion.

However, there are many reasons why a fertilized ovum will fail to attach to a woman’s uterine wall. According to the US National Library of Medicine, one way by which female infertility occurs is when “the fertilized egg does not attach to the lining of the uterus.” This may be caused by “diabetes, excessive exercising, drinking too much alcohol, obesity, etc…” Query then as to whether alcohol may be considered an abortifacient due to the possibility of its use preventing the attaching of the fertilized egg? Moreover, can an alcoholic mother who then loses her baby be prosecuted for indirect abortion?

Of course, it may be argued that this presents a different scenario as the primary effect of alcohol is not to prevent the attaching of a fertilized ovum. Hence, when an item prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, a distinction must be made between whether an item prevents attachment as a primary purpose or only produces such prevention as an incidental effect. In the case of alcohol, it’s obviously the latter.

It can get more complicated: abortion, as a crime, is not concerned with the purpose of the object used to bring about its effect. A further distinction must be drawn between the object’s purpose and the user’s purpose. To illustrate, a drug created with the purpose of being an abortifacient would be ineffectual if it never worked. Since abortifacients are defined as drugs or devices which induce abortion, this would not fit the description despite its label. Conversely, a doctor may prescribe a drug which is intended to treat the H1N1 virus yet is found to cause abortions in all pregnant women who take it. This should be considered an abortifacient notwithstanding its primary purpose.

To summarize, it would seem that abortifacients are classified according to both their effects and the user’s purpose. A pill which causes abortions is an abortifacient because of its effect while alcohol is not an abortifacient but may act as one when it causes an aborted pregnancy.

Anti RH Bill advocates argue that it is preferable to err in favor of what to some is even the mere possibility of life. Since the latter is sacred, no one has the right to take a chance on whether or not life is being terminated.

*      *     *      *

There you have it. This issue has — and will continue — to elicit very strong opinions and positions. Readers are encouraged to listen to all sides with an open heart and an inquiring mind.

*      *     *      *

Popcorn Mondays:  Students usually dread Mondays but iACADEMY is looking to change that by hosting Popcorn Monday events at its Ayala Avenue campus this August.  The first session on August 5 will feature Drum Circle, a workshop that will teach participants how to play the drums.  The following week, August 12, a modern Philippine version of Romeo and Juliet will be shown.  For the third session on August 19, the award-winning play The Vagina Monologues will take center stage.  Finally, on September 2, the school will be hosting a Spoken Word Jam.  This will be an open-mic event which encourages the participants to express themselves by playing with language and sounds.  

Popcorn Mondays will be held from 6 to 9 p.m. at the iACADEMY building, 6764 Ayala Avenue, Makati City.  For more information, you may contact Kooky Tuason at 8897777 loc. 314 or [email protected]  

*      *     *      *

“Will you look back on life and say, ‘I wish I had,’ or ‘I’m glad I did’?” – Zig Ziglar

*      *     *      *

Email: [email protected]