“As you recall, he refused to discuss them or to sign a pro-life pledge during the primary season. He simply tried to get by on a statement that he is pro-life. (Teddy Kennedy said the same, btw.)”
The very premise of this thread is that Gov. Romney has stated that he accepts exceptions to a general prohibition of abortion, for cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
If that's his position, well, that's his position. Everything else is distraction and deflection.
If you think he's insincere, or perhaps even lying about his views, I understand. In 2008, I refused to believe him, too. But at the same time, I acknowledged that people can change, sometimes for the worse (Chappaquiddick Ted really did used to be pro-life - he changed for the worse), sometimes for the better (Zell Miller appears to have really changed as well, as a result painful personal experience, but this time, for the better).
Thus, even after losing as a proclaimed pro-life Republican, Gov. Romney held steady to his newly-acquired political positions, and in my view, has earned the benefit of the doubt.
If you wish to disagree on that point - that you still don't believe that he is a real pro-lifer - I understand.
But his current public position - WHICH IS OUTLINES IN YOUR VERY POST - is what is attacked in your post. I'm merely pointing out that his current public position has been deemed acceptable by most folks who call themselves pro-life for a very long time. I'm merely pointing out that you're moving the goalposts, and I'm speculating that this is perhaps because you just really can't stand Willard M. Romney. I understand. I haven't much liked him over the years, either.
But to attack his current public position on abortion - WHICH IS CLEARLY LAID OUT BY YOUR OWN THREAD, HERE - because he would provide in law exceptions for women who are pregnant by way of rape or incest is moving the goalposts.
I would be delighted if we were to effect changes in the legal regime of abortion in the United States that would prohibit all abortions except those where pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or where the mother's life was in imminent danger. This position on the part of Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan is easily sufficient to induce me to consider them pro-lifers worthy of support on this issue.
That doesn't mean that, should we succeed to this degree, I wouldn't then go back for more. But I don't mind winning 96% in the interim.
Post 68 is somewhat tangential to the larger points, although I'll note it isn't completely consistent with the actual political or juridical reality in which we find our nation.
sitetest
Hi Sitetest,
I’ve been on FR a long time, and I’ve followed this election closely. In that time, I’ve seen no place where Romney’s current abortion views are spelled out. Romney has maintained a type of silence on the subject with the exceptions of refusing to sign a pro-life pledge and also that of simple statements that he is pro-life.
This article is the first — and it’s due to a faux pas by a senate candidate — in which the Romney camp has be obliged (perhaps against its will) to make a statement on Romney’s actual abortion stance.
We now know he is not a pure pro-lifer, but that he accepts exceptions.
This is quite newsworthy since:
1. It’s the first expression of details about his views, and every pro-lifer can now weigh this in light of recent revelations about his support of the gay agenda and of bi-partisan gun control.
2. If there are pure pro-lifers who were supporting him, due to his silence on the issue, they now have information with which to make a better informed decision.
Well said..