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.
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.