From Dr Reginald Le Sueur.
THE morning-after pill row illustrates yet again the conflict between religion and science – or in this case, science-based medical practices.

If abortion is absolutely wrong, then it is so at any age of the foetus or embryo, and splitting hairs about whether the morning-after pill acts before, during or after conception, is irrelevant. Arbitrary human laws cannot define when life begins, because life does not have a beginning; it is continuous from generation to generation. Sperms and eggs are alive, with a 50% potential for being a new person. Nature itself wastes millions of eggs and sperms, without any concern for our moral posturings.

We have to choose whether there are moral absolutes, which appear to have been invented by Old Testament prophets based upon the dictates of the God of Israel, or we have to recognise that there are in fact no moral absolutes, and everything is relative to the prevailing circumstances, and subject to change.

Abortion is rightly seen as destructive of a life, and messy and unaesthetic. The alternative is to try and prevent the sexual impulse either by biblical methods of stonings and amputations, or some more refined modern method. Either way will result in the terrorising of young sexually active people who are only doing what Nature intended.

Nature would have us flooding the earth with babies – most of whom would die of starvation, neglect and abuse – as confirmed by the frequent horror stories we hear about, not to mention the drain on environmental resources by too many mouths to feed.

As we have reduced infant mortality, it is only sensible to control their overall numbers by contraception and if need by abortion, as all methods of contraception are difficult to implement efficiently.

We can no longer partially control our excess population by sending them to war, or Australia; instead, excess young humans are taking control of our inner cities and making our own St Helier a no-go area, committing random violence and vandalism at will.

Natural history shows that when a population outgrows its environment extinction is not far behind, whether from civil war over dwindling resources, or disease.

Excess humanity can itself be seen as a disease on the face of the planet. It might seem advisable to control our numbers at the very beginning of a pregnancy, or before, rather than risk the almost inevitable bloodshed that may occur between clashing interests if our population spirals out of control.

This seems a small price to pay for ensuring the long-term survival of the human race. Let us never forget that, for everyone to enjoy a comfortable life upon this planet, the maximum that it can currently sustain is 3 bn. World population has already reached 6 bn, and 9 bn are threatened by 2050. The prognosis is dire.
La Petella,
Rue des Vignes,
St Peter.