Is conception equivalent to fertilization? Catholic bishops think so. Their argument goes on to say that some contraceptives like pills and IUDs block the implantation of a fertilized ovum, which they insist makes these methods contrary to the law and the Constitution.
If the bishops are correct, Catholics will have to accept that Mary’s Immaculate Conception can be called Immaculate Fertilization. The Catholic creed that Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit can be replaced with fertilized by the power of the Holy Spirit. We all know that sperms fertilize eggs, but the Holy Spirit fertilizing something? These alternate phrases will surely jar most Catholic ears.
If the bishops are correct, in-vitro fertilization (IVF) will be synonymous to in-vitro conception. In IVF, eggs are harvested from a woman and manually fertilized by her partner’s sperm in a Petri dish. If conception has already occurred by then, who is conceiving? Surely it cannot be the Petri dish.
Herein lies the key difference. Fertilization only needs a sperm and an egg to complete. Conception requires a woman who will conceive. Conception comes from conceive, which in turn comes from the Latin concipere—”to take in and hold; become pregnant”. The bottom line: a fertilized egg needs to successfully implant in a woman before conception—meaning pregnancy—begins.
The FIGO (International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology) Ethics Guidelines clarified this in 1988 when it defined pregnancy as follows:
Natural human reproduction is a process which involves the production of male and female gametes and their union at fertilisation. Pregnancy is that part of the process that commences with the implantation of the conceptus in a woman, and ends with either the birth of an infant or an abortion.
The Constitutional Commission’s use of the imprecise word “conception” reflects the intense debates that occurred on this issue. Lawyers who have studied transcripts of the debates point out that the terminology started from “fertilized ovum”, then “moment of conception” and finally just “conception”. The proposed phrases—all not accepted—evolved as follows:
1. The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum
2. Protection of life should extend to the fertilized ovum
3. The State shall protect human life from the moment of conception
4. The State shall protect the unborn child from conception
5. The State shall protect the unborn from conception
The final provision, now part of the State Policies of the 1987 Constitution, says that the State “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” If there was consensus that conception means fertilization, then any one of the first two phrasing should have made it. Both failed. Catholic bishops are reviving a battle they lost 23 years ago.
In a democracy, constitutions must be approved by the majority, so we need to understand what people knew when they voted in 1987. When the Constitution was brought to the people for ratification, women were already using pills and IUDs. Were they ever informed that the unborn clause will be used to ban these contraceptives? I don’t think so. Using the unborn clause to ban contraceptives now or block the RH bill reeks of deception and bad faith.
The term “conception” probably means many things to ordinary Filipinos. Translation will often give us a clue. For example, many writers have translated “Immaculate Conception” as “Malinis na Paglilihi“, so to them conception is paglilihi, a Filipino word that describes behavior during the first trimester of pregnancy. Paglilihi is certainly not fertilization. It happens even much later than implantation.
The fertilized ovum deserves respect, even awe and wonder. All of us breathing, thinking, living humans with our intricate organ systems came from this single living cell. But the reverse proposition—that all or most fertilized ova will naturally grow into living human beings—is simply not true. Medical researchers estimate that more than half of all fertilized ova do not implant, and a sizeable proportion that do implant are aborted spontaneously. Genetic defects incompatible with human life are thought to account for most of these losses.
A fertilized ovum is a single cell on a long and difficult path of developing, and thereby proving, its humanness. To equate the tenuous life of this single cell with the full life of a woman diminishes her, and diminishes all of us.
Paiko-ikot pa ang sinusulat niyo akala mo matalino eh sa
Thesaurus lang laglag na ang pagkahaba-habang kabalastugan na Ito:
Conception: 1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/mobileart….
Tapos itong mga nakikipagtugis eh akala mo may saysay ang pinagsasabi. Nakakatawa kayong mga Pretinker nagkakamot kayo ng inyo-inyong tiyan. Diyan na nga kayo.
I have not checked in here for some time as I thought it was getting boring, but the last few posts are great quality so I guess I will add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend 🙂
[…] Is conception equivalent to fertilization? […]
[…] Misconception […]
Can anyone use the Bible as a reference in the discussions here?
Of course. It's a free country. You should know, however, that very few of us here find the Bible a credible source for historical, scientific, spiritual, or moral instruction.
Sure. Let's hear your points.
Sorry but I find the "arguments" here to be so full of nonsense. I still go for that which respects the dignity of human life. Wag na kasi mag effort magpaka intellectual kasi in the first place wala namang credentials to support it. Respect life. Period.
In that case, it would be so easy for you to demolish my nonsense arguments point-by-point. I'll just wait.
gil, while you are asserting that one should respect the dignity of human life, you should not forget to respect another person's view by debating without personally attacking him/her. i just don't respect human dignity.. i also respect views which are different from mine, so, in this case, i don't want to call anyone BOBO or Hypocrite because one does not use reason in a discussion, only sentiments like "Wag na kasi mag effort magpaka intellectual kasi in the first place wala namang credentials to support it." as far as i know, this is not a christian way. for me, bahala na magpaka-intellectual so i can understand my stand even better kesa mang-dismiss ng tao para sabihing righteous.
While I agree with almost everything you said, I am of the opinion that while a fertilized ovum is not to be be equated to a full human life, it does contain the full potential for development into such.
In my mind, the matter is moot and academic, and when asked I'd rather err on the side of caution : that a fertilized human ovum is to be revered and protected from "the moment of conception".
[I'd rather err on the side of caution : that a fertilized human ovum is to be revered and protected from "the moment of conception"]
I respect this view as a personal, judgment call by women and couples weighing their options for regulating the number and timing of children. However, other women and couples may decide that all the facts at hand justify their use of methods that some hypothesize may prevent implantation. I stress hypothesize because the World Health Organization has already sent a position paper to our Congress in 2006 that hormonal contraceptives and IUDs “cannot be labelled as abortifacients”, that doing so “contradict both WHO’s evidence-based international standards on the mechanisms of action and the drug and device labelling in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines.” You can download and study the full WHO paper from this link:
http://www.likhaan.org/sites/default/files/pdf/ex…
I'd want to read more on what you view of ectopic pregnancies. They fertilize and conceive, but they are due for termination nonetheless, even at the risk of causing the death of the mother.
You can visit our ongoing discussion here:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum/viewtopic.p…
I recall arm discussing ectopic pregnancies a couple of days ago there too 🙂
Ectopic pregnancies have implanted at the wrong site (usually the fallopian tube) and generally do not have a chance to lead to a live birth. It is routinely removed through chemical means (methotrexate, legal in the Philippines), surgical removal of the product of conception (salpingostomy, legal here and reimbursable by PhilHealth), or surgical removal of the fallopian tube (salpingectomy, legal here and reimbursable by PhilHealth; favored procedure by those who invoke "double-effect" as the only moral option). I stress the legalities to show that our current medical practice and laws do not dogmatically give protection to a fertilized ovum.
The Catholic Church refuses to let the masses wield power, as usual. Sad to say, more women suffer from complications resulting from back room abortions here in the Philippines than being informed about contraceptives because there is a big stigma on those who have premarital sex.
Of all the women who use IUDs and and pills, the heavy majority of them actually do not care if their mode of contraception actually does have "abortifacient" properties, even though they do prove to be very good mothers in the future. And the Catholic Church is running after them with their moral bullsh*t because of that lackadaisical approach to the "abortifacient" they are using. At least they are responsibly planning their family.
A very informative post, I seriously used the terms interchangeably before.
If the pope, bishops, priests and catholics cared so much about life, they should stop eating pork, beef, chicken, seafood and even egg. I personally think that these animals are much more alive in terms of brain functions and feelings than a fertilized egg. What made us different is that we were lucky to evolved smarter than the animals. If we have a soul, even insects have soul. I am not a vegetarian.
I think most Catholics, like my mother, have well-balanced respect for human life. Babies, children, elderly, friends and kin, neighbors, churchgoers, even non-Catholics are seen as persons deserving of respect. This argument about the human life of the fertilized egg consumes the energies of a tiny fraction of Catholics. Remember that surveys show majority support for the RH bill. If people who believe in the life of fertilized ova can just desist from imposing their beliefs on others, and simply lead personal lives along their chosen set of principles, then all these will become part of routine variations in social thought.
This is a tragic, tragic simplification and dehumanization. However well written it is, even quoting from medical books & waxing scientific, it still takes much away from the value of life. He would think twice if he was destined to be that fertilized ovum, and how then could he wield his pen at the mercy of an IUD? Life begins with fertilization. The potential to develop and grow must begin with the stage of the fertilized ovum. The RH Bill should focus on physical and chemical barriers that prevent the unseen but vital union of the egg and the sperm, of course in the name of reproductive health and not under any commercial prodding (if any exist).
I am sorry but I disagree with your article most especially your last statement. Multicellular or unicellular – life exists. That we begin from a single cell should NOT diminish all of us but should humble us as to our evolutionary origins. That the supposedly tenuous "single cell" SURVIVED to become what we are speaks a lot about its potential and its strength.
[This is a tragic, tragic simplification and dehumanization. However well written it is, even quoting from medical books & waxing scientific, it still takes much away from the value of life. ]
So in short, when lacking in solid reasoning or hard data to back up you assertion, everything else that follows in you post is basically an appeal to emotion. Quite obvious given tired of fallacies like your quote:
"He would think twice if he was destined to be that fertilized ovum, and how then could he wield his pen at the mercy of an IUD?"
The reality is that said ovum can become anybody, and not just you, or any other successful personality that most of people may imagine. In the Philippine context however, said ovum will mostly likely develop and grow into the innumerable street children you see, either begging for food, or selling sampaguitas, if not trying to pick pockets at Quiapo.
[Multicellular or unicellular – life exists. That we begin from a single cell should NOT diminish all of us but should humble us as to our evolutionary origins. That the supposedly tenuous "single cell" SURVIVED to become what we are speaks a lot about its potential and its strength. ]
Lewis Wolpert would like to disagree with you too 🙂
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine-edge09…
[Life begins with fertilization.]
We can all trace our roots back to a fertilized ovum. The reverse is not true. For example, a partial molar pregnancy (hydatidiform mole) can also trace its roots back to a fertilized ovum. Nobody would argue that a partial mole is a living human being. Evidence like this is available, so your simple assertions to the contrary do not carry much weight.
[That we begin from a single cell should NOT diminish all of us]
I did not say this. I said "To equate the tenuous life of this single cell with the full life of a woman diminishes her, and diminishes all of us." An example: if State protection for women is so weak that 50%+ fatalities is considered routine and acceptable (as what happens to a fertilized ovum), then government cannot be faulted for shoddy medical services, public works, food safety standards, etc. that lead to deaths.
[That the supposedly tenuous "single cell" SURVIVED to become what we are speaks a lot about its potential and its strength.]
In [url <a href="http://=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp065743%5Da” target=”_blank”>=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp065743]a 2003 study[/url], the "cumulative probabilities of conception" of couples who want a child and used natural family planning methods to time their sex at the fertile period was 38% at one ovulation cycle. In IVF, the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle with fresh, nondonor eggs was 34% in 2003 in the US; spontaneous abortions bring the actual live-birth rate per cycle to 28%. Age greatly affects these rates–women 34 or younger get between 40 and 49% live births per cycle. You can read the [url <a href="http://=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp065743%5D” target=”_blank”>=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp065743] full journal article here.[/url]
When you said "supposedly", are you saying that I'm making up the description that the life of the fertilized ovum is tenuous? I hope you can back up this statement. Note also that the 2 science articles I cited above use conception and pregnancy as synonyms.
Sorry, the URLs got mangled in my reply below. The links are as follows:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12923157?dopt=… http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp065743
[That the supposedly tenuous "single cell" SURVIVED to become what we are speaks a lot about its potential and its strength.]
Natural family planning users who wanted a child used sex timed at the fertile period in a 2003 study. The probability of pregnancy for 1 ovulation cycle was only 38%. For IVF, the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle with fresh, nondonor eggs was 34% in the US in 2003; spontaneous abortions brought down the live birth rate to just 28%. Age greatly affects the process–women 34 and younger had 40-49% live birth rate per cycle.
When you said "supposedly", were you implying that I'm just making up the statement about the tenuous life of a fertilized ovum? I hope you can back this up. The sources of the rates above are as follows:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12923157?dopt=… http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp065743
[That the supposedly tenuous "single cell" SURVIVED to become what we are speaks a lot about its potential and its strength.]
Natural family planning users who wanted a child used sex timed at the fertile period in a 2003 study. The probability of pregnancy for 1 ovulation cycle was only 38%. For IVF, the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle with fresh, nondonor eggs was 34% in the US in 2003; spontaneous abortions brought down the live birth rate to just 28%. Age greatly affects the process–women 34 and younger had 40-49% live birth rate per cycle.
When you said "supposedly", were you implying that I'm just making up the statement about the tenuous life of a fertilized ovum? I hope you can back this up. The sources of the rates above are as follows:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12923157?dopt=… http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp065743
the weird part is that catholic church frowns upon anything it deems "unnatural" when it comes to procreation but when you look at Jesus' birth, his was the most unnatural birth of all. Can't top being impregnated by the Holy Spirit (who is also god himself ) to give birth to Jesus (who is also god himself)…
so god literally told himself to father himself
I think the Catholic church do want to project Jesus as both man and God, natural and supernatural. Other cultures have their own human-god narratives, so this one does not jar my sensibilities too much. What I find offensive is their foray into science to justify their eons-old policies, like their claim that each fertilized ovum is already a human life on the basis of genetics ("genetically unique individual"). Do they have a map of the full human genome with all its variations, and the ability to compare this to the genome of the fertilized ovum? IVF techniques currently have to wait for the zygote to divide a few times first before a cell can be taken out for genetic screening for a few diseases. That cell is destroyed in the process. Either the Vatican has secret super-high-tech labs, or they're simply lying.
[Either the Vatican has secret super-high-tech labs, or they're simply lying. ]
I invoke Hanlon's Razor on this – I say they're just too bloody stupid to know any better.
Great post arm, it brings up the complexity those who are not in the profession or expertise seek to simplify, as thou reality will follow suit.
Because implantation can be medically enhanced, does that mean all Catholics who do not take such precautions are committing a sin if they do not take steps to prevent the abortion?
By this stricter definition used by the Church and with what humans are capable off, then abortion can be extended to all women who failed to act to prevent it by using all means available.
I remember something about Ignorance of the Law does not excuse breaking it, the holier than thou keep touting.
Intelligent design advocates also argue that the complexity they see in human physiology can only be done by a designer (God). But fertilization, implantation and biological development with all its natural losses–unknown before–point clearly to evolutionary processes at work. If a designer-God can only succeed in a live birth after huge losses of fertilized ovum, embryos and fetuses, then the designer must have poor skills or poor morals.
Excellent post, Arm! I can't wait to hear what my favorite Catholic Reynor has to say about this. 🙂
My favorite Catholic is my mother who I deeply respect. I have read many posts by Reynor, and I think his views represent a minority in the Catholic faith.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Roxanne . Roxanne said: RT @ffreethinkers: NewPost: Misconception http://j.mp/hkz5bO rhbill […]
So that's what the health, welfare, and future of our kids are worth to Rosales.
A fucking potted plant.
It better be weed XD.
I can't really trust the CBCP's news site on this matter, so I did a bit of digging around.
http://www.dailymirror.ph/June-2010/June062310/na…
On the plus side, despite Valisno's decision, the DepEd might be fighting back.
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/deped-hits-sex-e…