Submitted by Harold Volker, Jan 31, 2007 23:53

I believe that Mitt Romney has always been personally opposed to abortion. However, his experience with the death of a close family relative from a botched illegal abortion prompted him to take the position that abortions should be safe and legal, even though he remained personally opposed to abortions. I believe that Romney has always been pro life at his core. But the death of his relative forced him to consider the life and safety of pregnant women who may choose to have abortions (regardless of whether abortions are legal). Romney was forced to weigh the lives of grown women with those of unborn fetuses. We are all familiar with this reasoning: women will always seek out abortions, regardless of their legality. Forcing abortions underground by making them illegal greatly increase the risk of injury or death of the mother. The counter argument is this: while abortions may result in the serious injury or death of the mother, they almost guarantee the death of the unborn fetus, for that is their purpose.

When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he did not embrace pro choice. Rather, he promised he would not try to change the current laws in Mass. pertaining to abortion. He made this political concession in order get elected. That's what politicians do. He kept his word throughout his term in office: he did not attempt to change the laws in Mass. Now that he's running for President, he has embraced a pro-life position, which I believe is more consistent with his personal convictions. I believe that Mitt Romney will keep any promises he makes during his campaign. So conservatives should not be worried about him changing his position on major policy issues once he's elected.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.