Wednesday, March 23, 2005

A letter I sent to the Chicago Tribune

Re: The story March 23, 2005 entitled "Protestors blast drugstore."

In your story about Planned Parenthood protesting a Chicago drugstore whose pharmacist refused to sell contraception, you say that "Some pharmacists. . . say taking emergency contraceptives and other birth control pills is equivalent to abortion, because the pills can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus." This is true, and is in fact what happens with these drugs. But you say after that "Most doctors, however, say there is no pregnancy--and therefore no abortion--until after implantation."

This is merely a linguistic dodge. It matters not whether a doctor calls it abortion or not. The fact remains that the drugs prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, thereby killing it. That's the moral issue, whether such things ought to be killed or not, and whether the pharmacist ought to have to participate in that killing. Appealing to the verbal practice of "most doctors," who call the killing something other than abortion, changes nothing about the morality of the situation.

My Name, PhD
My School

No comments: