Notebook: Outrageous interpretation

EDITORIAL MUG: Larry Anderson

By the time this column goes to press, the national election will be over. From that standpoint, it serves no purpose to continue battle with Karen Fulton over points that are moot, but I will defend what I have already written. Otherwise, I am content to wait for final election results before moving on.

Fulton wrote the following on October 31: “Anderson’s argument on the linkage between illegal immigration, the low birthrate and the abortion issue is appalling. I must have misread him.” Well, Karen, that’s exactly what you did whether accidentally or by design. I suggest you read the column again.

Let me clarify once more. There is a huge difference between legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigration is enforced by law and determined by need. Illegal immigration breaks the law and compounds problems by creating a population outside legal constraint. I believe laws have to be enforced or they become ignored and meaningless. Society breaks down. That is where we are now with the approval and assistance of the current administration.

Same question: Why can’t liberals understand these simple differences between legal and illegal immigration?

My position on abortion lacks liberal drama. I believe abortion on demand is an abomination if it serves no purpose except to dispose of an unwanted child to the relief of an indifferent parent. I am an advocate for prevention before conception, but I support abortion in instances of a mother’s endangered health, rape or incest. I always have. That’s what I meant when I said “extraordinary circumstances” in the column Futon objected to; however, these points are the ones most often referenced, and I didn’t choose to state them again.

I took the position in the earlier column that lowering the abortion rate would also raise the birth rate which would help some with such alleged issues as labor. How could it not? Wouldn’t two contentious issues be at least partly resolved? How can one refute such a logical point?

Anyway, I submit abortion isn’t always about the mother’s health or women’s rights as argued by advocates. I believe the issue is largely about politics in this age when pregnancy prevention is remarkably accessible. Politics is a lousy reason for stopping a life, in my opinion, but especially one that can’t defend itself.

Why do abortion advocates rarely mention the baby? After all, someone dies in the abortion process. Shouldn’t that matter?

What about the baby, liberals?

I guess my heart isn’t that cold. Why is yours?

I made no linkage between illegal immigration and abortion because there is none. I honestly don’t know where Fulton came up with that one, but if I wasn’t clear in my wording, I will do better.

Here is a footnote. I am an opinion writer, not an investigative reporter, although I think I would have been a good one. Opinions are just that. While I sometimes cite sources if they prove necessary or supportive, I understand my opinion isn’t shaped by facts or statistics alone. Opinions are formed gradually by our background, parental influence, education, life experiences, what we read and process, and our sense of justice.

I believe abortion is unjust because the victim is innocent and helpless and the purpose behind it political rather than humane. I can live with that opinion.

Larry W. Anderson is a

retired educator.