CONTROVERSIES ON THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE - SCIENCE AND RELIGION CLOSER AND CLOSER

One of the most controversial topics in modern bioethics, science, and philosophy is the beginning of individual human life. In the seemingly endless debate, strongly stimulated by recent technologic advances in human reproduction, a synthesis between scientific data and hypothesis, philosophical thought, and issues of humanities has become a necessity to deal with ethical, juridical, and social problems. Furthermore, in this field there is a temptation to ask science to choose between opinions and beliefs, which neutralize one another. The question of when human life begins requires the essential aid of different forms of knowledge. Here we become involved in the juncture between science and religion, which needs to be carefully explored. Modern bioethics and science are strongly concerned for the respect of human life at both ends of its existence (birth and death), but other sciences (eg. Philosophy, technology, psychology, sociology, law, and politics) consider the beginning of human life according to different points of view. However, bioethical topics like this one cannot be treated from only one perspective (eg. Biological, philosophical, or religious) because conclusions might be not good enough or reductive. This reality should be regarded in all its richness: An embryo gives a biologist and a geneticist substance for consideration, but because we are talking about the beginning of human life, it requires philosophical-anthropological consideration and confrontation with theology; in its protection we have to include ethics and law. In experiencing and investigating social behavior, other disciplines, such as the history of medicine and sociology, have to be included. It is hard to answer the question when human life should be legally protected. At the time of conception? At the time of implantation? At the time of birth? In all countries (except Ireland and Liechtenstein) juridical considerations are based on Roman law. Roman civil law says that the fetus has right when it is born or if it is born-nasciterus. Few countries agree with definition of beginning of human personality at the time of conception. The majority does not grant legal status to the human embryo in vitro (i.e., during the 14 days after fertilization). Thus, even in the absence of legal rights, there is no denying that the embryo constitutes the beginning of human life, a member of the human family. Therefore, whatever the attitude, every country has to examine which practices are compatible with the respect of that dignity and the security of human genetic material.The question when a human life begins and how to define it, could be answered only through the inner-connecting pathways of history, philosophy, medical science and religion. It has not been easy to determine where to draw the fine line between the competence of science and methaphysics in this delicate philosophical field. To a large extent the drawing of this line depends on one's fundamental philosophical outlook. The point at which human life begins will always be seen differently by different individuals, groups, cultures, and religious faiths. In democracy there are always at least two sides, and the center holds only when the majority realizes that without a minority democracy itself is lost. The minority in turn must realize its best chance lies in persuasion by reason and thoughtfulness rather than fanaticism.