Life initiation

Martin Schranz's statements (The Sunday Times, November 4) are definitely incorrect. I am involved in research on stem cells and am part of the advisory board of the Malta Council for Science and Technology. I never intimated that I am their expert on stem cells - nor am I. I do not think they have one official expert on stem cells.

I am against the abortive process but I have no problem with contraceptives, when they act as tools which prevent conception.

I do not agree with agents which prevent the fertilised embryo from implanting (or causing the implanted embryo to be dislodged and thus killed), be they the pill, the coil, the 'day after' pill or misoprostol. Another colleague, John Ghigo, has said that apparently many medical and other societies do not consider this abortion. It is killing a novel human life form with the potential to develop (if unhindered) into you.

The issue about gametes (despite their total lack of development potential) being compared to a fertilised zygote is one I have heard too many times and which holds no scientific water.

As regards the processes of parthenogenesis (replication of the gametes haploid DNA, resulting in teratacarcinoma tumours as Dr Schranz has indicated) this happens, but the resultant cellular masses (albeit with potential organs) do not have the potential to develop into him or myself. Nor do hydatiform moles. Nor do experimentally-created parthenogenic embryos as one of those created by the Korean scientists convicted of fraud for having claimed to have cloned a human being. Nor do anencephalic embryos - which can (as far as my knowledge in embryology goes) be compared to brain dead adults. So I do not expect any protection of these just as I would not expect the protection of a human brain-dead cadaver and (as far as I know) nor do more dogmatic authorities than myself who are not just basing their arguments on science (such as the Catholic church).

Dr Schranz also states "there is no proof that fertilisation is the unique isolated process that marks the definite start of a human life, with all its unique human characteristics". Since we are talking about scientific proof here, I would like to throw his own statement back to him here and ask: What would he consider as proof? According to his own reading of molecular and cellular science and embryology, what is the point that marks the start of a human life that deserves protection?

I will refrain from commenting further in public if the same statements are put forward yet again. If Dr Schranz, Rebecca Gomperts or anyone else wishes to discuss this further in a public debate or forum with adequate time allocated , I will be only too happy to join in.