"One does not suddenly recognize the humanity of the embryo after a lifetime of promotion and support for abortion law."
This was a further sentence from the article about Mitt Romney lying about his abortion views. I can truly see how someone can and does come to a pro-life stance after understanding just what embryonic stem cell experimentation is all about. I am willing to give Romney the benefit of getting enlightened about destroying tiny human lives. Read up on the Apostle Saul(Paul) When he got up on his horse he was a Christian killer. When God knocked him off his horse, he was a Christian. Change can happen in a twinkling of an eye. Let's hope Romney's change is real. Until we know for sure, it is not right to call him a liar.
Dear conservative blonde,
"I can truly see how someone can and does come to a pro-life stance after understanding just what embryonic stem cell experimentation is all about."
Many things are possible.
But this one doesn't seem very likely.
So, Mr. Romney is a pro-abort from 1970 until some time after 2002, in spite of over a million abortions per year every year from the mid-1970s on.
He is pro-abort in spite of the legality of partial birth abortion, which is nothing more than pure infanticide.
He is a pro-abort in spite of the fact that abortion is not only legal in the first trimester, but in the second, the third, and even during birth.
He is pro-abort in spite of every statistic showing that fewer than 4% of abortions are performed in circumstances of rape, incest, genetic deformity, or the life of the mother.
But killing a few hundred embryonic human beings for parts suddenly converts him on the issue of life.
Like I said, it's possible.
But coming after he's decided not to run again in (pro-abort) Massachusetts, but rather for the presidential nomination of the (pro-life) Republican Party, you will excuse the rest of us if we hold his "conversion" in doubt.
As well, part of Mr. Romney's problem seems to have been that he can't keep his story straight. At times, I've seen him admit that he's converted on this cause. Make a persuasive case, and I might believe that.
But at times, he seems to deny that he was ever "pro-choice" (as many pro-aborts call themselves).
He can't have it both ways. Either, he was a pro-abort and he converted to pro-life, or he was always pro-life, and thus didn't need to convert to the cause. Except that he seems to at times deny the first proposition, and his record denies the second.
sitetest