Sir, - I wonder if Emer Coffey (June 12th) knows that in the debate on "human rights" in the French Revolutionary Parliament of 1789, the demand was made that wherever the rights of man are proclaimed, they must be combined with a declaration on the responsibilities of man. Otherwise, in the end all human beings would have only rights which they would play off against others and no one would any longer recognise the responsibilities without which such rights cannot function.
Furthermore, for those who prefer the idea of a "global ethic" to that of Christian commandments, the Council of the Parliament of the World's Religions stated that such an ethic must be based on two principles - first, that "every human being must be treated humanely" and second, that "what you wish done to yourself, do to others.".
So all that remains in this endless debate on the right to abort is to decide whether or not the unborn baby is sufficiently a person to avail of these principles. I have personally held a baby who was delivered at 22 weeks, and no doubt this record has already been broken. Women decide what happens to their bodies when they opt for sex. Please don't tell me that women are so ignorant they cannot organise their ovarian functions to suit their lifestyle. If a child is conceived, he/she must deserve to live. The unborn child is a separate person from the mother and must be afforded full independent rights. After all, the elderly and frail don't forfeit citizen status just because they require continual support. Responsibilities must go hand in hand with "rights".
How is it that a society which endlessly highlights the rights of the homeless, the asylum-seekers, and the abused so light on the rights and needs of the most vulnerable of our human race? - Yours, etc.,
Susan Philips, Glenealy, Wicklow.