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.