Please go to the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBRjSe8WvfQ&feature=player_embedded
Look at this UPI article from just this PAST September 2011.:
Asked if he would support using a 14th Amendment interpretation to ban abortion, Romney stressed his support for overturning Roe vs. Wade, which recognized a woman's right to an abortion, but said using the 14th Amendment was not a good idea."Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances? I think it's reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday, but that's not something I would precipitate," he said. "I believe that we must be a nation of laws, and I believe in supporting the Constitution as I understand it, but I'm not looking to create a constitutional crisis."
See the 14th amendment below. In other words, Romney does NOT consider an unborn child to be a person. Nor would he support a personhood law. Nor would he support justices who would use personhood in the 14th amendment to save babies.
The 14th Amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Oh, c’mon, xzins, you can do better than that, LOL.
There's no inherent contradiction between not wanting to reinterpret the 14th Amendment as protecting unborn human beings, to avoid constitutional controversy, and supporting adding an amendment to the Constitution, through the usual process that explicitly protects unborn human beings.
Even many pro-lifers - I mean REAL pro-lifers who have been pro-life consistently for many years - are skittish at the idea of doing something that smells a lot like the mirror image of Roe, a kind of bizarro-Roe, which is to “get our way” by a clever reinterpretation of the Constitution.
In any event, my original points stand: Gov. Romney's current positions are well within the bounds of those opinions we usually accept as “pro-life”; Even Rep. Ryan's position isn't perfectly consistent with that of pro-life "purists"; and Gov. Romney's current public views have been on the record since at least 2005, in media outlets such as the Boston Globe.
sitetest
Any country which would elect a Presidential candidate who promised to use the 14th amendment as a tool to end all abortion by executive order would be a country that would not need to do so.
For a nation which would elect a Goode or a Hoefling would have already ended legal abortion, the right way, through legislation and the overturn of Roe.