British Columbia, Canada
\n16 February, 2002<\/p>\n
The cover of your\u00a0\u00a0January\/February 2002 edition highlighting Dr. Roey M. Malleson\u2019s\u00a0article on \u2018emergency contraception\u2019 was unexpected: a brawny,\u00a0half-naked, Aryan warrior, eyes glinting murderously from under his horned helmet, wielding a copper IUD, crouched to spring and\u00a0slaughter.<\/p>\n
I would like permission to\u00a0 post the cover on the Project website, and would appreciate it if you would send me seven copies of the issue. The cover is a splendid\u00a0\u00a0illustration of the usual basis for conscientious objection to\u00a0\u00a0potentially abortifacient devices and drugs, and the article provides\u00a0\u00a0an excellent example of moral obfuscation masquerading as science.<\/p>\n
Dr. Malleson clearly\u00a0 believes, as a matter of faith (for it cannot be science), that it is not immoral to destroy an early human embryo by preventing implantation. However, the article fails to explain why this belief should be forced upon those who do not share it. The Journal of the\u00a0Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists<\/em>, cited to support Dr.\u00a0Malleson\u2019s threatening accusation of negligence, is not widely\u00a0acknowledged to be an infallible authority on faith and morals, nor is\u00a0Dr. Malleson.<\/p>\n Finally, astute readers will\u00a0recognize that the law is more complex than suggested by the article.\u00a0Freedom of conscience is recognized as a fundamental freedom that must\u00a0be accommodated. It is imprudent and unhelpful to publicly incite civil actions against colleagues in order to secure their submission\u00a0to the moral outlook so aptly expressed by your cover.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"