(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell)
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
|
|
PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE
STATEMENT ON THE SO-CALLED
"MORNING-AFTER PILL"
As is commonly
known, the so-called morning-after pill recently went on sale in Italian
pharmacies. It is a well-known chemical product (of the hormonal type) which has
frequently - even in the past week - been presented by many in the field and by
the mass media as a mere contraceptive or, more precisely, as an "emergency
contraceptive", which can be used within a short time after a presumably fertile
act of sexual intercourse, should one wish to prevent the continuation of an
unwanted pregnancy. The inevitable critical reactions of those who have raised
serious doubts about how this product works, namely, that its action is not
merely "contraceptive" but "abortifacient", have received the very hasty reply
that such concerns appear unfounded, since the morning-after pill has an
"anti-implantation" effect, thus implicitly suggesting a clear distinction
between abortion and interception (preventing the implantation of the fertilized
ovum, i.e., the embryo, in the uterine wall).
Considering that the use of this product concerns fundamental human goods and
values, to the point of involving the origins of human life itself, the
Pontifical Academy for Life feels the pressing duty and definite need to offer
some clarifications and considerations on the subject, reaffirming moreover
already well-known ethical positions supported by precise scientific data and
reinforced by Catholic doctrine.
* * *
1. The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation (it can contain
oestrogens, oestrogen/progestogens or only progestogens) which, within and no
later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a
predominantly "anti-implantation" function, i.e., it prevents a possible
fertilized ovum (which is a human embryo), by now in the blastocyst stage of its
development (fifth to sixth day after fertilization), from being implanted in
the uterine wall by a process of altering the wall itself.
The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo.
Only if this pill were to be taken several days before the moment of ovulation
could it sometimes act to prevent the latter (in this case it would function as
a typical "contraceptive").
However, the woman who uses this kind of pill does so in the fear that she may
be in her fertile period and therefore intends to cause the expulsion of a
possible new conceptus; above all, it would be unrealistic to think that a
woman, finding herself in the situation of wanting to use an emergency
contraceptive, would be able to know exactly and opportunely her current state
of fertility.
2. The decision to use the term "fertilized ovum" to indicate the earliest
phases of embryonic development can in no way lead to an artificial value
distinction between different moments in the development of the same human
individual. In other words, if it can be useful, for reasons of scientific
description, to distinguish with conventional terms (fertilized ovum, embryo,
fetus, etc.) different moments in a single growth process, it can never be
legitimate to decide arbitrarily that the human individual has greater or lesser
value (with the resulting variation in the duty to protect it) according to its
stage of development.
3. It is clear, therefore, that the proven "anti-implantation" action of the
morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion.
It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say
that we are not dealing with the same thing.
Moreover, it seems sufficiently clear that those who ask for or offer this pill
are seeking the direct termination of a possible pregnancy already in progress,
just as in the case of abortion. Pregnancy, in fact, begins with fertilization
and not with the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall, which is
what is being implicitly suggested.
4. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of
abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking
the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly
co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.
5. A further consideration should be made regarding the use of the morning-after
pill in relation to the application of Law 194/78, which in Italy regulates the
conditions and procedures for the voluntary termination of pregnancy.
Saying that the pill is an "anti-implantation" product, instead of using the
more transparent term "abortifacient", makes it possible to avoid all the
obligatory procedures required by Law 194 in order to terminate a pregnancy
(prior interview, verification of pregnancy, determination of growth stage, time
for reflection, etc.), by practicing a form of abortion that is completely
hidden and cannot be recorded by any institution. All this seems, then, to be in
direct contradiction to the correct application of Law 194, itself debatable.
6. In the end, since these procedures are becoming more widespread, we strongly
urge everyone who works in this sector to make a firm objection of moral
conscience, which will bear courageous and practical witness to the inalienable
value of human life, especially in view of the new hidden forms of aggression
against the weakest and most defenceless individuals, as is the case with a
human embryo.
Vatican City, 31 October 2000.