>>A lot of people need to hear that there's concern and thought going into this issue, not just cavalier nonconcern.>>

Don't nake the mistake of assuming that just because I think I don't have to justify my decision to you, that means I too didn't think very heavily about that decision. That's just anti propaganda.

Just because I don't tell you my every inner private thought doesn't mean I'm cavalier about my own personal decisions. The point is they're mine and I don't have to justify them to you.

planned Parenthood does A LOT MORE than abortions. I don't know the proportions, but by far, most of their time and services are for provide low-cost GYN health care for women who don't have anywhere else to go. Pap smears, breast exams, birth control, etc.

Just like the other "Anonymous," I, too, used to earmark my United Way contribution to Planned Parenthood. What changed me? A pregnancy scare of my own. It caused me to think really hard about it. So I suppose it was an "emotional" response. And I think your question was why do I want to make that decision for other women? I don't. I am perfectly content for other women to make their own choice. But as you said, it is an "emotional" response, and I simply maintain that more people than you think have a visceral response to this issue whether they wish to or not. These people in the middle are people you need. Certain types of statements work better on them than others. Why is that so hard?

Another thing that pushed me farther toward ambivalence than pro-choice was that the Internet came along and I did read the "just a mass of tissue" type rhetoric for the first time. No one I had ever known personally talked that cavalierly about it. OK, one, and she's a preacher's wife. So there goes the "all religious people are right-wing nutjobs" idea. Anyway, to hear that kind of talk about it was viscerally chilling. Without intending to, I had a visceral thought of "Is this what it's coming to?" I think the other "Anonymous'" point was that there are more people with this visceral reaction than you may realize, and more of the same kind of talk isn't working. Just as you feel the hard right unmasks their true agenda when the mask comes off, and you find it frightening, I find talk like that a little frightening. It works both ways. I find both extremes chilling and frightening.

Because of this unbidden "emotional" response, I just don't have the heart to fight as hard for it as other issues. I think other issues are more important, and we're losing on those issues because of abortion. Maybe that's another reason I'm more ambivalent than ever about it. I feel that a lot of worse things are going to happen if certain other issues don't get on the front burner and fast. This is another reason I'm deeply ambivalent about abortion. I think it's losing the Dems vast numbers of votes. I'm not alone--right after the 04 election, there was a thread on Daily Kos called "Abortion is a loser--so let's lose it." I worked the phones the past three elections and got called "Baby killer" in Spanish accents over and over. Now, I don't call people "baby killer." But voters you need, do.

Whoever said it was "emotional" was probably right. I simply maintain that you need us and that kind of rhetoric isn't going to work. The rhetoric that came the closest to convincing me was "every child a wanted child." Now you're letting me in on the little secret that that might have been insincere. Beautiful! Another little push toward the sort of center. I don't know where the center is but I think people need to be talking about a center on this issue so we can get past it. Others have mentioned a few things that might help as far as finding a possible center.

I took a whole bunch of courses on how people in business need to take hidden emotional reasons for why people do things into account. Surely effective politicans understand this. I don't like Hillary's stance on some other issues but I think she's correct on this one. A lot of people need to hear that there's concern and thought going into this issue, not just cavalier nonconcern. I know it's no use staying up all night posting about this. It will only get more of the same. Someone needs to find out just how many like me are out there and if I am in too small a camp to matter, fine. If this issue is losing elections for dems time after time because of that "emotional" response, I think that's important to know.

Great, you believe that a fetus is more than a mass of tissue. You have every right to believe that a fetus is more than a mass of tissue. You have the right to believe anything you want about a fetus. Just because you believe this it does not trump a woman's right to choose or justify whatever limits on abortion someone proposes. If you should become pregnant, and be faced with the decision to give birth or not, then the only thing that matters is what YOU believe and what YOU choose for yourself. It doesn't matter what I believe, nor what your neighbor believes, nor what any politician believes, nor what any religious figure believes, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

I can believe anything I want about a fetus inside of me or inside of any other woman. If you're really pro-choice, it doesn't matter what you personally BELIEVE when it comes to a woman's right to choose. That's the whole *point* of being pro-choice. What you *believe* is ultimately irrelevant to the freedom another woman has over her own reproductive choices.

It's not that I don't want you on my "side" as you put it. However, what I would prefer, for a change, is for women who declare themselves to be pro-choice to leave their personal feelings/beliefs out of it, and support a woman's right to choose without pandering to the anti-choice folks, which is exactly what they are using to dismantle our argument.

And congratulations to YOU, for demonstrating your immaturity in declaring that because of my (excessive)posting, you are considering voting pro-"life". Actually, if you're really that easily swayed, we don't want you anyway :)