ANDREW Tickell begins his piece on the abortion debate with such generosity that I was convinced he was going to continue and conclude in this vein (How Scotland’s Christian right lost politics and fell in love with the law, The National, February 16).
I should have known better, as he concludes with a personal attack on John Deighan. Tickell writes that “we now look to America for all our ideas” yet does not even mention the enormous setbacks to abortion that have taken place since Donald Trump became president. The flogging off of parts of dead aborted children has become illegal in many states and a number have introduced a 12-week time limit. There was in fact no time limit to abortion in the USA, although a number of states have now introduced it.
Recent research in the USA has indicated that children as young as 12 weeks feel excruciating pain as their little bodies are pulled apart by the abortionists. There is also further research that suggests abortion incites huge feelings of guilt in many mothers. It would be nice if Tickell could conduct debate without descending into personal abuse.
Alan Clayton
Strachur, Argyll
WHEN Andrew Tickell calls John Deigham “Scotland’s nastiest culture warrior” he is indulging in invective instead of rational argument. It seems to me that the logical fallacy of “argumentio ad hominem” is at work here. Attack the person because your argument is weak.
When the Abortion Act was passed we were led to believe that the purpose of it was to save the lives of mothers whose lives were in danger if they proceeded with their pregnancy. There was a clause introduced to alleviate the fears of those who had a conscientious objection to abortion because it killed the baby.
Now we find that abortions can take place for a variety of reasons and lawyers have twisted the words of the Abortion Act to allow for the sacking of midwives who refuse to assist with abortions.
The irony is that there is supposed to be a law that protects people against discrimination on the grounds of (among other things) religious belief. That does not appear to apply to Catholics.
John Kelly
Kelso
AFTER reading Andrew Tickell’s piece yesterday I felt I had to speak up for the babies and mothers affected by abortion. We all, even Andrew, started off as that small foetus in the womb and we can never get away from that or deny it – you cannot miss out this stage of new life.
The main plank of the Abortion Act was to be rid of back-street abortionists and not to have women go through an abortion on their own without support – I think we have now gone full circle and women are now on their own and not supported.
What I really don’t understand is that nowadays there have never been more ways to avoid becoming pregnant and yet the abortion figures do not go down. Is abortion just lazy contraception?
Winifred McCartney
Address supplied
HAMISH MacPherson lauded a rotten lord this week in his article on Lord Lovat (Fascinating life of the cunning ‘Last Highlander’, The National, February 13). He glanced too fondly at Lovat’s turncoat tendencies, and glanced too quickly over his rape of Amelia Fraser in 1697, when he was 30.
Lovat was widely despised for this, including by those working with Mary of Modena to restore her son James VIII, the Old Pretender. In 1704 one of Mary’s closest aides wrote to her saying that Lovat was “so wicked, so dangerous, and so notoriously to be suspected” that he deserved to be in prison.
Without constitutional routes to power, Jacobites relied on developing trust amongst the people, based on honest virtues and opposition to widely-felt oppressions. (This remains a tactic of left-wing populists – a political approach that is being explored by an online journal, launched this week, called The New Pretender, at new-pretender.com.)
In every movement there are those who try to live up to the claims of their cause, and others who get involved to advance their twisted ends. It is a shame that the article ranks Lovat as an outstanding Jacobite, when he was one of those who most sullied its standard.
CM Gallagher
Address supplied
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here