Postcoital contraception.

Abstract

My colleague Dr. C.L. Brewer (January 15, p. 169) is within his rights to ask for a precise definition of abortion and contraception. I define abortion as the deliberate destruction of the embryo once it is embedded in the uterus. The absolutist on the abortion issue, until he is sure that an IUD never works by destroying an embedded embryo, must logically eschew this technique, advising his patient as to his ethical objections. She may then seek other advice once she has the facts. However, to insist that those who advise an IUD with the motive of contraception cannot herefore object to, say, intrauterine saline aimed at the destruction of a moving 27-week fetus is, in my view, stretching his argument. With further stretching it could be carried to absurdity in the rubella-early pregnancy dilemma: why not deliver the child, examine it carefully, and then if imperfect kill it with a silver hammer? Unthinkable, even if logical. Still, Dr. Brewer has a point and (with me) no doubt he will sympathize with Pope John and his advisers in their support for family spacing only by the avoidance of the fertile days - esthetically admirable but, alas, not always effective. How absurd the Catholic Church would now look if 10 years ago it had blessed the IUD only to find that it may operate not only by preventing the embedding of the zygot but by destroying it in situ - by definition an abortion. The future may settle the debate with hormones which convert the endometrium to a nonreceptive state so that a fetus is never embedded in the womb. Even better, we may develop a male hormone which prevents sperm from penetrating the ovum. Meantime, motive is important: contraception is not abortion and our abortionists should not dress up as delayed contraceptors. (Editor's note: This correspondence is now closed.)