You didn’t really say anything, you merely meander with your own personal self serving devotions to Romney and speculations, which don’t match the facts.
You even worked the lifelong, pro-life Reagan in there as you try to defend Mitt’s lifelong devotion to abortion and liberal politics.
Fifty years ago when it was still debatable whether condoms could be sold or birth control pills prescribed, these questions were very different than today. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" positions didn't really develop and harden until after Roe v. Wade.
So if a recently elected governor were offered a bill and told that it would reduce the number of illegal abortions he might well sign it, whatever qualms he developed later. And in fact Ronald Reagan did sign that bill, whatever his convictions at the time and whatever qualms he had later. That didn't mean he went from being "pro-choice" to "pro-life." People didn't think about the issue in quite those terms then and Reagan never was a supporter of abortion in that sense, but the record is the record, and for whatever reason, he signed the bill.
If a family in 1963 was appalled by the death of a friend or relative after an illegal abortion and its members felt that such things should happen again, that didn't necessarily mean that they supported abortion on demand or would come to support it later. Maybe at the time it was just regret that such things happened in the world. Maybe it was the same wish that such things shouldn't happen that motivated Ronald Reagan. I don't know whether 17 year old Mitt was really that politically motivated or that committed on this issue, however he phrased it thirty years later. We think about these things in a much more political or ideological way than people did a half century ago.