I refer to the article by Mark Anthony Falzon in which he defended the legalisation of the morning-after pill (‘It’s all about the sex’, The Sunday Times of Malta, June 19).

Falzon quotes the Mayo clinic as saying “Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted”. Then on the other hand he quotes Gift of Life as saying that “Pregnancy does not require implantation”.

Amusingly Falzon asks for the exact ranking Gift of Life has in the field of gynaecology and hence questions its right to differ from the above Mayo statement. The scene which Falzon is setting seems that of a lost case for anyone with the same opinion as that of Gift of Life.

The professor’s concluding logic is even more amusing. He concludes: “It follows that, since the morning-after pill does not end an implanted pregnancy, it does not end a pregnancy at all.” I could not make sense out of this. This is like saying “Since men do not drink warm beer they do not drink beer at all”.

Falzon and Mayo state that the pill does not terminate pregnancies after implantation. The answer to this is simple: Of course, it terminates them before. Playing around with definitions to delay the recognition of human life in order to suit the greed of abortion clinics has been the hallmark of the latter half of the 20th century. Falzon seems completely oblivious to this.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.