Does the reproductive health law (RH law) violate the right to life of an unborn child?

(dialectic)
Through the years, the use of contraceptives and family planning methods evolved
from being a component of demographic management, to one centered on the promotion
of public health, particularly, reproductive health. The population of the country kept on
galloping at an uncontrollable phase, despite the legislative measures made by Congress.
The RH law is an enhancement measure to fortify and make effective the current laws on
contraception and population control.
Those people who agreed with the RH law posits that the said law was enacted
with due consideration. It does not violate the right to life of the unborn child, since the
said law only emphasizes non-abortifacient reproductive health care services, methods,
devices, products and supplies, which is available to the public. These group of people
view the said law as a violation of the right to life of the unborn child.
Those who disagreed with the said law posits that the RH law violates the right to
life of the unborn because it authorizes the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra
uterine devices and injectable which are abortive. The RH law considers contraceptives
that prevent the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers’ womb as an
abortifacient; thus sanctioning contraceptives that take effect after fertilization and prior
to implantation. These group of people view the said law as valid and it does not violate
the right to life of the unborn child since the has not yet been conceived yet.
However, those people who agreed with the RH law, argue that it does not oppose
the initiation of life considering that the various studies of the World Health Organization
show that the life begins from the moment of implantation of the fertilized ovum. The said
law does not violate the right to life because the intention of the law is that only
contraceptives that do not prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum are allowed.
Their argument was mainly based on studies conducted by World Health Organization.
To counter the previous argument, people who disagree with the RH law, contends
that even if the said law allows only “non-abortifacient” hormonal contraceptive devices,
injectable and safe, legal and effective family planning, medical research shows that
contraceptives use results in abortion as they operate to kill the fertilized ovum which has
already life as it opposes the initiation of life. In this argument, their point was the taking
of a human life living outside the uterus is considered illegal, so killing an embryo is also
illegal.
The debate between the two group of people involves complex issue which gives
rise to complex matters in understanding the intention of the law. In a nutshell, those
opposing the RH Law contend that conception is synonymous with fertilization of the
female ovum by the sperm. On the other side of the spectrum are those who assert that
conception refers to the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus. The right to life,
being predicated on natural law. It precedes and transcends any authority or the laws of
men. Fertilization and conception are two distinct and successive stages in the
reproductive process. They are not identical. Life begins at fertilization, not at
implantation. Where a fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall, its viability sustained
but that instance of implantation is not the point of beginning of life.