Posted on 04/28/2002 11:33:29 AM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
No, I didn't. Why do you suppose I did? I already mentioned earlier on this thread that I agree that a ban on PBA is not as controversial (with the public as opposed to the media) as (say) a statewide mandate to teach pro-life lessons to public school students would be.
[proposed policy speech] There, you see, doesn't that sound a lot better?
Sounds ok to me. Send it on over to Simon. Maybe he'll read it, maybe he won't. My only disagreement with you here is that I don't think Simon's failure to adopt and read a policy statement such as this makes him "not pro-life".
You and he simply have a disagreement over election strategy. I happen to think his is a more winning strategy, but whatever. We'll find out, I think.
Now, tell me, are you this politically unsophisticated on all issues, or just abortion? Perhaps you're better at welfare reform?
???
I reckon I'm no more or less "politically unsophisticated" (whatever that means) on this issue than on any other.
Anyway, I was just rephrasing your proposed policy. helmsman in post #31: "Why not mandate that all public school children, at regular intervals, be taught and reminded that unborn children are human beings too."
I guess you too are "politically unsophisticated" at times. For what it's worth I agree with you that the way you rephrased this proposal in post #59 sounds much better from a political/PR standpoint.
And what does it matter if his "personal beliefs" are pro-life if he won't act on them?
Exactly my point. It doesn't! (Any more than it matters what the opinions about tax policy are of the town Dog Catcher.) Now if we can make enough paranoid knee-jerk slightly-pro-choice-because-they-haven't-really-thought-it-through California voters understand this, then Simon can win. Otherwise it's Governor Davis for 4 more. Understand yet?
I hear that Richard Riordan is also supposedly "personally opposed" to abortion. And, of course, he too would have done nothing as governor to stop or reduce the practice. So, we agree then that, as it stands, there really is no serious difference between Riordan and Simon on this issue, right?
I don't know. We will see what, if anything, Simon does as governor, won't we?
If he wins, that is.
Good point. It reminds me of a passage in Vance Packard's book, The Opinion Makers, in which he described how The New York Times ran Nelson Rockefeller for president in 1963 and early 1964, booming up his excursions into Stickland into auguries of a successful candidacies, when many of the people who turned out to see him were just mildly curious about what a centimillionaire looked like. At that time, something like 70% of the likely delegates to the GOP Convention wanted Barry Goldwater as their candidate. This advantage reflected the organizing work of F. Clifton White and his band of conservative heroes, and the bent of the Main Street Republican who'd been bathing in Camelot rhetoric and liberal journalism for four years. But when asked who they thought would be the actual nominee of the party, a majority of these selfsame delegates named Nelson Rockefeller. This divergence, Packard concluded, was entirely the result of the East Coast press campaign.
Elsewhere in his book, btw, Packard noted how the Columbia J-school's annual student poll already showed in the 1950's and 1960's the strong climb in the proportion of students who responded that their attraction to journalism had sprung from a desire to change society. It was already past the halfway mark, and of course since then that proportion has risen above 80%. All liberals, all trying to use the power of the press to determine outcomes, bless their ashy-black little hearts.
Teaching children about the developmental facts of fetal life is not a "pro-life lesson." It is the teaching of scientific truth. If the truth happens to impact negatively on abortion, then how sad for the abortionists. But to imply that teaching fact is an attempt at political indoctrination is nonsense. And if the pro-abortionists try to do it, they can be easily refuted. Now, if we're cowards who retreat to our foxholes every time our enemies utter a nasty word at us, then yes, Dr. Frank, we will lose. Good to hear you support Simon pushing hard on the PBA issue. Perhaps you'll be able to explain why he didn't if he successfully lives down to my expectations.
I was just rephrasing your proposed policy. helmsman in post #31: "Why not mandate that all public school children, at regular intervals, be taught and reminded that unborn children are human beings too."
I'm not running for office, Dr. Frank. I described the policy as I see it from my perspective. You rephrased it atrociously, perhaps because you would actually like the idea to fail. After you gave your version, I presented the policy as any politically sophisticated candidate would.
Now, you claim that this fetal dev-ed policy would be seen as extreme by the public and by the media you seem to fear so. But a reasonable pro-choicer would find it difficult to find anything wrong with this particular policy, or even with the general concept of discouraging abortion through education. The lessons would contain no pictures of butchered babies or even mention abortion at all. They would simply present scientifically accurate facts about the process of fetal development, concentrating on those characteristics which testify most strongly to the child's humanity. Unlike the cursory attention that might be paid to this subject in a high-school biology class, this lesson plan would include films, photos, ultrasound footage, fetal heartbeat recordings, brainwave measurements, etc. Nothing misleading or deceptive, just the truth and plenty of it. Now, you seem to believe that proposing something as innocuous as this would be deadly politically, but I find that ridiculous. If pro-life politicians are so weak and timid that they cannot even defend the concept of public awareness regarding unborn life, then there is no hope at all.
For what it's worth I agree with you that the way you rephrased this proposal in post #59 sounds much better from a political/PR standpoint.
Splendid. Perhaps if you were more open minded, you would have thought to put it that way yourself.
Exactly my point. It doesn't! (Any more than it matters what the opinions about tax policy are of the town Dog Catcher.)
I refuse to revisit your ridiculous Dog Catcher. Governors can sign anti-abortion policies into law, Dog Catchers cannot give me a tax cut. Simon certainly can, as governor, change the pro-abortion direction of California. He has, thus far, indicated that he will avoid the issue. That is what makes him virtually as worthless as Riordan.
You're right, of course. I'm just jumping ahead to how it will be spun.
But to imply that teaching fact is an attempt at political indoctrination is nonsense.
Here, you're less right. It is an attempt at political indoctrination. That's the whole point and the whole reason you'd like to see it happen. You want to "change the culture" by "mandating" from the governor's chair that students be taught certain things. Right? That's the definition of political indoctrination.
Now, maybe it's "good" political indoctrination or justifiable or understandable or nice or moral or whatever. But that's still what it is, and everyone can see this.
Now, if we're cowards who retreat to our foxholes every time our enemies utter a nasty word at us, then yes, Dr. Frank, we will lose.
"We" will lose whether or not we are cowards, if we engage in campaign strategies which do not acknowledge reality. Anyway, I've said my piece about this. I personally find nothing all that bad about your proposal. Were I a political adviser, I wouldn't advise my boss to advocate it in public. I would advise him to say things more likely to help him win. Go figure. And this has little to do with whether I'm pro-life.
Good to hear you support Simon pushing hard on the PBA issue. Perhaps you'll be able to explain why he didn't if he successfully lives down to my expectations.
I don't know if I even "support Simon pushing hard" on the PBA issue. I just agreed with you that it's a winning one and a candidate can push it (if he wants) without as much damage as the media would have us believe. If Simon doesn't "push hard" about it in the California governor's race I'm not going to turn away from him or anything. But, you are, apparently. Which is my main disagreement with you here.
[phraseology] I'm not running for office, Dr. Frank.
Neither am I, helmsman. Keep that in mind next time you accuse me of being "politically unsophisticated" for discussing a proposal without spinning it first. Sheesh.
You rephrased it atrociously, perhaps because you would actually like the idea to fail.
You keep implicitly accusing me of "wanting" pro-life ideas to fail. This is very funny. Based on what (other than paranoia) can you possibly be saying such things?
Now, you claim that this fetal dev-ed policy would be seen as extreme by the public and by the media you seem to fear so.
Essentially, yes. That's my take. I COULD BE WRONG AND YOU COULD BE RIGHT about that.
But it wouldn't make me (or Simon) "Not pro-life"! Okay? That's all I'm saying.
But a reasonable pro-choicer would find it difficult to find anything wrong with this particular policy, or even with the general concept of discouraging abortion through education.
Perhaps, but the unreasonable pro-choicers (and their percentage is significant) would find it extremely easy ;)
The lessons would contain no pictures of butchered babies or even mention abortion at all. They would simply .... this lesson plan would include films, photos, ultrasound footage, fetal heartbeat recordings, brainwave measurements, etc. Nothing misleading or deceptive, just the truth and plenty of it.
There's one aspect of this proposal of yours which would be seen as quite extreme for a reason you appear to miss here.
The Governor's office does not often singlehandedly write the biology class curricula of high school students. The fact that your hypothetical wished-for Courageous Candidate Simon would seek to write and shape the curriculum in this particular area would strike people as... interesting. And, they would... wonder why. But you seem quite confident it would be seen as completely perfectly innocent, nothing but a search for the truth, and no one would be able to get away with accusing such a Candidate of trying to indoctrinate.
All I can say here is that I disagree. Is that ok?
Now, you seem to believe that proposing something as innocuous as this would be deadly politically, but I find that ridiculous.
Ok. Duly noted.
If pro-life politicians are so weak and timid that they cannot even defend the concept of public awareness regarding unborn life, then there is no hope at all.
I guess I'm not as pessimistic as you are. I still think there's hope if we are patient and adopt pragmatic strategies.
I agree with you that there's little hope, if pro-life candidates lose all their campaigns.
Governors can sign anti-abortion policies into law,
Send Governor Simon a law he can sign and we'll see what happens. But first, he needs to be Governor.
Simon certainly can, as governor, change the pro-abortion direction of California. He has, thus far, indicated that he will avoid the issue. That is what makes him virtually as worthless as Riordan.
Ok, I understand your view. Meanwhile, I prefer Simon to Riordan by a wide margin.
If that's ok with you.
Again, the fear of the media and the leftist spinmeisters. They succeed only if pro-lifers let them. I've told you how this should be spun. To be against informed choice is to be against choice. But, yes it has to be argued aggressively that way -- the left won't automatically agree (surprise!).
Here, you're less right. It is an attempt at political indoctrination. That's the whole point and the whole reason you'd like to see it happen. You want to "change the culture" by "mandating" from the governor's chair that students be taught certain things. Right? That's the definition of political indoctrination.
Nonsense. It is human development education that serves the purpose of informing people about matters which are extremely relevant to their lives, since so many of them have, or procure, abortions. Whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice, they can easily see the value of it. If you see political indoctrination here, it's only because you have been convinced by the pro-abortion press that discouraging abortion is automatically equated with wanting to ban it. I will remind you that there are many pro-choicers who believe abortion is wrong and would be receptive to the idea of discouraging it through education. Many of them are right here on FR.
"We" will lose whether or not we are cowards, if we engage in campaign strategies which do not acknowledge reality.
Prescisely, Dr. Frank! And the political reality is that the majority of people, even in your state, are not rabidly pro-abortion. The fact is that, despite your assurances, we don't know how the public would respond to a pro-life agenda of this sort -- one that concentrates on cultural change, instead of first trimester abortion bans. Polls indicate that, at least nationally, the general concept of informed choice is very strongly supported by the people (upwards of 75%), and it can't be that much different in California (if it is, please cite the poll -- not a Field poll, please). Now, you have made it clear that you "could be wrong" about this, but we'll never know until we try, will we? All I'm asking is that we be a little open minded and show some spine.
You keep implicitly accusing me of "wanting" pro-life ideas to fail. This is very funny. Based on what (other than paranoia) can you possibly be saying such things?
Perhaps you're right. It's just that you don't seem terribly confident about pro-life issues. I hope that you're not a passive pro-lifer, because they really aren't of any more use than the "personally opposed" pro-choicers. But, I apologize if I've offended you.
I guess I'm not as pessimistic as you are. I still think there's hope if we are patient and adopt pragmatic strategies.
Ok, now this is good. What "pragmatic strategies" are you referring to, Dr. Frank? Would one of these strategies be to "change the subject" and run from the abortion issue? Tell me, how exactly are we to expect pro-life victories in the future if we never talk about abortion? You have insisted that the cultural efforts I've suggested will be politically impossible, so how can we possibly expect that any restrictions of any meaning will ever be achievable? If you are not "politically unsophisticated," then you know that cultural change is necessary before any lasting enforceable law can be put into place. Is it just going to happen? Is California and the rest of the country just going to awaken one morning and realize that we're right about abortion? I've actually suggested the policies that are needed to build the ultimate victory for the pro-life movement by changing the culture. You claim optimism, but show no plan that would call for it.
This is to deny reality. Media demonization can succeed even if pro-lifers don't "let" them. And again, it's not just the media. The voting population of California is not all that receptive to pro-life messages. That is the political reality which you advocate ignoring, as if one can simply pretend the voting public's beliefs are other than what they are.
[It is an attempt at political indoctrination. ] Nonsense.
Now you are just arguing the meaning of words. Saying that you wish to "change the culture" is just a softer way of saying you want to politically indoctrinate people in a certain way. Why not just admit it? There's nothing inherently wrong with political "indoctrination" per se. This is a democracy and persuasion is perfectly valid. You have advocated teaching children certain things and your stated goal is persuasion - to "change the culture" - for a certain political goal (reducing, ultimately ending abortions).
That is "an attempt at political indoctrination", by the raw plain meaning of those terms. Again, why not just admit it?
It is human development education that serves the purpose of informing people about matters which are extremely relevant to their lives
Fine, but it also serves the purpose of "changing the culture". That was your stated goal in the first place. Of course I agree that "we're just trying to give them facts we need" is a better way to spin it, but that's not your actual goal per se. You know it and I know it. (And there's nothing wrong with that! So why not admit it?)
If you see political indoctrination here, it's only because you have been convinced by the pro-abortion press that discouraging abortion is automatically equated with wanting to ban it.
No, I see political indoctrination here because the term fits. Keep in mind, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do.
Anyway, in your case, you do want to ban abortion, right? So it's a little disingenuous to argue this way, "just because I want to discourage abortion doesn't mean I want to ban it". But you do!
And the political reality is that the majority of people, even in your state, are not rabidly pro-abortion.
I think I'd agree with that. However, (my take is that) neither is a majority rabidly pro-life or even all that receptive to pro-life measures and programs. My take is that the population is largely skittish about this matter: instinctively they recognize something is wrong with abortion, however politicians who talk about it too much scare them. That's my take. I COULD BE WRONG. However, it leads me to believe that Simon's apparent strategy is the correct one from a campaign point of view. I COULD BE WRONG. SIMON COULD BE WRONG.
But it doesn't mean any of us are "not pro-life". It just means we have a different take on the political situation than, evidently, you do. Got it?
Now, you have made it clear that you "could be wrong" about this, but we'll never know until we try, will we?
Perhaps not. And you are right, Simon is not "trying". Personally I don't fault him for it (because I would do the same, if I wanted to be governor). I understand that you do, and respect this opinion on your part. I don't happen to share it (I still prefer a Governor Simon to Governor Davis, thank you very much :)
All I'm asking is that we be a little open minded and show some spine.
I understand that from your point of view, that's all you're asking. However, my take of the political climate is that what you're asking would lead to defeat, pure and simple. That's my take. IT COULD BE WRONG. But it's my take. And presumably Simon's.
I'm sorry that candidates who take such an approach disappoint you so much. You are probably disappointed by many many candidates. I'm not sure what else there is to say.
It's just that you don't seem terribly confident about pro-life issues.
What do you mean by "confident"? I happen to think abortion is wrong. It is true that i am not "confident" that a huge majority of my fellow citizens, especially in CA, share this view. Should I be "confident" of such a thing, even if it defies demographic and political reality?
"Confidence" that flies in the face of facts is more properly termed "delusion", I think. (I am "confident" that I can step off this building and fly off into the air!)
I hope that you're not a passive pro-lifer, because they really aren't of any more use than the "personally opposed" pro-choicers. But, I apologize if I've offended you.
I don't see how I could be offended, given that I don't know what a "passive pro-lifer" is. I am what I am. It's too bad if my views go against what you "hope" I am. But, oh well.
What "pragmatic strategies" are you referring to, Dr. Frank? Would one of these strategies be to "change the subject" and run from the abortion issue?
No, not at all. I'll tell you one pragmatic strategy I have in mind.
Currently, it seems to be the case that abortion is so divisive that the media can practically take any pro-life candidate and turn him into a bogeyman in the minds of a significant portion of the electorate. Even if he's the kind of Riordan type quote-unquote pro-lifer who you are complaining about in this thread, the media and leftists can still scare a third of women out of even considering voting for him - for anything (President, Governor, Dog Catcher... ;)
This describes my aunt perfectly. She is not politically astute or all that smart about political issues. She is not that ideological or dogmatic about very much of anything. Except. Abortion. You put a pro-life person in front of her and she will find a reason to hate him and claim that he is "scary"; you put a pro-choice person in front of her and she will come up with all sorts of rationalizations for why the person is good and wonderful. I submit that this describes an unhealthily large component of the electorate, in a nutshell: they are in effect single-issue pro-choice voters, whether or not they know it - and not only that, but they apply this fanaticism to every single public office, whether or not that office has any say over the abortion issue!
This is not good. IMHO it has created a built-in bias not just against pro-lifers but against conservatives and Republicans in general, and it tilts the country artificially to the left (because of the correlation between abortion and leftism).
So, one good first step would be to dissipate this irrational Fear Of Pro-Lifers amongst what could be and should be many potential conservative (and, eventually, given enough time to think about it) pro-life voters. I am thinking of people like soccer moms - who, in general, shouldn't even be that leftist at all, if you think about it.
But, you put a pro-life guy up for, say, state governor. Media machine and Dem spinmeisters get rolling: "He's against women's rights!" (euphemism for, pro-life). Soccer moms get scared. Guy loses. Dem governor. This helps the pro-life cause?
What if we did the following: remind the voters of the basic fact that a freakin' state governor can't outlaw abortions! If we get such dumb voters used to the idea that they can vote in a pro-life governor and he won't overturn Roe v. Wade (because he can't), then we have accomplished a lot. We inoculate these voters against their irrational, overarching fear of all things Pro-Life. We allow them to safely get in the habit of voting for "personally Pro-Life" people (which, currently, many many people are completely afraid to do), even if they themselves are pro-choice. Essentially, we start having a chance of breaking the Single-Issue Pro-Choice juggernaut, which IMHO is corrosive and cancerous not only because of the abortion issue, but for the country in general.
Now fast forward some years. Suppose there are plenty of personally pro-life people in offices that they attained with the help of votes even from some pro-choicers. And suppose that they do a good job and are decent people and set good examples (as, I think, Simon would). I submit that the mere presence of decent leaders who hold pro-life views will help to "change the culture", as you desire. It's called leadership by example. If Governor Simon does a decent job and people respect him, then maybe even some pro-choicers will start to ponder his stance on abortion and have some respect for it - even if Simon doesn't actually do anything from the governor's chair about abortion.
I guess when I think about "changing the culture" and doing so in a patient and pragmatic way, I naturally think of a necessary first step in the process. That first step is to disabuse the soccer moms out there of the silly notion that pro-life people are crazed demonic zealots. But you simply can't do that if they have no respectable examples to look up to, because they all lose every election they enter. Make sense?
Tell me, how exactly are we to expect pro-life victories in the future if we never talk about abortion?
On a more basic level: how exactly are we to expect pro-life victories in the future if we encourage all pro-lifers to sabotage their own elections?
You have insisted that the cultural efforts I've suggested will be politically impossible, so how can we possibly expect that any restrictions of any meaning will ever be achievable?
You know something? Maybe we can't. Maybe abortion will never, ever be outlawed. That is a possibility we have to consider. But in the meantime, the best we can do is to try to get pro-life people elected.
If you are not "politically unsophisticated," then you know that cultural change is necessary before any lasting enforceable law can be put into place.
Right. Exactly. So the cultural change I envision is to get certain people used to the idea that It's OK To Vote For A Pro-Lifer Sometimes, Really! Right now, there is a significant chunk of the electorate (I'm not claiming it's a majority, just that it's significant) which is frightened of ever doing this, for any office. This must change before pro-lifers will get anywhere. Then later on, maybe some laws and programs and such can be passed. In a sense, you want to do things in the reverse order, and I just don't think it would work.
You claim optimism, but show no plan that would call for it.
My plan is very simple: get decent people with pro-life views elected, and out in front of the public, and let them lead by the example of their conscience.
Let's take Reagan. I reckon you'd agree that Reagan was a wonderful pro-life voice. Didn't actually do very much with his government power, did he? But he was a good spokesman, and if he has any lasting effect it's by example - because of his beliefs and what he thought - rather than by any particular "programs" he put into place.
"Programs" are fleeting and you're right, I don't have much confidence that this or that engineeered program can have a huge lasting effect on the culture. Changing the culture requires much more than that. For one thing it requires getting the culture attuned to seeing decent pro-life people in public life. Which can never happen if they never get elected to anything, you see.
Because it is not political indoctrination! If we teach children to respect life, is that political? If we teach them not to steal or to have generally good values, there is nothing political in that. It just happens that the legality of abortion is currently a political issue. Please try and separate the act from the political debate over it's legality.
Anyway, in your case, you do want to ban abortion, right? So it's a little disingenuous to argue this way, "just because I want to discourage abortion doesn't mean I want to ban it". But you do!
I am not hiding the fact that I am pro-life, and neither would a candidate supporting this policy. If moderates wish to support this policy, not because they wish to ultimately ban abortion, but because they wish to see the numbers go down, that is just fine. They will know that the pro-life candidate agrees with their desire to reduce abortions, but would go further in terms of legal restrictions. There is nothing at all wrong with people supporting the same policy for different reasons. If it ever gets to the point where abortion is finally banned, that will occur only after a consensus has been formed -- and the pro-life candidate is free to remind voters of that. But the "slippery slope" argument hasn't kept masses of pro-choicers from supporting the ban on partial-birth abortion, and it shouldn't interfere here either.
"Confidence" that flies in the face of facts is more properly termed "delusion", I think. (I am "confident" that I can step off this building and fly off into the air!)
Now you're just being silly. Confidence in the pro-life message means that you believe that when people know the truth, they will ultimately turn against abortion. This is the confidence that congressional pro-lifers demonstrated in their attempt to ban partial-birth abortion. They knew that when the public became aware of this atrocity, even the pro-choicers would respond. Similarly, we must be confident that abortion can be defeated through spreading the truth of exactly what it is and what it does to children. Without this confidence, we are paralyzed and impotent -- which just so happens to be the current state of the California pro-life movement, unfortunately.
Now, regarding your strategy, I can't see how an elected politician who never mentions abortion is going to inspire the public to be against it (???). Ronald Reagan, you're right, didn't achieve much legislatively. He did, however, run for president both times fully embracing his pro-life position. He articulated it eloquently and won in landslides, even in California and other liberal states. Now, as much as I respect Ronald Reagan, he did not accomplish anything at all lasting for the pro-life movement. Indeed, the abortion rate continued to grow under Reagan and pro-choice public support reached a peak only a couple of years after he left office (interestingly, the abortion rate declined and pro-life support increased under Clinton). That just proves that leaders setting "examples" is not enough, and may actually be irrelevant. We need concrete programs and policies designed to create change. Electing pro-life politicians is not an end in itself. I don't see how you can possibly believe that the mere fact that a pro-lifer sits in some high office is going to compel the people to not have abortions, but fine.
Look, I think it's clear that you don't believe that the pro-life position is a winner politically, or even can be a winner politically. I disagree profoundly. I believe that, if handled correctly, this issue can actually be used to elect Republicans in most parts of the country. You also clearly believe that Simon is being shrewd in his "dodge and run" strategy on the issue (I know you won't like to call it that, but that's exactly what it is). I happen to believe that will only turn off precisely the people who got him the nomination. Pro-lifers don't want to vote for someone who creates the impression that he is ashamed to be pro-life, and who clearly wishes the issue would go away. If Simon suffers the same problem that GW Bush (who also ran from the abortion issue) had to deal with in the presidential election (the fact that millions of conservative Christian voters he had counted on didn't show up to vote for him - Source: Rove), then this abortion strategy will be primarily to blame, in my opinion.
If it is seen as "political", it's political. The nature of politics is that your countrymen get to decide what is "political" and what is not. If enough people think something is "political", then it is. Now, you may not think such a proposal is "political" at all. But I reckon that many other people would see it differently.
Which would make it "political" after all, despite your assurances to the contrary.
If we teach them not to steal or to have generally good values, there is nothing political in that.
Look, again, your countrymen decide what is "political", not just you. The facts on the ground are that telling people Don't Steal is far, far less controversial than telling them Life Begins At Conception. It just is. You don't even have to "believe the media" to believe this. Just ask around. Seriously.
Please try and separate the act from the political debate over it's legality.
Okay, I'll try, but I can't guarantee that other voters will do the same.
Confidence in the pro-life message means that you believe that when people know the truth, they will ultimately turn against abortion.
Then I admit that I'm not sure to what extent I believe this. People believe lots of strange things, from my point of view, and I'm not willing to stake my "confidence" on a belief that I can get large poll numbers to agree with me on any given issue.
...ultimately turn against abortion. This is the confidence that congressional pro-lifers demonstrated in their attempt to ban partial-birth abortion.
No, it' s not. Turning against partial-birth abortion is not the same as turning against abortion. I've said several times already that I think banning PBAs would be much less controversial. But it is a smaller step. A good one, but a smaller one.
Now, regarding your strategy, I can't see how an elected politician who never mentions abortion is going to inspire the public to be against it
It simply cannot be true that Simon "never mentions" abortion. The media would never let him get away with that. And even if all he does is answer their questions about his beliefs sincerely and honestly, then that's something in my book.
I don't see how you can possibly believe that the mere fact that a pro-lifer sits in some high office is going to compel the people to not have abortions, but fine.
I don't think that's what I said. I said it would get people used to the idea that pro-lifers are not monsters to be feared. But you knew that.
Look, I think it's clear that you don't believe that the pro-life position is a winner politically, or even can be a winner politically.
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.
I don't happen to count your Mandated Public School Lessons idea among the likely political winners in the great state of CA, at least at present. Call me crazy but that's my take on the body politic here. I do sure hope that's ok with you.
I disagree profoundly.
Noted.
Pro-lifers don't want to vote for someone who creates the impression that he is ashamed to be pro-life
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. This idea is poisonous. It turns every election, no matter how small, into a referendum on abortion.
then this abortion strategy will be primarily to blame, in my opinion.
Perhaps. One way to ameliorate this situation, you know, would be for pro-lifers like yourself to wise up and realize that Simon is better than Davis and that it's self-defeating to stay home for such purist reasons.
But you could be right, maybe large numbers of pro-lifers will indeed do just that, and stay home. Well boo on them. But it could happen. Like I said before I don't stake too many of my opinions on "confidence" that my fellow voters will do the right thing. I've seen too many examples to the contrary, and pro-lifers staying home and electing Davis to 4 more years because Simon is "not pro life enough" would be one of them.
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.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You claimed that teaching children scientific lessons about human development is "political" soley because the majority of Californians would think so (according to you) -- a patently ridiculous assertion. If the state teaches children to support abortion restrictions, that would be political. If the state teaches children biology, that is not political. Is that clear enough, Dr. Frank, or do I have to draw you a picture?
I won't. I will be agreeing with them that it is indoctrination. (Perhaps justifiable indoctrination - that is a different argument - but indoctrination nonetheless.)
Again, biology is not indoctrination. Are you even serious? And it doesn't surprise me that you would agree with them, you've certainly bought their spinbook on California politics.
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.
And when did I say that I "dislike Simon?" I only recall questioning his position on abortion. Are we nitpicking words now, Dr. Frank? No, of course not, that would be petty.
Dislike him all you want. I'm voting for him and hope he wins.
Do what you want, sir, it won't break my heart. It's pretty clear that you'd vote for him regardless of what his position on abortion was. Clearly, you have other issues that are more important to you. Had you admitted this to begin with, we could have ended this debate a lot sooner.
Right. A majority of Californians would see the move as political. They would alter their votes and have discussions accordingly. Thus making it "political".
If the state teaches children to support abortion restrictions, that would be political. If the state teaches children biology, that is not political.
The state already teaches children "biology". What makes you think it doesn't? If that's all you're advocating here then the point is moot and you're right, it's "not political". But that's not all you're advocating, and you know it. You're advocating something which (you admit) would be controversial, cause discussions, (you hope) change minds, etc. In short, "political".
Again, biology is not indoctrination. Are you even serious?
Again, you're not merely advocating "biology", because that would be idiotic for a candidate to say "I think schools should teach biology!". Schools already teach "biology", like I said. You're advocating (I think) that students be taught that life begins at conception. This would be, de facto, indoctrination (into the viewpoint that life begins at conception). Perhaps this viewpoint is correct. But it is indoctrination. What's the problem? Why not just admit it? There's nothing wrong with indoctrination, per se. (For example, I also want children "indoctrinated" into the idea that stealing is wrong, etc.)
And when did I say that I "dislike Simon?" I only recall questioning his position on abortion.
Ok, my mistake. 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.
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,
Well, it seems that it is now you who can't "keep up." I will not repeat myself. If you could not comprehend the difference from what I described in post #63, then, I'm sorry, but I do not have the time to serve as your remedial instructor.
I mean, wouldn't that just make him look dumb?
Why not advise a politician to say "I think schools should be forced to teach that 2+2=4 rather than 2+2=5"?
Did you re-read the post, or not? I specifically mentioned using modern methods to teach the subject that much better convey the point. If some schools are already using ultrasounds, intrauterine video, heartbeat recordings, etc in their biology lessons, then fantastic. But I would make it mandatory and require the lesson to be taught, adjusted for age and class level, at the elementary, middle, and high school level. It would no more be "dumb" for a candidate to suggest this, than it would be for him to suggest introducing modern instruction methods in any other subject. And considering the gravity of an abortion decision, it is more than appropriate to advocate this, as part of an overall public awareness effort, in a campaign at any level.
Why not advise a politician to say "I think schools should be forced to teach that 2+2=4 rather than 2+2=5"?
Because that would be dumb.
Fine and dandy.
1. If something like this is already being done in schools, then your suggestion is moot, right? And then what becomes of your complaints about Mr. Simon (for being "cowardly" and Not Suggesting This)?
2. If it's not already being done: For a gubernatorial candidate to suggest this all would be viewed as extremely political, and you know it.
Anyhow, we seem t'have strayed pretty far away from good ol' Mr. Simon (remember him?) and whether he "reversed himself" on abortion, whether he's "really" pro-life, etc. Good luck in your school curriculum efforts, though. Best,
Anyhow, we seem t'have strayed pretty far away from good ol' Mr. Simon (remember him?) and whether he "reversed himself" on abortion, whether he's "really" pro-life, etc. Good luck in your school curriculum efforts, though. Best,
Yes, whether or not he acts on his stated pro-life beliefs will become apparent soon enough if you have your wish and he defeats Davis. And good luck in your efforts to reduce your tax burden, or cut welfare, or whatever it is that motivates you to go to the polls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.