We may see a shift in the US political landscape.

[Nystul]

I see the anti abortion crowd, which includes men and women, as at core against  careless recreational sex, and as having convinced themselves "we have THE solution to this." 
[right][snapback]91129[/snapback][/right]

I can't speak for other fundamentalists, but my way of thinking is much more straightforward than this. I have no delusions that making abortions illegal would stop people from being promiscuous and having unwanted pregnancies. I am not opposed to abortion in an attempt to stop people from having sex, and I can't imagine anyone actually thinking that would work. I understand fully that when unwanted pregnancies come to term, someone has to deal with it in one manner or another, and the child is likely to end up in a lousy situation. But only Scrooge would wish an innocent person to die simply to help the economic status of the society.

So in the end, with the exception of the few Scrooges of the world, it really is an issue of fundamental belief. Either you believe the fetus is an individual human being (at some point in development, which obviously not everyone agrees upon) or you believe it to be nothing more than a lump of tissue until it's birth. If someone believes the latter, they are free to consider any other nuances of the issue, from a woman's control of her body to health care costs to overwhelming the foster homes to increasing poverty, and decide how much it will affect their decisions. But if someone believes the former, then how can any of these other factors seem remotely significant in comparison to life and death?

And this is where it ties in to the original point of the thread. For those who do believe this is a simple issue of life and death, the issue becomes a far higher priority than it would be for anyone with secondary motives. If the Supreme Court is 5/4 split on their decision, the 5 win. But if the U.S. electorate is 5/4 split in favor of legalized abortion, the 4 are more likely to vote on the basis of this issue than the 5. And so we have the "pro-choice" language, and the woman's "right to control her body" existing as a counter to this force, to attempt to get people not only to passively view abortion as being a harmless procedure that might help the economy, but as being a *fundamental* right of womenhood. Both of these are real beliefs held by real people, and I might be naive, but I tend to think some of those real fundamentalists do get elected to office and vote based on their beliefs.

To cut to the chase, the feminist movement does not have the fire that it once did. I question whether a large portion of the population goes to the polls with rage in their minds over the thought of a woman having to carry a pregnancy against her will, although I'm sure some people do still have this in the front of their minds. Either way, the pro-life movement is not going anywhere, and a self-proclaimed "pro-choice" presidential candidate is not likely to win a stick of bubble gum south of the Mason-Dixon line until something happens to change the status quo.

Then again, if your political strategists say you need to win *California*, maybe appealing to the bra-burners instead of the bible thumpers wouldn't be such a bad idea...