Madam, - Sandra McAvoy advocates (July 18th) "safe and legal abortion" as "a matter of human rights". Thus, both women and doctors need the "protection of law".
Alarmingly, she never ever mentions the most voiceless, hence vulnerable, victims of abortion. The unfortunate unborn truly need requisite "legal protection".
Your correspondent argues her case "from a human rights perspective". Yet there is a natural hierarchy of human rights. Simply, some are more important than others. The right to life is by far the most fundamental for without it, all other rights are rendered redundant.
President John F Kennedy insightfully observed: "Human rights come not from the generosity of government but the hand of God". - Yours, etc,
JOHN ANTONY BARNWELL, St Patrick's Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.
Madam, - Perhaps you would allow me to respond to Jimmy O'Brien's reply (July 19th) to my letter of July 18th.
I am afraid that, in spite of "the technology, wealth and knowledge" that Mr O'Brien suggests are at our disposal, a woman can still find she is carrying a foetus that has ceased to develop or that will not survive outside her body.
Far from being a contradiction in terms, my reference to human rights reflects the arena in which the arguments in the D case were made: a court of human rights in which Ireland contended that, in such a case, a woman's right to decide to end her pregnancy in this country could be recognised.
Without legislation, however, there is no certainty on this matter. Indeed, during the last referendum campaign the Government told us that legislation was essential for the protection of women and doctors even in cases where pregnancy was a real and substantial threat to a woman's life.
It seemed to lose interest after losing the referendum. Let us hope it is not necessary to return to the European Court of Human Rights to vindicate women's or doctor's rights in either case. - Yours etc,
SANDRA McAVOY, Douglas Road, Cork.