So, Would YOU Make This Trade?

I was reading a piece by Larry O’Connor this morning. All across the country, there is a move by Democrats hoping to make abortion the most talked about and most important issue this midterm election cycle. So far, the kitchen table items like inflation, the economy, and crime are winning out, and probably will. But O’Connor had an interesting take on all of it.

He would gladly trade a ban on abortions for losing the Senate this time around.

And it got me to thinking…how important IS abortion to the GOP? It’s been a half century or so that abortion was legal and relatively easy to obtain in this country. We are one of 70 countries in the world that had that ease. But, when the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, stating instead of being a federal law, it needs to be sent to the states to decide (NOT making it illegal as Democrats claim), it gave the Dems a campaign issue.

So, the question is, would YOU make the trade of losing a chance to take over the Senate in 2022 if it means a ban on abortions (or at least a federal ban!)

I’m certainly pro-life and have a very difficult time understanding how a woman can decide to have an abortion and kill a life that’s growing inside of her. To me, it’s more of a religious thing, a moral and ethical thing than a “legal choice” that women make as far as what to do with their bodies. We’re not talking about getting a tattoo here. We’re talking about ending a life before it gets started. But would I end the Republicans’ chances to take over the Senate?

I don’t think I have to choose. I think both could very well still happen. But if forced to choose, I’m still not sure. I think of the damage a deranged idiot like Joe Biden can do by nominating justices to federal benches, only if he has the US Senate to confirm and they are on his side. God forbid we start losing people like Clarance Thomas on the Supreme Court! On the other side, and this is the point I can’t understand about Democrats who’s religion is politics…we are going to allow a lot of those fetuses that otherwise would have been aborted to live. Why Democrats wanted to chop their numbers down in the first place is beyond me. If there was no abortion, if we never aborted 63 million babies over the past 49 years, I think it’s safe to say the Democrats would never lose another election!

But still, if I HAD to choose, what would I do? I have wrangled this one around for a while. I think the sanctity of life is far more important than a two year possibility of Joe Biden using his mental deficiencies to nominate people. After all, what value to YOU put on human life? I guess to even have to wrangle it, I should be ashamed. But it is a difficult decision if you get right down to it.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


5 thoughts on “So, Would YOU Make This Trade?

  1. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 335 million people living in the United States. Of those, around 258 million are eligible to vote. And this means that there are at least 258 million opinions about abortion in the United States. It’s tough for me to get my head around this number. And how does one solidify a base in such a mind-boggling high number? Well, I suppose you do that by dividing people in half and hope that 50.1% agree with your particular point of view. A thinking person would realize that the Supreme Court’s only decision was that abortion, as an issue, is a state issue, not a federal issue. This may in some way explain why some Democrats in Congress, hemming and hawing about passing a federal law allowing abortion, suddenly stopped whining about it. See, there is no constitutional basis for a federal law on abortion. Someone must have boing’d that fellow on the head with a reality hammer.

    I’m happy for a conversation about abortion, but only in my state. I am a citizen of Florida. I care about what my legislature does, and our governor. I don’t care what people in Arizona decide about such things as abortion. If the GOP wanted to answer the DNC’s yammering (and I’m not suggesting that the GOP is interested in winning any argument), they would say … “Glad to see you’re motivated on this issue. Now go home to Oregon and pass whatever law you think is right. We won’t be talking about this at the federal level. Bye.”

    And maybe that kind of honesty would shut the whiners in the DNC down and we could get through this upcoming election addressing issues that really do matter at the federal level.

    Am I still dismissed, or do I report for K.P. duty?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You know, you always have a clear and concise thought process, which is what I love about you! And you’re right…the Supreme Court only outlawed abortion as a federal issue, sending it back to the states. If all 50 states agreed that abortion was fine and that the court was wrong, then they could individually make it a “federal issue”. But that won’t happen, and we both know it.
      As for shutting down the DNC on this one, ain’t gonna happen. It’s really the only thing they have to run on this year. I bet the DNC is actually HAPPY that the Supremes gave them this issue. Otherwise, they’d have zero to talk about in their ads!

      Oh, and I’d NEVER put you on K.P. duty!


  2. Leaving aside the moral implications of abortion, your question is one of politics. Here’s the questions behind it…

    If you had a guarantee that the GOP would control all three branches of the US Government, but to achieve that, you had to give up efforts to overturn Roe and pass legislation at state levels to ban abortion, would you make the deal?

    Related, I agree that the decision to vacate Roe effectively returned the issue to the states. But conservatives saying they are not for a ban, or that the recent SCOTUS decision did not lead to bans across the nation, all legislated by conservative state governments, is really a distinction without a difference.

    If we are to believe many conservatives in states, and even some in the federal government, their goal is in fact, as evidenced by the recent spate of laws and statements, as big a ban as they can get.

    Just thinking politically.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Fully understood. Unfortunately, I think the major difference in this issue between pro-life and pro-choice isn’t political. At least not all the way. In my addled-way of thinking, the pro-choice folks aren’t thinking of the ethical questions of life. They are more concerned with government interference in their “health” (not the baby’s health by any means!). The pro-life crowd is more about preservation of life than preservation of individual rights. On the surface, I would agree that the government doesn’t belong in someone’s healthcare decisions. Having said that, I cannot discount the fact that a human life is at stake. The question is, which is more important?


Comments are closed.