Ethics

Biological life is defined as Ability to grow, reproduce, and respond to such stimuli as light, heat, and sound. (Farlex)  This definition is obviously applicable to all living things.  Human life, on the other hand is life enjoyed or possessed by human beings.  There is not question as to this definition, the only question currently existing is when does human life begin, and is the beginning of life an ethical consideration when ending or preventing a life through abortion   Life is sacred, whether it is defined by mystics or scientist, and ending a life is not moral however which way we put it.  However, is there an actual ending of a life in cases where it is stopped before it even begins  This is a question that has roused heated debates from all over the world, especially countries that are predominantly Christian and where there are certain disputes about whether to support artificial contraception or not.  Abortion is defined as the intentional or unintentional cessation of infant life (Farlex) and based on this definition one can easily say that contraception is definitely not abortion.  Therefore, preventing human life from being conceived through contraception is not really immoral as opposed to what other representations claim it to be.

Preventing the sperm from meeting the egg is very different from ending a life that has already been conceived.  So, when exactly does human life begin  Plato contended that the human soul does not enter the body until birth, and this was determinative for legal science in ancient Roman society (Gilbert)  This theory of Plato is the basis for many who say that abortion is still allowed before birth, because the, the fetus does not have a soul yet.  However, there are many other philosophers who dispute this claim of Plato.  Pythagorean is one philosopher who stressed that the human soul was created at the time of conception and this is reflected in the Hippocratic Oath. (Gilbert)  The Hippocratic Oath is the oath by which modern doctors swear to and if this is considered, even men of science, doctors believe that the soul is created at the time of conception, which is after the sexual act and after fertilization.  This basically means that preventing fertilization is not yet immoral as at this point no human life is still present.  Another philosopher who strengthens this position is Aristotle who asserted that when soul was added to the matter in the womb, a living individuated creature was created, which had the form and rational power of a man (ODonovan 1975). This process of formation or animation, manifested by the movement of the fetus in the womb, took place, in Aristotles opinion, on the fortieth day after conception in the case of a male child and on the ninetieth day after conception for a female child.

In support to other philosophers who believed that human life began with the infusion of the soul, Aristotle surmised that the infusion of the soul meant that the fetus had to manifest any form of movement.  A motionless fetus, therefore, does not have a soul yet.  This even makes the beginning of human life much later.  Christian points of view are varied on the beginning of human life.  For instance, Tertullian, a prominent Christian theologian, opposed contraception and early abortion, because he regarded them as proleptic murder- the prevention of a birth that should occur, (Gilbert) however, Catholic doctrines also suggest that the animation of a male fetus happens forty days after conception and that of the female, eighty days.  (Jackson)  This means that the soul is infused in this period and life does not begin yet, prior to this.  Popes who were infallible in their decisions were the most influential in this debate of the beginning of life.  Pope Gregory IX, returned the Church to the view that abortion of an unformed embryo was not homicide.  (Jackson)  This position is supported by current Catholic Church doctrine that maintains the belief that immediate animation, the instant at which the zygote is endowed with life including a soul from God, is concurrent with the moment of fertilization.  (Gilbert)  All these views validate the fact that contraception which merely serves to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg does not in any way go in the way of the beginning of life because it prevents a process that results to the beginning of life.  Stopping the beginning from happening is like stopping something that does not exist yet, and hence the moral consideration that contraception is not really immoral.  Action where no life is destroyed could therefore not be considered immoral.

Even the natural sciences validate these positions of ancient philosophers as well as of the Christian doctrine itself.  While there are many theories as to when life begins, all of these theories support the proposition that life is still not present prior to the union of the sperm and the egg.  In the metabolic view of the beginning of life, for instance, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.  (Gilbert)  This means that life begins so much further into the gestation process.  In another position taken by the field of genetics, fertilization is the beginning of life because it is at this point that a genetically unique individual is created.  (Jackson)  What this means is that life does not exist prior to fertilization and so contraception does not destroy any kind of life as there is none to destroy just yet.  Two other views on the beginning of life are the embryological view which states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation (Gilbert) putting it much later and the neurological point of view which declares that human life begins when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern, that is about 24-27 weeks after the conception of a fetus, way after where contraception is most likely to occur.

Based on philosophical, cultural, and scientific evidence, human life begins way after where contraception is being attempted so, as mentioned awhile ago, the prevention of the beginning of life cannot be considered immoral because there are no ethical considerations that govern this particular stage of procreation.  The only immoral act that could be done when considering the origins of human life is when a life that has already began is intentionally or unintentionally destroyed  here now, immorality is clear, because the destruction of life goes against all existing precepts and laws that govern the human race.  In contrast, when life has not yet begun, it is obviously not immoral to stop something that does not even exist yet in the first place.

Perhaps there will be more debates and disputes about contraception in the future but the fact remains that all kinds of evidence support contraception in any form because, this process, in no way destroys life.  While more controversies may arise in the future, it is but fitting that people first consider the existing evidence and the lessons of history before rashly making conclusions that may be misconstrued as fact.