I refer to Lara Dimitrijevic’s article ‘Lies and insinuations’ (January 31) from the Women’s Rights Foundation. She was replying to an article penned by Tony Mifsud entitled ‘Women’s rights, fetal rights’(January 28).

Dimitrijevic’s long response is mainly about criticising Mifsud’s article, women’s rights and violence against women, the morning-after pill and abortion.

Strangely, I did not come across anything in defence of the human right to life from conception.

First, let us keep in mind that approximately 50 per cent of births are girls, and if they are not killed by any means before they see the light of day, they would become women in about 12 years; some even before they reach that age. For all this to happen, they must be protected from the moment of conception.

My questions to Dimitrijevic are: are you against violence on unborn, innocent and defenceless human life? Have you ever researched the violence that exists against unborn human lives, to be able to recognise the gravity of this problem and also to realise the urgency which this matter deserves, and work to bring this violence to an end?

Dimitrijevic, writes: “Our mission is to ensure that they [referring to women] can live a life free from violence.”

How can her organisation even come close to reach an optimal result in favour of women, if unborn human lives are not defended against violence from the moment of conception?

Malta ranks first out of 28 member states in defending human life against violence from the moment of conception

She also writes: “The Gender Equality Index research published in June 2015 shows that Malta ranks 16 out of 28 member states. It showed Malta ranks low when it comes to Maltese women being involved in political decision-making.”

May I remind that Malta ranks first out of 28 member states in defending human life against violence from the momentof conception.

Is Dimitrijevic pleased and grateful that Malta ranks in first place regarding the above issue?

And is she helping to keep Malta’s remarkable achievement and reputation against violence on unborn human life from the moment of conception?

Regarding the morning-after pill, there is still disagreement among organisations, gynaecologists and other professionals whether the morning-after pill is abortive or not, as  there is also disagreement regarding the beginning of a pregnancy; that is, whether it begins when the woman’s ovum is fertilised, whether it begins at the implantation of the embryo, or at any other later stage.

Since both the morning-after pill and pregnancy clearly show that science has not yet reached with certainty a conclusive result, then the ‘golden rule’ should apply and prevail: whenever there is doubt or uncertainty, safety must come first.

In the former case this means that the lives of both the woman and the fertilised ovum must be protected from harm at all times; while in the latter case, since human life begins at conception, the woman should be regarded as being pregnant at this stage and not at any other later period.

Raymond Bezzina is a pensioner.