I am following the argument in favour of the morning-after pill, which has been going on for decades. It all reminds me of the time of its promotion in Italy – as director of the CISF (International Centre for Family Studies), I had to enter into a dialogue with politicians and women about its legitimacy.

At the very outset of the debate we had formed a very reliable scientific committee as a study group to research, study and produce an opinion on the issue, which was presented to the Italian Parliament.

One issue we argued upon was the slogan that the morning-after pill was the fundamental right of women to do as they choose with their body. Does this mean that killing is a right? This is the argument of those in Malta who promote legislation in favour of the morning-after pill. When I was in the Family Commission of the Council of Europe I was often criticised and was told: “You in Malta are behind in human rights, because you do not have abortion.”

There are many arguments to prove this is not a right. Are also suicide and euthanasia a right? I disagree with those lobbies who appoint themselves “as the voice of the voiceless”. I wish they would hear the voice of the millions of voiceless unborn children, who were conceived and who were not given “the right to be born”.

Last-minute crusades, as I saw in the Italian Church, are too late. Likewise, rather vague pastoral letters or circulars are of little worth. We all are the Church and let us just not leave the defence of life in the hands of the hierarchy; doctors, lawyers, counsellors and parents are called to defend life. As the founder of the Cana Movement, I am waiting for it to take the lead with other organisations. My creed is of Shakespeare: “What has to be done, has to be done now and quickly.”

Many were surprised when in 2013 the German bishops permitted the use of the morning-after pill in Catholic hospitals for rape victims. This was justified on the conviction that their approval “was based on the conviction that research suggests that the pills are contraceptive in nature rather than abortifacient”.

I would like to know what ethical and moral principles were followed to justify this decision. I think the answer rests on medical evidence. Dr James Trussel, director of Princeton University Office of Population Research, wrote: “To make an informed choice, women must know that the emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting fertilisation, but at times inhibit implantation of a fertilised egg in the endometrium.”

This shows that only the principal argument of St Thomas of Aquinas, that faith and reason, in this case science, come from the same source, ‘the gift of life’.