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,
Outstanding. Now, when it becomes mandatory for everyone, we can celebrate.
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.
I will give you that he has not reversed himself. However, as I said, his position is next to useless for the pro-life cause. If a single-issue pro-lifer is planning on voting for him out of a belief that he will actively fight to reduce abortions or lead cultural change, then they need to think long and hard. Would Simon be marginally better than Davis? Of course. But if pro-life voters don't start demanding more, then this is all we'll ever get -- weak pro-life politicians who "hold the line," but never advance the cause. And considering where the line is currently, that's not an appealing prospect.