Your post in no way regards the context of things.
His position in 1967 - to permit abortion only in hospitals, only after a committee of doctors (or alternatively a district attorney, in cases of rape) had ascertained that a woman was a victim of rape or incest, or was in dire medical need of an abortion due to grave risk to her health - is about as pro-life as most pro-life folks are today.
As to being related to Roe - please document the connection. I can find none. It appears to be an assertion on your part without any actual evidence.
“And he did not become pro-life in any way that any person at the time could detect until 1975.”
The actual legislation that he actually signed in 1967 would be considered nearly model abortion legislation by most pro-lifers today. By his actual deeds, one can say that he was a moderate pro-lifer.
That he became more pro-life, and more adamantly pro-life over time is wonderful.
But to anachronistically use the terms “pro-choice” or “pro-abort” to him in 1967 borders on dissembling.
Mr. Romney, on the other hand, was a loud and proud pro-abort (and maybe still is).
sitetest