It is quite possible that that is the case. We don’t know, because very few of us really know what he believes. He says he was personally against abortion, as a Mormon you could guess he should have been pro-life at some moment.
Then he tells a story of a family member that died in an illegal abortion. Now he was pro-choice.
Then in a meeting the doctor in question denies happened, he was converted to pro-life due to stem cell research. See the image of mutilated babies didn’t do it for him, it was stem cells that changed his mind. Yeah right!
So yeah, he could have changed positions more than 2 times, very likely. Shows a pattern with Romney too.
The doctor doesn’t deny the meeting, he says he didn’t use the word “kill” to describe the destruction of embryos.
But we know better — if you destroy embryos, you are killing, and Romney recognized that, even though the doctor denies it.
>He says he was personally against abortion, as a Mormon you could guess he should have been pro-life at some moment.
He has always maintained this position.
>Then he tells a story of a family member that died in an illegal abortion. Now he was pro-choice.
He declined to identify himself with that label, though effectively I agree. But this is the same position his family seemed to have - that the state should not prevent a woman from being able to choose an abortion.
>Then in a meeting the doctor in question denies happened, he was converted to pro-life due to stem cell research. See the image of mutilated babies didn’t do it for him, it was stem cells that changed his mind. Yeah right!
I don’t see why you choose to dismiss that intellectually he finally found himself unable to continue to uphold a woman’s right to have an abortion, once he continued to be confronted with evidence that the state is sanctioning the destruction of human life.
It is a one-time shift.