Replies

Nowandlater,

I've done the "back and forth" with Sitetest before . . . and he's tenacious (and pretty sincere and well-meaning, I think). Just fair warning.

Sitetest,

I'm glat that you're not running PR or "recruiting" for any pro-life groups. According to your rhetoric and reasoning any pro-abort sympathies disqualifies from ever joining the club (at least that's the rule you apply to Romney, but Brownback's and Reagan's shifts you're OK with). Your attitude and rules, if applied widely, would lead to a shrinking of the "pro-life" ranks. Is that what you want?

"Zero credit. Period" you say even though Romney has a 100% pro-life RECORD as Governor (heck, that's better than Reagan's RECORD as Governor!)

At least the Pro-life leaders in Mass give him more credit that you do . . . see:

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massleaders/massleaders.pdf

Accoring to them (including Joseph Reilly, the President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, and Mary Ann Glendon . . . prominent pro-lifer and on Harvard's Faculty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon ) Romney:

"Affirmed the culture of life: Governor Romney has vetoed nills to provide access to the socalled “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”"

I think after all our previous arguments we (I?) sort of concluded that you like long historical records of consistant pro-life statements and votes. Because of the relative newness of Romney's shift you are obviously skeptical . . . but you may just be catching him too early for your "grading system" to work. He may be the best pro-life President you ever saw. No one would have guessed that of Reagan when he was finishing his term as Governor . . . . but now we have the benefit of time and history. I encourage you again to not write him off yet.

I've been in Romney's presence when he's related his "conversion" on abortion and I was utterly convinced of his sincerity. I hope you have the same opportunity.

Dear Jeff Fuller,

Mr. Romney may claim to be pro-life NOW, but he was not pro-life earlier, and certainly not for futzing around the fringes of the issue.

Someone who believes that Roe was rightly decided (Mr. Romney until 2004 or so) believes that abortion should generally be legal. That is to be pro-abortion. A pro-abort who nonetheless endorses some small restrictions on abortion is still a pro-abort.

Someone who is pro-life is someone who believes that unborn children should be protected in law, and that abortion should generally be illegal. These folks believe that Roe, then, is wrongly decided. Here, too, there is a range of views. Some folks believe abortion shouldn't be legal under any circumstances. Some believe that there should be very limited exceptions to the general law that abortion should be illegal.

By this definition, Mr. Romney was a pro-abort at least until 2002, and by his own admission, really, until 2004.

"'Zero credit. Period' you say even though Romney has a 100% pro-life RECORD as Governor (heck, that's better than Reagan's RECORD as Governor!)"

Both pro-aborts and pro-lifers can be for specific minor restrictions on the abortion license. Thus, for pro-abort Mr. Romney to favor a restriction isn't to become a pro-lifer.

Now, Mr. Romney currently claims to be pro-life, believing that Roe should go, and that states should generally outlaw abortion.

So, let's make clear: it should be undisputed that Mr. Romney was a mainstream (not radical) pro-abort at least up until 2004. He announced his "conversion" in 2005. He was touting his pro-abort credentials at least as late as 2002, to get elected Governor of Massachusetts.

Any actions on his part prior to the announcement of his "conversion" in 2005 must be considered the tinkering around the fringes of the issue of abortion by a pro-abort politician.

"I think after all our previous arguments we (I?) sort of concluded that you like long historical records of consistant pro-life statements and votes."

Well, gee, who wouldn't prefer the politician who has supported one's cause for a decade or two or three, over the fellow who has done so for maybe as much as a year or two or three?

"Because of the relative newness of Romney's shift you are obviously skeptical . . . but you may just be catching him too early for your 'grading system' to work."

With Mr. Romney, the special problem is about timing.

He ran for US Senator in 1994. In a liberal state with a pro-abort majority, he proclaimed himself an adamant pro-abort, and informed us that he'd been a pro-abort since at least before 1970. In 2002, he ran for governor, again in a liberal, pro-abort state, and reiterated his adamant pro-abort position. That's over 30 years as a staunch proponent of a woman's "right" to have her unborn baby murdered.

In 2005, deciding not to run again in a liberal, pro-abort state, but rather to explore running for the nomination to the presidency of the pro-life Republican Party, he announces to one and all that he's a pro-lifer.

Taken in isolation, that would be a strong case for calling Mr. Romney's "conversion" opportunistic.

However, the case is strengthened as we see Mr. Romney try to re-shape his political visage on the issue of the homosexual agenda and on gun rights. Again, he has "converted" from the more liberal position on the homosexual agenda (admitting that he changed his mind on ENDA while serving as governor - how so very convenient) to a slightly less liberal position, and also is trying to reposition himself vis-a-vis the Second Amendment.

It isn't just the length of time since his "conversion," or even mainly about the length of time. It's the actual circumstances of ALL his conversions, and they appear to be nothing but political opportunism.

"He may be the best pro-life President you ever saw. No one would have guessed that of Reagan when he was finishing his term as Governor . . . . but now we have the benefit of time and history."

Please stop insulting President Reagan by lying about him.

President Reagan was NEVER pro-abort. In 1967, he favored making limited exceptions to the general law that abortion should be illegal. By 1968, he'd repudiated even those limited exceptions. Mr. Reagan served as governor until 1974. Thus, Mr. Reagan had been, by today's definitions, a moderate pro-lifer before 1968, and by the time he'd finished as governor, he'd been a RADICAL pro-lifer for six years.

Mr. Romney, if his "conversion" is sincere, is barely even a moderate pro-lifer. If Mr. Reagan was a pro-abort in 1967, then Mr. Romney is still a pro-abort, now.

As I've told you before, your lame comparisons to Mr. Reagan are a turn-off.

sitetest