No, the meaning of words is not determined by plebiscite. If you want to call it controversial, you have a point. But, again, it's a question of defining yourself and your positions before your opponents do. They will call it indoctrination, we will insist that it is scientific information crucial to informed choice. Obviously, if we never try to debate it, we won't know how well it plays. And, yes, I have also noted your dislike of this policy. You needn't remind me again.
I'll clarify. In certain states, I'd think the pro-life position is a winner politically. In other states, not so much. Even in those states, of course, certain semi pro life issues (such as a ban on PBAs) can still be decent winners politically, and I see no problem with advocating them.
Do you know what's funny? If Simon would only do this one thing -- aggressively attack Davis on partial-birth -- I would be delighted. Perhaps he will, there's time yet. But, you'll understand if I'm less than optimistic.
I'm a pro-lifer, and I'll certainly vote for Simon. For one thing, I will enjoy voting for someone smart enough to realize that a freakin' state governor can't ban abortions. Frankly I'm sick of people (both pro-choicers and pro-lifers) acting as if a governor can do just that.
I have actually suggested that candidates in California take the issue of a ban on first trimester abortions completely off the table for now (simply say that the people are opposed, it couldn't be enforced at the present time, and Roe is still in effect -- so I won't/can't do it), in the interest of making a push on late-term bans and informed choice politically easier. After all, there is no need to sacrifice mainstream pro-life policies to an ideological agenda that simply can't be implemented right away, wouldn't you agree? But the catch is that I expect for the pro-life candidate to be active and aggressive on these mainstream issues (like PBA) after he has moderated.
Not the meaning of words. Whether something is "political". Two different things. Try to keep up.
If you want to call it controversial, you have a point.
Ok fine, if you prefer that word, do a global substitute.
They will call it indoctrination, we will insist that it is scientific information crucial to informed choice.
I won't. I will be agreeing with them that it is indoctrination. (Perhaps justifiable indoctrination - that is a different argument - but indoctrination nonetheless.)
And, yes, I have also noted your dislike of this policy. You needn't remind me again.
Apparently I do. When did I say I "dislike" a policy of teaching schoolkids about life? All I said was that I didn't think it would be a winning election strategy.
If Simon would only do this one thing -- aggressively attack Davis on partial-birth -- I would be delighted. Perhaps he will, there's time yet. But, you'll understand if I'm less than optimistic.
Yes, I understand. I don't understand why this would lead you to dislike Simon, but whatever, to each his own. Dislike him all you want. I'm voting for him and hope he wins.
After all, there is no need to sacrifice mainstream pro-life policies to an ideological agenda that simply can't be implemented right away, wouldn't you agree?
Not only would I agree but that is the entire basis for everything I've been saying on this thread.