Madam, - The controversial High Court decision that unborn human life outside the womb does not enjoy constitutional protection under Article 40.3.3 flies in the face of basic scientific facts.
The assertion by the High Court judge that it was not possible for the court to say when life begins is extraordinary. Any second-level student of biology knows that human life has its starting point at fertilisation.
The embryo, from the moment of fertilisation, possesses his/her complete genetic code, which will programme his/her growth and development throughout life. Nothing further is added to the human embryo after fertilisation except time and nourishment.
In 1983, when Article 40.3.3 was voted on after a protracted debate, it was five years after the birth of Louise Browne, the first IVF baby.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that legal protection for the child embryo outside the womb, such as during the IVF process, had to have been a consideration, both for those drafting, and those voting on the amendment.
This Government claims to be committed to equality and the protection of children's rights. If this is the case, the Government should support a Supreme Court appeal on this matter, and introduce legislation to protect the right to life of all human embryos, whether inside or outside the womb. - Yours, etc,
EILÍS GREALY, Spokesperson, Galway For Life,St Augustine Street,Galway.
Madam, - In his ruling on the frozen embryos case, Mr Justice Brian McGovern is reported to have said that it had never been in the minds of people voting on the 1983 constitutional amendment on Article 40.3.3 that the unborn meant anything other than the foetus in the womb.
I was not aware that our judges had any special capacity to read minds, particularly at a distance of more than 20 years.
The rule of law demands that we be bound by the text of the law - not by evolving social standards, not even by some elusive authorial intent, but by the actual words of the Constitution.
In the context of the Constitution, "unborn" clearly refers to a person not yet born, whether in a womb or in a freezer. - Yours, etc,
CHRISTOPHER McCAMLEY, Newtown, Drogheda, Co Louth.
Madam, - The proposition that a frozen embryo should have the same right to life as an embryo in the womb is totally unworkable. IVF treatment routinely produces more embryos than are at first implanted in order to give a couple another chance if the first implantation fails.
What would happen in instances when the procedure is successful and produces a baby (or frequently twins!) and the parents decide that they do not want any more children?
How could the State possibly vindicate the right to life of the remaining frozen embryos?
Forcing the mother to have them implanted so that they can be born? Hardly.
The court reached the only logical conclusion. Let us recognise that and above all avoid another referendum! - Yours, etc,
GAVIN ROSS, Clonsilla, Dublin 15.