Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

A Distinct Human Organism
by Robert P. George
November 22, 2005
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4857703

The key question in the debate over stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos is: When does the life of a human being begin? To answer this question is to decide whether human embryos are, in fact, human beings and, as such, possessors of inherent human dignity.

Where do we go to find the answer? Not, in my opinion, to the Bible, Talmud or other religious writings, even if we regard these texts as sources of moral wisdom and even divine revelation. Nor should we be satisfied to consult our "moral intuitions."

Rather, the answer is to be found in the works of modern human embryology and developmental biology. In these texts, we find little or nothing in the way of scientific uncertainty: "...human development begins at fertilization..." write embryologists Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003), the most widely used textbook on human embryology.

A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. Unless severely damaged or deprived of nutrition or a suitable environment, the embryonic human will develop himself or herself by an internally directed process to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage.

The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity — a human being — who comes into existence as a zygote and develops by a gradual and gapless process into adulthood many years later.

Whether produced by fertilization or cloning, the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it.

The human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, nor is it merely a "potential human being," whatever that might mean. Rather the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.

The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete -- though, of course, immature -- human organism.

Unlike the embryo, the sperm and egg whose union brings a human being into existence are not complete organisms. They are both functionally and genetically identifiable as parts of the male or female parents. Each has only half the genetic material needed to guide the development of a new human being toward maturity. They are destined either to combine to generate a new and distinct organism or simply die.

Even when fertilization occurs, the gametes do not survive: Their genetic material enters into the composition of a new organism. (A somatic cell that might be used to produce a human being by cloning is analogous not to a human embryo, but to gametes.) The difference between human gametes and a human being is a difference in kind, not a difference in stage of development. The difference between an embryonic human being (or a human fetus or infant) and an adult is merely a difference in stage of development.

Some today deny the moral premise of my position, namely, that human beings possess inherent dignity and a right to life simply by virtue of their humanity. They claim that some, but not all, human beings have dignity and rights. To have such rights, they say, human beings must possess some quality or set of qualities (sentience, self-consciousness, the immediately exercisable capacity for human mental functions, etc.) that other human beings do not possess or do not yet possess, or no longer possess.

I reject the idea that human beings at certain stages of development (embryos, fetuses, infants) or in certain conditions (the severely handicapped or mentally retarded, those suffering dementia) are not "persons" who possess dignity and a right to life. And no person may legitimately be destroyed in biomedical research or for other reasons.

About the Author

Robert P. George is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. He is also a professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.



NO TO ABORTION.
NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)

Please sign the NEW online petition supporting the pro-life bill by Cong. Golez (HB13)
http://www.petitiononline.com/prolyf/

[my_hEaD_isBIG]

NO pa inyung answer run.. pru who knows, 20 yrs from now, mura natag china.! mu ka.un ug fetus.! lololololol

I dont think so... Lahi ra kaau atong culture ecompare sa ilaha mga brayt ang pinoy, kabaw na guro ta mo control anang panahuna....

[AmorsoloX]

ang ako lang gusto is whether we do....

we should use our logic to weigh things..

lets be objective...

there is no such thing as good or bad.. but there is such thing as a living hell called "POVERTY"..

many religious people here say abortion, s3xEd, contraception is bad.. their creed tells them so..

i only wish that these persons wake up to reality by looking at the actual situation and the resources that we have.. and by that they would be able to know the best use of them..

we cannot change the world.. but we can adopt ourselves...

i pray that these people are born to a perfect world on their next lives...

[AmorsoloX]

A Distinct Human Organism
by Robert P. George
November 22, 2005
A Distinct Human Organism : NPR

The key question in the debate over stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos is: When does the life of a human being begin? To answer this question is to decide whether human embryos are, in fact, human beings and, as such, possessors of inherent human dignity.

Where do we go to find the answer? Not, in my opinion, to the Bible, Talmud or other religious writings, even if we regard these texts as sources of moral wisdom and even divine revelation. Nor should we be satisfied to consult our "moral intuitions."

Rather, the answer is to be found in the works of modern human embryology and developmental biology. In these texts, we find little or nothing in the way of scientific uncertainty: "...human development begins at fertilization..." write embryologists Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003), the most widely used textbook on human embryology.

A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. Unless severely damaged or deprived of nutrition or a suitable environment, the embryonic human will develop himself or herself by an internally directed process to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage.

The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity — a human being — who comes into existence as a zygote and develops by a gradual and gapless process into adulthood many years later.

Whether produced by fertilization or cloning, the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it.

The human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, nor is it merely a "potential human being," whatever that might mean. Rather the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.

The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete -- though, of course, immature -- human organism.

Unlike the embryo, the sperm and egg whose union brings a human being into existence are not complete organisms. They are both functionally and genetically identifiable as parts of the male or female parents. Each has only half the genetic material needed to guide the development of a new human being toward maturity. They are destined either to combine to generate a new and distinct organism or simply die.

Even when fertilization occurs, the gametes do not survive: Their genetic material enters into the composition of a new organism. (A somatic cell that might be used to produce a human being by cloning is analogous not to a human embryo, but to gametes.) The difference between human gametes and a human being is a difference in kind, not a difference in stage of development. The difference between an embryonic human being (or a human fetus or infant) and an adult is merely a difference in stage of development.

Some today deny the moral premise of my position, namely, that human beings possess inherent dignity and a right to life simply by virtue of their humanity. They claim that some, but not all, human beings have dignity and rights. To have such rights, they say, human beings must possess some quality or set of qualities (sentience, self-consciousness, the immediately exercisable capacity for human mental functions, etc.) that other human beings do not possess or do not yet possess, or no longer possess.

I reject the idea that human beings at certain stages of development (embryos, fetuses, infants) or in certain conditions (the severely handicapped or mentally retarded, those suffering dementia) are not "persons" who possess dignity and a right to life. And no person may legitimately be destroyed in biomedical research or for other reasons.

About the Author

Robert P. George is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. He is also a professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.



NO TO ABORTION.
NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)

Please sign the NEW online petition supporting the pro-life bill by Cong. Golez (HB13)
Support Cong. Roilo Golez's House Bill 13 Petition

i like this one.. naa ba ta thread on stem-cell research?...

im really up for this one... this could be the medical breakthrough for mankind to advance to the next level...

though i hope mo abot ra ang time nga pwede individual organs nlang i cultivate sa labs..

has anyone seen the movie "THE ISLAND"?...

i guess it would suck bigtime if you happen to be the one being harvested spare parts.. though id really like the idea of having spare parts for necessary replacements...

[apathetic child]

Apart from more risky ang magpa.abort compared sa pagpanganak, it is morally wrong. However, pushing for the advancement of our reproductive rights should not be equated to abortion. The reason why some women resort to abortion bec of unwanted pregnancies and one of the reasons why unwanted pregnancies happen bec women and men are ill-informed of their reproductive rights. Contrary to the conservatives' belief, contraceptives prevent abortion, not legalise it.

[sHenZee03]

No one is licensed to kill.

[mannyamador]

though i hope mo abot ra ang time nga pwede individual organs nlang i cultivate sa labs.

That can be done with ADULT stem cell research. This is the form of stem cell research that is OK.

The type of stem cell research that pro-lifers object to is EMBRYONIC stem cell research since it involves aborting unborn children.

Some more news...

Medical Experts Demand UN Action on Maternal Health, Not “Safe” Abortion
By Samantha Singson
http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id...pub_detail.asp

NEW YORK, September 23 (C-FAM) Medical experts blasted the UN’s “abortion-first” approach in a maternal-health presentation to UN delegates last week. Coming on the eve of a UN summit on development issues, the expert panel urged governments to focus on basic medical care rather than abortion to reduce pregnancy-related deaths.

“It is egregious to suggest to mothers that the only way to save their lives is to kill their babies," said Dr. Robert Walley, head of MaterCare International. "They have the right to health care. They have no voice when they are dead."

Controversy has dogged the maternal health goal since heads of state established it at the Millennium Summit in 2000. The heads of state explicitly rejected language used by many Western countries to mean abortion, despite intense lobbying for its inclusion at that time and at the subsequent 2005 follow up summit. Even so, subsequent UN-sponsored meetings like the Women Deliver conference in May focused almost exclusively on access to abortion as the way to improve maternal health.

Panelists last week criticized the World Health Organization (WHO) for insisting that as long as an abortion is legal, it would always be considered "safe”. The WHO definition of abortion as unsafe or safe is not a medical but legal definition, said Dr. Donna Harrison, an OB/GYN. By contrast, if a country prohibits abortion, any abortions or related complications are automatically categorized as "unsafe," Harrison said.

Harrison, president of the American Association for Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said WHO and other UN bodies are being dishonest in campaigning for legalized abortion worldwide by hiding behind the pretext of "safe" abortion.

In another blow to the argument that abortions help reduce pregnancy-related deaths , Dr. Elard Koch concluded from government data going back 100 years that Chile’s maternal-death rate continued to fall even after the government banned abortion.

Increasing education levels, maternal literacy rate and maternal health services appear to be the most important factors in lowering maternal deaths, said Koch, an epidemiologist at the University of Chile. Legal access to abortion is not important, as advocates have claimed.

Health systems in developing countries are failing because the focus has been shifted to “reproductive health,” according to Dr. Obi Ideh, an OB/GYN practicing in Nigeria. The failures can be linked to corruption, lack of community-based healthcare, and incomplete medical data that prevent women from getting the care that they require.

Ideh emphasized the need to strengthen family, community and cultural factors as the first-line support for poor mothers and to increase training and staffing of health facilities to combat maternal deaths.

In a passionate account of his work with MaterCare, Dr. Walley described a post-earthquake Haiti where mothers were forced to give birth to their babies “in a toxic soup of rainwater and sewage.” Walley called for the international community to meet its responsibilities to poor mothers in emergency situations in the developing world.

The panel was organized by a coalition of pro-life advocacy groups and hosted by the governments of the Philippines and Malawi.



NO TO ABORTION.
NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)

Please sign the NEW online petition supporting the pro-life bill by Cong. Golez (HB13)
http://www.petitiononline.com/prolyf/

[jay_sn0w]

one should consider when ONE imposes something on a certain party...

are we not a country of logic? are we not a country of the STATE and not by the church?


abortion should be considered to certain SITUATIONS...


IN case a woman (or a girl even) was raped and was found to be pregnant WOULD you condemn her to deliver the child...


under the NEW RH bill even if you are RAPED and found pregnant the ACT of ABORTION is a criminal charge already...

[jay_sn0w]

Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session
013

HOUSE BILL NO. 13

Introduced by HON. ROILO GOLEZ

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Philippines can rightfully claim that it has one of the most comprehensive Constitutions in the world for the protection of human rights. This is especially so because it recognizes that life begins from the moment of conception and mandates that the state shall equally protect the life of the mother and the child from conception. And yet, 23 years from its adoption in 1987, there is a glaring absence of an implementing law that will ensure the protection of the unborn.

This law aims to remedy that oversight by recognizing that the unborn has a basic right to life and by extending the mantle of legal recognition and protection to it. Thus, basic concepts and principle of fetal development are defined and clarified for the protection of the unborn.

It is earnestly hoped that with its passage, the unborn will finally receive the recognition and protection that is long overdue.

In view of the foregoing, the immediate passage of this measure is earnestly sought.

ROILO GOLEZ
Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session
013

HOUSE BILL NO.____

Introduced by HON. ROILO GOLEZ

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN CHILD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the Protection of the Unborn Child Act of 2010.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution; (Art. 11, Sec. 12, and Constitution);
The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child from conception;
The State recognizes the Filipino family including the unborn child as the foundation of the nation and is pledged to strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development;
The Filipino family’s most vulnerable members are their children, including those who are unborn;
The State recognizes the right to life as the most fundamental right of all without and from which all other rights become meaningless;
The State recognizes that there is an urgent and compelling need to protect the unborn child to safeguard and enhance the right to life;
The Constitutional and natural right to life and protection of the unborn child is an absolute value and norm that cannot be repealed by ordinary legislation, now or in the future;
The humanity of the unborn child is not just a legal principle or philosophical, moral or ethical belief but is an established biological fact as recognized by the Constitution and shown by the vast amount of knowledge acquired in the fields of genetics, embryology, and fetal development;
The State recognizes the right of children including the unborn child to assistance including proper care and nutrition, special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development;

SEC. 3. Objectives:
a) This act aims to promote the safety, protection and welfare of the unborn child from the moment of conception and during all stages of development while inside the mother’s womb;
b) It acknowledges the unborn child as a human being with human personality and extends the mantle of legal protection to the child from the moment of conception;
c) It ensures that the delivery of health services to the mother during pregnancy shall be done without prejudice to the unborn child;
d) It promotes and advances the maturity of the unborn child as a welcome addition and asset of the family; and
e) It aims to enhance the health of the mother by avoiding means that may adversely affect the viability of the unborn child in all stages of its maturity.

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
a. Unborn – refers to a child at any stage of existence and development beginning from the union of the sperm and the egg until the birth stage;
b. Conception/Fertilization – refers to the precise moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg, which is when a new life is formed distinct in his/her existence and genetic make-up from both the father and the mother.
c. Implantation-refers to that stage of the development of the human life which takes place around five days after fertilization when the fertilized egg is implanted in the ovum.
d. Fetal development – refers to the scientifically established development process of the beginning of human life from the union of the sperm and egg until the birth of the child that at no point during this time we could say that this was not a human life, with the changes occurring between fertilization, implantation, a six week embryo, a six month fetus until birth.
e. Abortion – any act or practice whether done intentionally or unintentionally, such as through hilot (or abdominal massage) administration of certain medicines or herbal concoctions, suction, hysterectomy saline injection, various formulations of the Morning After Pill or Levonorgestrel or other similar means or device, and substances whether used singly or in combination with other substances, that cause or recklessly endanger or result in injury, damage, expulsion, interference in the natural development of the fetus, or death of the unborn child;
f. Abortive acts – abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents; abortion practiced by a physician or midwife dispensing of abortives; any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, dispenses of abortives; as it is illegal in the Philippines and is penalized as a crime under the Revised Penal Code (Arts. 256-259)
g. Abortifacient – is any device, medicine, substance, practice which may damage, injure, interfere or recklessly endanger or cause the expulsion or death of the unborn child.
h. Human Personality – refers to the status that is gained and attaches to the unborn child from the moment of conception.
i. Parental Right – refers to the right of parents to give consent when minors are involved in any decision or disposition relating to the unborn at any stage of development.

SEC. 5. Human Rights of the Unborn Child. – The unborn child shall possess and enjoy all human rights that are conferred to other persons by law, it shall be entitled first and foremost to the right to life, safety and protection while still in the mother’s womb.

SEC. 6. Protection Against Abortive Acts – The unborn child shall be protected from abortive acts including the use, administration, dispensing, injection or delivery by whatever means of substances, medicines in any form, or practices such as massages, which are hereby declared as abortifacients which cause or may recklessly endanger or expose the unborn child to damage, injury or death, whether committed by the mother, a physician or other person, intentionally or not, with or without consent of the mother, or committed with or without violence.

SEC. 7. Extent of Protection. – The unborn child shall be protected from the moment of conception from all outside intervention, including, but not limited to, intentional intervention that could be medically considered as abortive whether through chemicals, surgical or abdominal massage, during the natural process of growth of the fertilized ovum.

SEC. 8. Parental right and State Power Over the Unborn Child. – The rights of parents of a minor with an unborn child shall be superior to that of the state in all instances involving the safety, protection and welfare of the unborn child and the mother, and shall not be affected by social stigma, laws, regulations, government policy considerations, health, racial or religious concerns.

SEC. 9. Prohibited Acts and Penalties. – The acts constituting abortion, intentional abortion and similar acts as the same are defined and penalized in Arts. 255 to 259 of the Revised Penal Code and shall constitute and be deemed as prohibited acts under this Act but the same shall be penalized with penalties that are one degree higher than those provided for in the said laws.

SEC. 10. Penalties. – The proper city or municipal court shall exercise jurisdiction over violations of this Act and the accused who is found guilty shall be sentenced to an imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10, 000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50, 000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. If the offender is a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the president, treasurer, secretary or any responsible officer. An offender who is an alien shall, after service of sentence, be deported immediately without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration. An offender who is a public officer or employee shall suffer the accessory penalty of dismissal from the government service.

Violators of this Act shall be civilly liable to the offended party in such amount at the discretion of the proper court.

SEC. 11. Separability Clause. – If any provision or part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.

SEC. 12. Repealing Clause. – All other laws, decrees, orders, issuances, rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SEC.13 Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of national circulation.

[kamber11]

personally im against this one!