Theme by nostrich.
Post with 116 notes
But reading closely the argument that happened in the Senate, Sen. Miriam Santiago committed a straw man fallacy by proposing a complex question, to wit:
"If itis the position of Sen. Enrile that a sperm has life, of course, if a sperm has life, then that life should be protected. Therefore, in logic, when a person masturbates and releases all those sperms for nothing, he commits murder? Let’s think about that."
Where in fact, Enrile just reiterated a basic biological fact, to wit:
There is life already [in the sperm and the egg] but not yet a human life because a woman cannot produce a human being without the sperm of a man, and a man cannot produce a human being without the egg of the woman so these elements on their own have life.
Ergo, it is Miriam who said masturbation is abortion and not Enrile.
In the final analysis, Enrile got the usual bad propaganda treatment the RH camp loves to use against its detractors. If anything, the one who are severely misinformed on bio-ethical issues are the two Senators (Miriam and Cayetano) who apparently have no internet access for still reiterating that there is no medical consensus on what exactly is human conception.
I mean, seriously, just Google conception and you’ll have statements like this:
If sperm does meet and penetrate a mature egg after ovulation, it will fertilize it. When the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of fertilization, your baby’s genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. Since the mother can provide only X chromosomes (she’s XX), if a Y sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a boy (XY); if an X sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a girl (XX).
Kids, stop reading humor sites for your news, ok?