The debate on the devolution of legislative powers on abortion has been prominent in your pages in recent months and I recognise that the Sunday Herald has taken a pro-choice position. Unfortunately, your most recent coverage of the issue makes little contribution to anything resembling debate (Seen but not heard: Anti-abortion protesters are impossible to ignore, Comment, and Pro-choice supporters rally in Glasgow, News, February 14).

Shona Craven’s reference to “a man with a tight-lipped smile” sets the tone in a piece that can find no visible sign of harassment by the pro-life vigil outside the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital but chooses to interpret this as, nevertheless, menacing.

In contrast, we move to the sunny uplands of the pro-choice rally, where Karin Goodwin offers a picture of positive civic protest. No interrogation of the issue or questioning of the actual numbers who turned up (around 50 but then they were there “despite snow and freezing temperatures”), instead a reinforcement of the idea that the “quiet prayer vigil” horrifies by its “intimidating presence” (in the same snow and freezing temperatures, of course).

Perhaps the reality is that there is no debate and that the Sunday Herald is doing no more than reflecting a presumed consensus. If so, why the need to demonise dissent?

Alan McGinley


The vilification of pro-life protestors amazes me. Should an abortion not go ahead and a child is born it would be interesting when that child reaches adulthood to ask him or her if they are glad they weren’t aborted. I suspect I know the answer.

Michael Watson