THE defenders of John Deighan who believe that it’s a mean spirited ad-hom attack for Andrew Tickell to refer to him as “Scotland’s nastiest culture warrior” (Letters, February 16) probably either don’t know, or would rather that the public didn’t know, about the full extent of Mr Deighan’s stance on abortion. Or for that matter several other issues where he feels that his belief in God should trump everyone else’s rights.

The fact we’re even expected to listen the rantings of a middle-aged male celibate on women’s health and sexual health issues, and take him seriously in the 21st century, seems laughable.

Do the people who are calling for the end to abortions in Scotland believe that should be the case for all circumstances?

Would you deny an abortion to the approximately 12,000 woman in the UK each year who go through an ectopic pregnancy, where there’s no prospect of a child being born, and risk of severe health issues, and ruptures resulting in death to the women if they carry on without treatment?

For some of these women an abortion is the only option to end that pregnancy.

What about young women who have been the victims of incest and rape? Should a young girl sexually assaulted by a sibling be required to top off that trauma by having a baby to remind them of it every day?

John Deighan has argued that in both of those circumstances, women should indeed be forced to carry on with the pregnancy, with those women who have an abortion prosecuted along with the doctors. That would fit the definition of most people as being pretty nasty.

The fact that we tolerate people with such views actively protesting and harassing women entering clinics and hospitals seeking a perfectly legitimate and legal medical procedure is mind-boggling.

Also to Winifred McCartney, who believes that abortion is no longer a requirement due to how many ways pregnancy can be avoided. You are aware that John Deighan has actively lobbied for abstinence-only education in Scotland’s schools, right?

You may not like abortion on religious grounds, much like Deighan. But where does someone’s personal freedom stop because it upsets someone else’s religious beliefs? Condoms and birth-control pills being banned from sale? According to Deighan, everyone’s right to reduce their risk of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy is a bad thing, because it goes against what he heard at church on a Sunday.

And why not ask the states in America where abstinence education is required by law how well that’s worked out? All it’s done is moved teenagers off from vaginal sex, to oral and anal.

I have no problem with accepting someone holding personal religious beliefs. But I object to someone believing they have a right to force those beliefs on others as John Deighan does.

Not just on sex, and sex education, but when it comes to sexuality, and undoing the progress Scotland has been making to be a friendlier society to LGBT people. John Deighan believes we should end all of the good work of the TIE campaign to prevent self-harm and suicide among young LGBT people. Because how dare we teach kids that being gay is nothing to be ashamed of?

Again, a position of Deighan’s which most people I know would describe as rather nasty.

I’d be interested to see John Deighan defend his positions, but I’m assuming his response will as usual be based on half-truths and lies like his claims about the dangers of condoms, or that somehow the Catholic Church couldn’t compete for funding against the Equality Network when he was trying to deny gay people the right to marry.

William Kelly
Fife