fbpx
National Campus Life Network > Blog > ethika politika

University of Toronto Students for Life: To be or not to be (a sperm)… that is the question

This post was written for University of Toronto Students for Life by Danny Ricci. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

When arguing with the other side about when life begins, you might hear the argument that “We don’t really know for sure when a sperm stops being a sperm, so do you people also want to save the sperm?” Luckily for us, this argument can be answered in the following way. From Ethika Politika:

In normal fertilization, many sperm penetrate the corona radiata of the ovum (a layer of follicle cells surrounding the ovum). Then, typically only one sperm will penetrate the zona pellucida (a film of glycoproteins surrounding the oocyte) and reach the oocyte. The sperm’s membrane then fuses with the actual membrane of the oocyte. This fusion triggers changes in the oocyte (or rather, what was the oocyte) so that (a) the membrane of this new cell undergoes a rapid polarization, and (b) a calcium wave is produced throughout the new cell’s cytoplasm so that the zona pellucida hardens over approximately 30 minutes and repels penetration by sperm. These facts indicate that what is living at this point is not an ovum.

Did you get all that? All it is saying is that only one sperm fully penetrates an egg (oocyte) and after this, there are changes to this “oocyte” that indicate that it is not an oocyte anymore. So, we are not saving the sperm: We are saving a different organism because at fertilization a sperm and an egg cease to exist. A whole new organism is present.

The article then goes on to explain newer techniques of in-vitro fertilization and how these newer techniques are raising questions as to when sperm and ovum cease to exist. Just because we do not know where the “line” is when sperm/ovum combine to form a zygote does not mean we ditch what we know; namely that a new life is created when a sperm and egg fuse. In-vitro fertilization cannot override basic biological principles.


Read the comments at the University of Toronto Students for Life website.

University of Toronto Students for Life: Birth control and abortion in “modern feminism”

This post was written for University of Toronto Students for Life by Danny Ricci. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

A good read by Catherine Palmer over at Ethika Politika:

The belief to which I am referring suggests that there is something regrettable about a woman’s natural capacity to conceive and bear children. The abortion advocate attacks the unique sexuality of a woman and squashes the sense of pride she experiences in being able to bring life into the world —  a miracle no man can replicate[1]. Attempts to artificially sterilize and de-sex women by stripping their wombs of life are belittling and offensive. No woman should be made to feel by society — and have confirmed by pro-choice legislation — that something is intrinsically wrong with her body.

Yet isn’t this precisely the case for America’s women today? The responsible modern-day woman will go on the Pill so that her fertility does not become an undesired burden to society. Her biology is consistently high-maintenance and potentially expensive, so artificial birth control and abortion are necessary means of mastering her reproductive ability. On its own, a woman’s body just isn’t good enough.

It is a very insightful piece. Do read the rest of it.


Read the comments at the University of Toronto Students for Life website.