Ms. Colby and the editorial staff of the Daily have argued against Wal-Mart’s decision to place the “morning-after pill” in its pharmacies across the Nation.

Their arguments charge the store as unethical and immoral as it deprives women of the right to access this contraceptive technology. I take sides with Wal-Mart and here is why.

Wal-Mart has every right to make decisions that reflect the company’s ethics and morality, not your ethics or mine, but the company’s.

Ethics deal with a branch of philosophy that relate to human values of what is right or wrong, good or bad.

You may argue that ethics are not absolute, but they are decisions that reflect the character of individuals, companies and nations.

It is not unethical for me to refuse to imbibe an alcoholic beverage if I believe it is wrong to drink it.

It would be hypocritical and unethical of me to offer an alcoholic beverage to someone else when I believe that drinking it is not right.

The distinction I make for myself concerning what I believe to be right and wrong is really quite meaningless if I am willing to provide access to the same opportunity to others that they may have the freedom to do what I think is wrong.

What virtue is there in placing value on a belief when I am not ready to back it up?

I may not be able to stop you from using the pill, but it would be unethical and immoral for me to provide you with access to it when I believe it to be evil.

I would not be acting responsibly nor would I be true to my ethics.

Now I understand that neither the Daily nor Ms. Colby think the pill evil; for them it may be a wonder drug, but that really isn’t the issue.

The issue is whether the store has the right to express or convey a belief by refusing to carry an item that, when used, gives results they deem to be unethical.

The issue is whether the store has acted ethically, morally and responsibly.

If I believe that drinking alcohol is wrong, is it ethical for me to earn my living as a bartender?

Can anyone call himself Christian and cheat on his income taxes?

I am not saying it hasn’t been done. I am saying there is no virtue in holding a belief in word only.

It is meaningless!

It is unethical!

It is absurd!

Furthermore, the morning-after pill is a drug that prevents pregnancy from occurring by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.

The argument against this form of contraception is that it does not prevent conception.

It prevents a conception from continuing just as abortion prevents a conception from continuing.

In this way the pill is like abortion in that the human life that has been conceived is prevented from continuing.

You may argue when human life begins, but the argument is futile.

Every cell biologist, molecular biologist, medical physician, geneticist and theologian will confirm for you that after the egg of any organism, human, dog, geranium or nematode, is fertilized the genetic program destines the fate of the cell for the production of a single and unique life-form.

It is undeniable and unarguable.

It is our ethics, our morality that determines the worth we place on the life that is in progress.

Wal-Mart has obviously decided that human life is worthy of protection.

The store has decided to uphold this ethic by refusing to profit from a drug that acts in antithesis to this belief.

The store has acted ethically, morally, responsibly and in consistency with its beliefs even if it has irritated your sensibilities.

Wal-Mart has a right and a responsibility to act in accordance with this belief.

Ms. Colby, you noted that the pill was not developed as an alternative to abortion, but then you site a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that 800,000 abortions would be prevented by the use of the pill.

It is obvious to me then that the manufacturer of the pill had every intention of giving women an alternative to not only carrying an unwanted pregnancy, but of going through the painful and discomforting procedure of abortion.

The pill is an alternative and has been developed as an alternative to abortion.

For this and other reasons, I commend Wal-Mart for maintaining a consistency in its ethics and remaining in character despite the objections of others.

---

Dr. D.L. Moran

Researcher

Molecular biology