With the Roman Catholic Church twisting arms to the breaking point, it is likely that the population bills will not pass at all. It seems that the Church had classified artificial birth control under abortion. "Pro life" is their battle cry, allowing reproductive cells to die due to human intervention is also abortion. Cells are also living beings and if they will have to die, they must do so in a natural way. So the logic goes. Not all thinkers subscribe to the idea.
There is a great difference between living and life. Living is existing, functioning until a certain limit is reached. However, life is a state or a condition of existence. An entity must possess certain characteristics and capabilities in order to have life. They must have the following: material existence - to be born or reproduced; the capability to derive sustenance from extra somatic sources for growth and development: and the potential for reproduction. Without those characteristics, a being does not have life.
There are religious sects who consider living beings life regardless of its form of existence. That is why Christian Scientists, Jehovah Witnesses among others and even our Iglesia ni Kristo refuse blood transfusion or organ transplant even if their lives depend on them. Extraction to analyze blood chemistry is also taboo.
A male and female gamete may live or function until their immediate environment can no longer support their existence or until they grow old and die. Which is in a short period of time. By themselves, they may live nut they are just agents of sexual reproduction. They may be living – existing and functioning but do not possess life. Only when the male and female reproductive cells unite to form a resulting zygote produce a being with life.
In the hierarchy of beings, except for the lowest genera, all living beings must depend upon other living beings to survive. Only plant life, the first link in the food chain can derive sustenance direct from the elements; therefore do not depend on other life forms. The grazers or herbivores must eat plants to live. Plants must die so herbivores could survive. The carnivores depend on the herbivores or other carnivores, while the omnivores like man depend upon all types of living beings.
Other beings with life must die so other beings could live, lower forms of life must serve the higher forms. However if a predator takes kills for whatever reason can the predator be held accountable for the deed? What about man the omnivore? Some religions like the Buddhists choose to be vegetarians for theological reasons. Whatever they may be. We quote the Bible to justify our taking sustenance form lower life forms. Genesis !:29,30.
Taking life is different from prevention of the formation of life. In contraception, living things may die but no lives are lost because male and female reproductive cells do not possess life. They may have the capability to exist, to survive but unless they unite, they cannot produce life. As of now maybe. However, modern science has proven that living beings could be cloned. A reproductive tissue of a mammal, the highest animal form can produce a duplicate of the original animal.
Dr. Ian Wilmut of the Rosslin Institute in Edinburgh Scotland had successfully cloned a perfectly functional sheep named Dolly. In Europe, using the same technology, a secretive religious sect called the Raelians claimed that they have successfully cloned a human being. The sect's main rival Dr. Severino Antenori announced that a cloned baby would be born in Serbia.
That was long time ago. Except for Dolly, there were no recent news of the existence of the cloned babies, perhaps they have died because of serious defects or was eliminated. In any case, should this be proven true our concept of life and living will have to be drastically revised and some chapters on Ontology will have to be rewritten. - Bohol Sunday Post
There is a great difference between living and life. Living is existing, functioning until a certain limit is reached. However, life is a state or a condition of existence. An entity must possess certain characteristics and capabilities in order to have life. They must have the following: material existence - to be born or reproduced; the capability to derive sustenance from extra somatic sources for growth and development: and the potential for reproduction. Without those characteristics, a being does not have life.
There are religious sects who consider living beings life regardless of its form of existence. That is why Christian Scientists, Jehovah Witnesses among others and even our Iglesia ni Kristo refuse blood transfusion or organ transplant even if their lives depend on them. Extraction to analyze blood chemistry is also taboo.
A male and female gamete may live or function until their immediate environment can no longer support their existence or until they grow old and die. Which is in a short period of time. By themselves, they may live nut they are just agents of sexual reproduction. They may be living – existing and functioning but do not possess life. Only when the male and female reproductive cells unite to form a resulting zygote produce a being with life.
In the hierarchy of beings, except for the lowest genera, all living beings must depend upon other living beings to survive. Only plant life, the first link in the food chain can derive sustenance direct from the elements; therefore do not depend on other life forms. The grazers or herbivores must eat plants to live. Plants must die so herbivores could survive. The carnivores depend on the herbivores or other carnivores, while the omnivores like man depend upon all types of living beings.
Other beings with life must die so other beings could live, lower forms of life must serve the higher forms. However if a predator takes kills for whatever reason can the predator be held accountable for the deed? What about man the omnivore? Some religions like the Buddhists choose to be vegetarians for theological reasons. Whatever they may be. We quote the Bible to justify our taking sustenance form lower life forms. Genesis !:29,30.
Taking life is different from prevention of the formation of life. In contraception, living things may die but no lives are lost because male and female reproductive cells do not possess life. They may have the capability to exist, to survive but unless they unite, they cannot produce life. As of now maybe. However, modern science has proven that living beings could be cloned. A reproductive tissue of a mammal, the highest animal form can produce a duplicate of the original animal.
Dr. Ian Wilmut of the Rosslin Institute in Edinburgh Scotland had successfully cloned a perfectly functional sheep named Dolly. In Europe, using the same technology, a secretive religious sect called the Raelians claimed that they have successfully cloned a human being. The sect's main rival Dr. Severino Antenori announced that a cloned baby would be born in Serbia.
That was long time ago. Except for Dolly, there were no recent news of the existence of the cloned babies, perhaps they have died because of serious defects or was eliminated. In any case, should this be proven true our concept of life and living will have to be drastically revised and some chapters on Ontology will have to be rewritten. - Bohol Sunday Post
No comments:
Post a Comment