When does life begin?

The Supreme Court ruling on the RH law touches on the sensitive, unresolved  subject of when life begins. The Court definition of human life beginning with “conception,” not with “implantation,” is considered, by Bishop Emeritus Jose C. Sorra of Legazpi, in his email to my colleague Federico D. Pascual Jr. as “a WINdfall for the cause of LIFE.”

Indeed,  the decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Castral Mendoza, and concurred in by the 14 other members of the High Tribunal, defines life as beginning at conception.

The decision, graciously downloaded for me by Atty. Rita Padilla of Engendered Rights (as my Internet was not working at the time I thought of writing this column), defines the beginning of human life at conception. This is opposite former Rep. Edcel Lagman’s view that life begins at implantation. According to the SC decision, page 51, “This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object — it is a living human being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes.”

The RH Law proponents do not agree with that definition. Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented with his colleagues in this  area, saying, “This court is not the venue to continue the brooding and vociferous political debate that has already happened and has resulted in legislation.”

The topic had me searching for a position paper submitted by Dr. Florence Macagba Tadiar, MD, MPH, MA, executive director of the Institute for Social Studies and Action,  based on two papers authored by Atty. Fred Tadiar, past chairman of the Institute, as a reaction to House  Bill 13 entitled  â€œThe Protection of the Rights of the Unborn Child Act of 2010” authored by former Rep. Roilo Golez, but which did not get the concurrence of the House of Representatives.

Dr. Tadiar posits that “Conception is a process and that precise ‘moment’ of the union of one of the millions of sperms wanting to penetrate one ovum cannot yet be determined scientifically  in vivo, or in reality and because of practical reasons,  at this stage of our knowledge and considering our ethical values, unless perhaps if done for research purposes.”

Both the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Judaism believe that human life starts from the moment of conception, writes Tadiar. “That is a religious doctrine.”

However, she continues, even among Roman Catholics, that belief has not always been so. “In the earlier days of this religious institution, ensoulment was equated with ‘quickening,’ when the pregnant woman notices or becomes aware of a fetal movement in her abdomen. And it was then believed that male fetuses had this ‘ensoulment’ earlier (on the 40th day) than the females. Other religions do not subscribe to this theological concept or dogma of ensoulment. What they do believe in is personhood. They would pose the issue of when does a collection of tissues develop to that stage that it can then be recognized as a separate person, a human being?”

“The freedom of religion that is guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution states very clearly that no law shall be passed establishing any religion,” writes Tadiar. “ Included in that freedom is the prohibition against imposing a religious dogma or doctrine upon  those who do not subscribe to that belief.”

“It is Roman Catholic doctrine that life begins at conception, and that all artificial contraceptives are immoral. It is the total prohibition against so-called ‘artificial contraceptives’ and deprivation of choice in family planning methods, that is plainly the purpose of this House Bill 13. By imposing its religious doctrine, one religious sector wants to impose its beliefs on others, and therefore wishes to turn the Philippines again, just like when we were a colony of Spain from where this specific religious institution was imported,  into a Sectarian State.  A sectarian state is one which is devoted to, peculiar to, pertaining to, or promotive of, the interest of one particular  sect.”

“When this happens, ‘the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law’ that we sought to ‘secure for ourselves and our posterity’ in promulgating our Philippine Constitution, and the duty of government to promote ‘the general welfare for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy’ will have perished. As under the Spanish colonial era, the Philippines will have retrogressed and turned back the hands of time to be governed by medieval laws of that sectarian era.”

*      *      *

For a long time, I made a list of signs pasted in the “comfort” rooms of government and private agencies, schools, restaurants and movie houses pertaining to the proper use of toilets. It surprised me that even in offices employing supposed well-educated professional personnel, the signs asked the toilet bowl users not to squat, not to throw sanitary napkins into the bowl, and to please, flush the toilet after use. I don’t know if similar pleas are made in men’s toilets. I know one doesn’t flush Antipolo-type conveniences or the behind-the-bushes session.

At a Bulong Pulungan sa Sofitel session, the subject of proper toilet use was brought up at the proper time — after lunch. It was said that a joint monitoring report by the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (Unicef) and World Health Organization revealed that 26 percent of Filipino households do not have toilets. Unicef WASH specialist Dr. Mike Gnilo said it‘s time to address the country’s lack of clean toilets. “More than 8 percent of these households practice open defecation which threatens water resources. In some communities, toilets are also shared by more than a dozen families which make them harder to maintain.”

In fact, Philippine Public Health Association  Director Maluh Orezca said at the forum that a number of the country’s toilets need cleaning and maintenance. These include restrooms in parks, museums, commercial centers and tourist destinations.

It’s not surprising that 90 percent of households do not practice proper toilet hygiene and sanitation. Many users clean toilets using only detergents and thin bleaches which do not kill disease-spreading germs.

Fortunately, Domex, the leading household  cleaning brand in the country, has partnered with Unicef and PPHA  to advance the 1 Million Clean Toilets Movement which educates the public on the health impact of germ-free toilets and secures one million pledges from households, government agencies and private corporations to maintain clean, safe and hygienic bathrooms.

Jay Go, marketing director for Unilever Home Care, said  more than 2,000 children under five die annually from diarrhea as a result of germ-infected toilets that contaminate water resources. To raise awareness on diarrheal diseases and their prevention, Domex will conduct activities throughout the year to educate and train households on proper toilet sanitation.

Unilever’s  1 million clean toilets movement kicks off  during the Lenten season with restroom cleanup activities at Shell NLEX/SLEX stations, and Jose Rodriguez Memorial Hospital for information and other activities, and partnerships with dining establishments.

The activities will culminate with World Toilet Day celebrations in November. Unilever Philippines targets 1 billion better lives by 2020. 

*      *      *

Email:[email protected]