We may see a shift in the US political landscape.

[Occhidiangela]

You want evidense.

Look at election returns.

<1% magin of victory.

The fact the recent elections have been so clase all shows that I was riht on the early point that a "key" group can be small. Yes its signifigant(that synonomous with key which it seems you just learned since you mentioned it) but it could easily be a small amount like 5%.
[right][snapback]91118[/snapback][/right]

Margin of victory in which election? 2000? 1960?

2004 was a > 1% differential.

As to core groups of actively interested people being the catalysts for change or leading a movement, that was true for the American Revolution, and has been the rule rather than the exception since. A relatively small percentage of people who give a hoot tend to lead any change or movement.

I disagree with you that abortion is central to the issue. The right to choose or not, under the law, is a smoke screen for the reaction to the 1960's 1970's liberation movements. A key matter is a resource issue:I'll summarize part of the position as "I don't want my tax dollars being wasted on the care and feeding of your illegitimate child, you careless moron." Ironically, as I noted above, an abortion is a far more cost effective way to prevent long term waste, but the argument contra includes "it's a free pass to engage is stupid behavior without personal consequence." Not if you have to pay for the abortion yourself.

The abortion issue is about dealing with symptoms, when the root causation is people making stupid decisions in an era of free love. I have been there, done that.

The shame and social norms that influenced behavior toward less irresponsible sexual behavior were upended (thanks to the Pill, which of course if you don't take won't help you . . . ) in the "let in all hang out" and "free love" themes of various liberation movements. The theme that sexuality was of primary importance in one's life took a while to catch on, and then in caught on with a vengeance. For better and worse.

There were plenty of babies out of wedlock before the "Sexual Revolution." The key difference in the before and after is that before, unwanted pregnancy was "your problem to solve, you moron, not everyone's problem to solve" when one engaged in irresponsible sexual habits. Many feminists felt this was unfair. But they wanted to participate in "free love" it seems. Having one's cake and eating it too is another root. When the Pill came along, men were more able to have their cake and eat it too . . . starting at least in 1969, I think. :lol: Sorry.

This alleged unfairness is based in biology. You can't sue or fight biology, so why not attack "the system?" Acidental pregnancy assigns an unbalanced burden of dealing with consequences of error on the participants: woman has the load to carry. The man has only his morality and honor to convince him to do the right thing, or a paternity suit.

In a society that was trying to break down old morality, free love and various other cultural icons, the message was "you can get a free pass without consequences." It took some decades for the feminists to get the Deadbeat Dads legislation passed, and for what it's worth, a lot of that legislation seems an attempt to treat a symptom rather than a cause.

Since the "liberation" of both men and women from the "constraining social norms" resulted in increased unwanted pregnancies, a corrective device that was once provided for by morality, or by a doctor with a coathanger, or a friend who knew a doctor in another state, or other private means that allowed remedy without shame, those without access to enough dough for an abortion were stuck. And since their bills were paid by "the state" via taxes, everyone else took an interest.

Abortion without shame was chosen as a practical and controllable (no more back alleys and coat hangers) medical procedure aimed at increasing access to error correction: treating the symptom, not the cause.

The explicit push for a society that treated sex as recreation was promoted from all ends: commercial, philosophical, and political. The deliberate and explicit marginalization of the American male, in part villified due to the free pass biology allowed and that only morality and honor could curb or mitigate, had begun. The political assummption was that men were not moral or honorable. This them was either advocated on purpose, as a by product of other aims being pursued, or both. Pick your version of how it went down.

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." The feminists, in the spirit of revolution against "the system" played their irresponsible men symbol who "loved 'em and left 'em" every time the game was played, blithely ignoring, it seems, that it takes two to tango. Oh wait, many feminists are all for emasculation (vasectomy) of men to solve the female's "unfair biological problem."

In arguing for legal abortion at the federal level, the sperm spreaders were held to be the fault of society as a whole, so the proposed solution was removing accountability from everyone, in an odd twist of "equal protection under the law" since it was so hard to insist to those truly immoral and amoral men that they act honorabley.

With poor women seeking state assistance when they fell into the cycle of error, who handles the cost? Our tax dollars? The abortion I paid for, nearly three decades ago, came out of my pocket. In cash. The two of us young, libidinous morons faced up to our error. It is not a process I would wish anyone have to go through.

It matters not that the core enabler of the sexual revolution, condoms and birth control pills, are readily available. Nor does it matter that both are pretty good at preventing most unwanted pregnancies. People screw up when screwing is involved.

The despicable social message is that women are somehow the victims of all this, (it takes two to tango) and are thus owed more social compensation to overcome biology. That is NOT equal protection under the law. Equally unappealing is that personal responsibility is still undermined by the continual perpetuation of "The Cult of the Victim" which is an appeal on behalf of sheep, not free citizens.

It took the spread of herpes and AIDS, I think, and a massive PR campaign over the past decade or so, to reconvince a lot of people that the old customs regarding care in embarking on sexual activity were crafted over time, and time tested, for good reasons.

Occhi