You have been so clearly petrified by the pro-abortion media that you believe advocating a simple biology lesson for children is going to doom a pro-life candidate. Get control of your wobbling knees for one moment and think about it. If this is considered too extreme, then there might as well be no pro-life movement at all. Perhaps you'd like that.
Do you honestly think it would work?
Yes. Do you honestly think the media represents public opinion?
"And as for Simon supporting CPCs, I haven't heard or read of him promising state money to any of them."
-----Oh. Well then therefore he can't possibly really be pro-life. Got it!
So, you can't produce a quote? I see.
This is getting to be a pretty dumb argument; now, somehow your ignorance and lack of knowledge about a guy's campaign in a state you don't even live in is proof positive of the non-pro-life credentials of a (quite obviously and blatantly pro-life) candidate, apparently.
Pardon me if I momentarily recoil at being called ignorant by someone who thinks a dog catcher has the same power over taxes that a governor has over abortion. To educate you with just one example, informed consent requirements, which are typically sought and signed into law by governors at the state level, have been proven to reduce abortions by as much as 50% in some states. When you can show that a dog catcher has been able to reduce taxes by 50%, my esteem for your level of knowledge will increase.
Let's get real. Simon is as pro-life as they come, especially in California. The fact that you doubt this is laughable, and I don't seriously believe you believe he's not pro-life. Obviously you adopt for the purpose of a pose a very purist standard for who qualifies as "really" pro-life, but the question remains whether any human beings (besides presumably yourself, and Alan Keyes) would actually qualify.
Interesting fiction. But you clearly do not know enough about my opinions or positions to form any intelligent picture of my standards for politicians, on abortion or anything else. Actually, and it may shock your simplistic conclusions, I'm not so concerned with the ideological rigidity that characterizes so many pro-life "extremists." For example, I would have happily voted for George Allen in Virginia, even though he was technically not fully pro-life. He showed that he was willing to fight, to attack pro-abortion extremism, and that means so much more than the hollow "pro-life" position of the trembling Mr. Bill Simon and his sycophant followers.
Since you operate from such a narrowly defined definition of the term "pro-life", a discussion like this gets very irritating very fast, and I apologize in advance for the crudeness of some of my remarks (including in this post).
You're right. I apologize for mine as well (including in this post).
Oh, you're only suggesting "advocating a simple biology lesson"? Well then my mistake. (BTW I think it's relevant to add something here: I was educated in California. Like everyone I took Biology in school. During the reproduction unit my bio teacher didn't mince words and even showed us color slides of cut-up unborn babies, in class. He didn't do this at the behest of a politician, he just did it because he was a good teacher. So I'm not sure why this proposal you crave is even necessary.)
Anyway, the real point here is that just because Simon doesn't adopt your proposal doesn't mean he's not pro life! Evidently you have, here, a disagreement with Mr. Simon over election strategy. You think that advocating such a thing in a campaign would be a fine idea and would not doom a gubernatorial candidate; Mr. Simon and/or his campaign staff (evidently) disagrees (as do I). It is a disagreement over what will best help him get elected.
Now perhaps you are right and his campaign staffers (and I) are wrong. But that still wouldn't make us "not pro-life".
[ [advocating pro-life school lessons in a campaign] Do you honestly think it would work? ] Yes. Do you honestly think the media represents public opinion?
No, I don't think the media "represents public opinion". But I do think that a gubernatorial candidate advocating what you suggested would lose, regardless. That's my opinion and assessment of the body politic. I could be wrong. *shrug*. You could be right.
Still wouldn't make me (or Simon) "not pro-life" though.
Pardon me if I momentarily recoil at being called ignorant by someone who thinks a dog catcher has the same power over taxes that a governor has over abortion.
It was only an analogy and not meant to be taken as literally as (evidently) you have.
Anyway, I think what's been established is the following: Simon is pro-life, he never "reversed" himself about this, and your main disagreement with him is really over election strategy. You think he could do/advocate certain things and still get elected; it's safe to say that he does not. Oh, well. What can I say. I understand your disagreement with him now, and respect it. I wish you luck in finding the rare candidate who would satisfy you in this regard. Best,