From Ryan McMullen.
IT was interesting to read Monsignor Nicholas France’s comments over the use of the morning-after pill.

I fully accept the Christian teaching of the sanctity of life, and that all life is created ‘in the image of God’, and because of this I appreciate the objection expressed by the Church, and by the pharmacist who failed to issue the morning-after pill to a woman who required it.

We do not know this woman’s circumstances, but many feel they can judge her actions like one would judge a murderer or a military dictator. I am rather astounded that some Christians can judge the poor woman, who had asked for help, when they themselves cannot agree whether the morning-after pill is an abortificant or not. Since the morning-after pill would only work up until 72 hours after unprotected sex – or if other contraceptive measures were known to have failed – can we really consider from a scientific viewpoint that an embryo three days old is a conscious human being?

I appreciate that the Bible does not directly deal with the ethics of modern science, which is the cause of many a differing viewpoint, but would an embryo – without a circulatory, digestive and nervous system; without any form of brain formation or any conscience of its own being be considered a human being? Embryos which are not even a mere blastocyst?

These questions are largely rhetorical and to be answered on a personal basis, since it is not the main theme of my argument and I do not want to engage in correspondence about abortion ethics.

But I only ask that any viewpoint is founded with a good scientific basis as well as a moral and spiritual one. I have seen all too often many arguments about contraception with no understanding of modern science, which only suffices to show how ignorant some people can be. Likewise, it is obligatory that some scientific arguments are considered with moral ones, if only to preserve our sanity.

There is a systematic problem with teenage pregnancy in Western culture, which some may like to attribute the cause of to lack of education, while some may favour the argument that it is a direct result of too much education on the subject. But I struggle to comprehend some Church teachings, such as the teaching that all people are equal, when the Church disregards the equality between people who are pro-choice, or anti-choice.

Unless I can be corrected, I believe that the campaign against contraceptives has been waged by religion on the basis that it is God and God only who decides who lives and who is to die. This is riddled with contradiction, which Christianity is famed for. A pharmacist is obliged in their duties to provide suitable medicines to those who require it – whether it be to prolong the life, save life or for general care which promotes the wellbeing of the individual.

However, if one were to develop cancer, I imagine it must be the work of God, and hence anyone with cancer must therefore resign themselves to the fact that God has decided the fate of their life without trying to prolong it against His will. Therefore, anyone who is of religious disposition should not take any form of medicine, since it is an act against God.

As a result of which, any pharmacist who believes in the sanctity of life would be undermining their duty of care by providing any form of medicine, whether it be contraceptives or anything else.

Imagine if a vulnerable young Christian found themselves in need of help at the hospital, but for the doctor to refuse them admission because it was against God’s will. It simply wouldn’t happen.

I would like to say that I think that the lady was fairly prudent in going for help, and was not one of those who would wait until nine months later and then plead ignorance afterwards. The help that she was seeking was well within the law, and as far as I am aware, it is not for religious types to override the judicial system.
5 Ednor Villas,
Grève d’Azette,
St Clement.