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.