The European Court of Human Rights seems to have saved the last two months of this decade for highly controversial cases. In November it ruled that the presence of a crucifix in an Italian classroom "restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions and the right of children to believe or not to believe". Just a few days ago it started to hear a case to determine whether the Irish Republic's prohibition of abortion violates the European Convention of Human Rights.

The most recent case, dubbed as Europe's Roe v Wade, has been taken to the ECHR by three Irish women who contend that being forced to travel to Britain to carry out their abortions - which all of them did - endangered their "health and well-being" as safeguarded by the European Convention of Human Rights.

While the ECHR's mood is always difficult to predict, there are certain indicators which point towards a sympathetic hearing for the unnamed Irish women. In 2007, a Polish woman won a case against the State after successfully claiming that her eyesight was damaged because she had been denied an abortion. And in April of last year, the Council of Europe, under whose umbrella the court presides, passed a pro-abortion resolution despite opposition from several of its member states - including Malta, which along with Ireland, Andorra and Poland imposes a total ban on abortion.

Campaigners for the decriminalisation of abortion base their argument on two central pillars: that it does not make sense to impose a ban because women will only seek backstreet abortions, or go abroad; and that women, who must bear all the burdens of pregnancy, have the right to choose whether they wish to go through the process or not.

While few women take the decision to have an abortion lightly - in most cases the build-up to, and the aftermath of, is a hugely traumatic experience - the ECHR should not entertain the Irish women's argument for several reasons.

One, it should not make the mistake it made in the crucifix case by taking into account only one party's rights.

Religious principles aside, modern science has discovered highly relevant facts about the development of a foetus. At 17 weeks, when most countries still permit an abortion to take place, the developing baby does not just have physical attributes like a heart with four chambers; its feet kick, its hands wave, and its mouth yawns. In other words, the crucial steps of human development have already taken place within the first three months of conception.

So the discussion is not about one person's rights, but two people's rights: the mother and the tiny human being inside. Which means abortion can never be a right; only ever, at most, a justification.

Two, the ECHR must not use its human rights remit to enter into a sovereign country's prerogative to make laws. Abortion is not illegal in Malta or Ireland because a woman is unable to exercise the freedom to do as she wishes with her own body; it is illegal because the two States seek to protect the rights of the unborn. We make no distinction between a child that is inside the womb and one - to use a cold legal term - that has been expelled from it. The ECHR will only discredit itself if it seeks to change this.