My simple question is this:
We know if a drug is an abortifacient, there is a graver moral implication than if it were a simple contraceptive.
Say there is a drug - we know that one of the things it definitely does is prevent conception. But as to whether it is also an abortifacient, there seems to be a dispute. The vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific literature at the time of the question states it is merely a contraceptive; however, a minority of peer-reviewed scientific literature finds otherwise. The factual issue does not seem to have been definitively decided.
The question is, should the moral law approach this drug as a contraceptive, or as an abortifacient?