What Simon Oosterman wrote in his letter The Best Solution To Avoid Abortions (July 4) was simply shocking. He takes lead in criticising an editorial of The Times, considering it to be “more emotional than factual and, more seriously, unbalanced” adding that he “is not aware of any civil society where embryos and foetuses are considered and/or treated as persons”.

I don’t want to get too personal but, in reality, it is Mr Oosterman himself who got it all wrong as his letter shows. Just to start with, he has no idea of embryonic biology.

The word “embryo” etymologically derives from the Latin word embryum, meaning “that which grows” and “to swell, be full” (Wikipedia). During the process of embryogenesis, that is, the development of the embryo, a zygote is produced once a sperm fertilises an egg cell. The zygote then undergoes mitotic divisions through the process of cleavage and cellular differentiation and develops. Eight weeks after fertilisation, the embryo is called a foetus. Because of this development, biologists argue that life starts at the moment of conception, that is, from that moment of the fusion of the gametes, an ovum from the mother and a sperm from the father.

So what makes the embryo so unique? Mainly it is its development, which is tremendously interesting in the study of embryology. Following fertilisation, the umbilical cord between mother and child starts forming in just a couple of days. Growth then centres around that point, forming the spine and its cord. In three weeks, the brain and heart start forming. During weeks four and five the brain develops into different areas and it starts functioning. The heart starts beating and blood starts to flow. Some bones, arms and legs start taking shape. Between weeks six and eight, the embryo starts moving. Eyes and hair are formed as well as other essential organs.

As one can see, in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, the human embryo has already developed into something more than just “a clump of a few living cells”, as Mr Oosterman defined it. Evidently, it is a human life, which moves undergoing development. I therefore cannot understand how some people are capable of legitimising the destruction of this human life. What is more alive than a moving human with a body, with eyes and hair, with a beating heart and with flowing blood? And this is just the first eight weeks of pregnancy! I cannot see why we should not consider it as a person when it is as alive as any grown adult. Is there some kind of dividing line that distinguishes a person from a non-person?

For this reason, it is important for every human being to give the utmost respect to every embryo. It is not true that embryos have never been treated as persons. Their destruction was not legitimised because of a lesser-person argument but because societies at the time considered it morally correct to justify abortion. For example, early philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle saw that it was permissible to abort embryos considered a hazard to civil society. The same logic is used today in China with the “one-child policy” and this is the reason behind 13 million forced abortions that happen annually in China alone.

Furthermore, surprisingly, Mr Oosterman imagines that nobody is pro-abortion. Unfortunately, some people are in fact in favour of abortion and this number is not minimal. Unlike what he believes, abortion is not considered as the last resort and the lesser of two evils. Rather, women, especially teenagers, are forced into abortion, creating monetary profit for the economy. Nobody can deny that childbearing is time-consuming and expensive; getting rid of the embryo is the easiest way out – therefore, opt for abortion. However, sadly, this experience usually ends in a traumatic one and as a result many women would suffer from “post-abortion syndrome”, which is a form of post-traumatic stress disorder. The truth is that abortion is a horrible experience and not all women are capable of overcoming the trauma. This is an experience Mr Oosterman will probably never have to face.

At the end of his letter, Mr Oosterman changes the topic and starts speaking about sex education and contraceptives.

First of all, sex education and abortion are not related. Sex education raises awareness about pregnancy, sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) and also the values and moralities related to sex, which are all very important. However, the issue of abortion is something different, involving serious ethical issues.

Secondly, he mistakenly classifies the morning-after pill and Plan B as contraceptives. Contraception prevents fertilisation, such as condoms. Contragestion prevents the gestation of a fertilised egg, making implantation impossible. In the latter, the embryo is formed but its development is hindered and so dies. This includes the morning-after pill and Plan B for a woman who is already pregnant. These cause abortion because they terminate the life of the fertilised embryo.

Hopefully, this will clear some misjudgements from Mr Oosterman’s point of view and also help to raise a pro-life awareness, which is definitely a need in modern society.