Readers' Letters: Abortion is not a healthcare issue

While I appreciate and support Susan Dalgety’s concern for women’s welfare, I cannot agree with her advocacy for the decriminalisation of abortion and support for MSP Gillian Mackay’s Bill to introduce “safe access zones” around abortion-providing facilities (Perspective, 17 June).

Scottish Green Party MSP Gillian Mackay has proposed a Bill to introduce safe access zones around healthcare settings that provide abortion services (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

Decriminalisation would lead to a free-for-all for abortion providers, numbers of abortions would exceed the record numbers they are running at at the moment, our failing NHS would be further stretched and women’s health and welfare not one whit advanced.

I object to abortion being called a healthcare issue, as if pregnancy was a disease. This results in a dehumanising of the baby in the womb. The life of this new human being is being terminated in what should be the safest place. This should only be done for the gravest of reasons. The new attitude seems to be that a baby in the womb can only be called that if it is wanted. Otherwise it is not even human – which contradicts both science and the instinctive knowledge of the mother.

Having worked as a doctor in rural India, I understand the exploitation of women and the reproductive hardships that they endure. The answer is not more abortion, but better basic healthcare and contraception; a more responsible attitude of both men and women to sex, taught at an early age; more protection of women from male aggression and coercion; and more support for pregnant women, especially if they are single or in abusive relationships. Susan Dalgety calls the terms of the Abortion Act “stringent”. In practice the Act is liberally interpreted, leading to the record numbers of abortions.

Having scrutinised Gillian Mackay’s Bill, I found it is poorly drafted and in danger of limiting freedom of speech and assembly. Why weren’t consultations held with pro-life groups to advise them on the best way to make their views known and in which to offer help to vulnerable women? I believe that such pro-life demonstrations, if lurid, threatening or harassing, are counter-productive. Why haven’t Scotland’s stringent laws against harassment, obstruction and intimidation been used instead of resorting to this Bill with its emphasis on the subjective rather than the objective assessment of harassment? Equivalent regulations in various local authorities in England have led to people being arrested and charged with an offence for merely standing in a public place and praying silently. Talk of “the thought police” is no longer funny.

(Rev Dr) Donald MMacDonald

Edinburgh

Moral matters

Doug Clark’s letter of 19 June about natural morality is so full of logical fallacies that it is difficult to know where to begin a response. He correctly states that in the UK the number attending Christian churches is in decline and concludes that those espousing a non-natural morality is also in decline. He infers this decline has been reinforced by the immoral behaviour of some Christian leaders. He then states that the proposition that morality flows from religion (a non-natural source) has received a setback.

It may have done in terms of its adherents but this says nothing about whether morality is derived from a non-natural or natural source. This is the the fallacy of the non-sequitur. His conclusion does not follow from the argument or the evidence presented. Those who adopt his view of morality will behave contrary to that moral code (ie behave immorally). The fact that adherents to a moral code do not keep to it says nothing of its source.

He goes on to assert that we no longer need the carrot of eternal bliss or stick of eternal damnation to behave morally. This is a “straw man” argument in that it is not the basis for Christian morality. Jesus said: “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” A man may not commit adultery out of fear for eternal damnation, but the Christian ethic is to love your wife more than yourself. Christian ethics rests on the proposition that God is knowable and love is the basis of that relationship and of all Christian behaviour.

Mr Clark seems to infer that all that is needed to regulate society is to get “acquainted” with his natural morality. He proposes that education (“being acquainted with”) is all that is needed and then a person will be “impelled to pursue” his natural morality. I take it that Mr Clark believes that education is the answer. Natural morality is supposed to be grounded on evidence. If the solution to our moral problem lies in education then the crisis of violence towards teachers in our Scottish schools strongly points in a different direction.

Eric J Scott, Currie, Midlothian

Tilt time

Meteorological summer begins on 1 June and lasts to 31 August, but the astronomical summer begins today on the Summer Solstice, which in Edinburgh this year occurs at 15.57, and lasts for 93 days, 15 hours and 52 minutes till the Autumn Equinox on 23 September, when day and night are of equal length, as they are on the Spring Equinox in March.

When you consider the weight of the Earth is some 5.97 billion trillion tons you have to marvel and wonder at the way the Earth’s tilt causes the seasons, and the precision with which this astonishing mechanism works. It should make our decision-makers pause in their headlong rush to control the Earth’s climate, which strikes me as rather foolish.

William Loneskie, Oxton, Lauder, Berwickshire

Take temperature

First Minister Humza Yousaf quite rightly commits to having a “free at the point of need” NHS safeguarded in any future Scottish constitution. However, given the present parlous state of the NHS, one wonders what kind of health service will exist when that time comes, if ever. Shadow Health Secretary Dr Sandesh Gulhane has said that the NHS is “bloated” with managers who are better paid and have better conditions than the clinical staff.

This has been the perception of many members of the public over the years and Yousaf and his predecessors as health secretaries have done nothing to remedy the situation. Given his track record, it’s doubtful if Michael Matheson will be any different. An effective administrative system is essential to the smooth running of the NHS but it should not be at the expense of frontline clinical staff who ultimately have to deliver the goods. It may take time and money, but a radical reassessment of our health service needs to take place sooner rather than later.

Bob MacDougall, Oxhill, Kippen, Stirlingshire

Poll together

The news that Humza Yousaf would want to add yet another referendum into the mix on the future of the monarchy raises an obvious point (your report, 20 June). Assuming the SNP's stance on the outcome of any independence referendum would be the same as their stance on the EU referendum, we will already need a confirmatory referendum on the final agreement for Scotland leaving the UK. Adding another about the monarchy would see voters facing three referenda in just five years.

May I suggest instead that we have one referendum where voters can have their say on a full, detailed and legally binding prospectus about Scotland's future covering everything from public services funding, pensions and currency to our Head of State? Lay all the facts about what you would implement in the event of a vote to leave the UK, and let the Scottish electorate decide, once and for all. Now wouldn’t that be truly “radical”?

J Lewis, Edinburgh

Head shop

It comes as no surprise that Humza Yousaf has said that if Scotland became independent a referendum on the monarchy would be held within five years. Most members of the SNP have an opposition to the monarchy that amounts to hatred, and the real reason is that they see the monarchy as being too English. It is no use telling them that there is a lot of Scottish blood in the Royal Family, including the blood of Robert the Bruce – they have no interest in hearing any viewpoint other than their own. A very good point is made in your leader column about who might be President of an independent Scotland. Billy Connolly? Steve Clarke?

Joking aside, just imagine President Nicola Sturgeon. It doesn’t bear thinking about and we are better off having a member of a Royal bloodline that goes back to Robert the Bruce as our Head of State.

Robert Kelly, Dumbarton

Think local

Freedom and independence would grant us the ability to stop the drain of our resources to a Westminster government that doesn’t listen the people of Scotland. The only reason that there is a perceived “black hole” is that we are not in control of our own resources and as far as the debate over a Scottish bank goes, we are entitled to a share of the money that is held in the bank of England. Local control is the way ahead.

John Cutland, Kirkcaldy

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

Subscribe

Subscribe at www.scotsman.com/subscriptions