Would it have a political effect? Yes, probably. Is it political itself? No. Because teaching that a fetus has a heartbeat and measurable brainwaves has nothing directly to do with politics. If people adjust their political positions on abortion as result of receiving this information, then so be it. But that's not the intended purpose of the lesson. The intended purpose is to remove the ignorance that exists that often leads to abortion. Perfectly pro-choice sound. And, in fact, one could even argue that learning about fetal/embryonic development will actually decrease the esteem that the public holds for particularly early stage unborn children, who don't have a heartbeat, or brainwaves, or much else that might produce emotional sympathy. This argument has been made to me by pro-abortionists I've debated on this issue. They've made the point that it might increase use of the morning after pill, for example. But I, and most pro-lifers, are willing to take the risk because the more honest the debate, the better. So, you see, whatever political effect public awareness campaigns may have, and which side of the abortion debate they may benefit, is not entirely clear. Now, it is clear that you believe this policy is both political and politically unwise. I accept that and strongly disagree.
So you don't believe Simon is pro-life (what else could "questioning his position on abortion" mean). Is that your point? If so, I disagree with you, but we could leave it at that.
If there's anything that's been made obvious in this thread, it's that we disagree. I respect your position, I hope you respect mine.
Well if you see a distinction there, then ok. I don't, not really. You're advising a politician to do something which would (which is designed to) have a political effect, and there would be a (wholly predictable) political reaction. To me, saying "that is political" is perfectly appropriate. But obviously you use these words slightly differently.
Because teaching that a fetus has a heartbeat and measurable brainwaves has nothing directly to do with politics.
Just a question: what makes you think this isn't taught in biology class? What makes you think it is even needed for a gubernatorial candidate to get up and say that schools "should" teach this? In short, do you even know what you're talking about?
Like I said, schools already teach biology.
Now, it is clear that you believe this policy is both political and politically unwise. I accept that and strongly disagree.
Noted. Best,