pudge's Journal: Romney on Abortion

It's really bizarre to me that people are saying Romney is a flip-flopper on abortion, that he was firmly "pro-choice" as the governor of Massachusetts.

I was there. I remember the debates and everything. NOBODY thought Romney was pro-choice at the time. He vowed to maintain the state's pro-choice laws, because that is what the people clearly wanted and it would have been counterproductive to try to change it. But he clearly was pro-life. He just wasn't going to waste time and energy pushing that policy.

Now, I know he has changed somewhat on this issue since 2002. His "epiphany," supposedly, is about how his personal view on abortion now has more of a public policy role. It is possible that he really did have some epiphany to that end, I don't know. But it doesn't change the fact that everyone in Massachusetts in 2002, that I know of, on all sides of the issue, considered Romney to be pro-life, even though he vowed to not try to change the law of the state to reflect that.

confusing the issue

[Bill Dog]

Calling him pro-life violates the understood definition of it, and muddies the issue, as Romney is seeking hard to do. Almost everybody is against abortion, in that they wish there weren't so many/that it wasn't necessary. Practically speaking "pro-life" means not just being against it, but also being someone who would put an end to it. Like a person who doesn't want to do anything to "save the earth" calling themself an "environmentalist", it rings hollow. If you're not serious about something, you're not

Re:

[pudge]

Calling him pro-life violates the understood definition of it

I disagree. I called Romney "pro-life" in 2003, and I see no reason to change that now.

Almost everybody is against abortion, in that they wish there weren't so many/that it wasn't necessary. Practically speaking "pro-life" means not just being against it, but also being someone who would put an end to it.

But how do you distinguish from someone who WANTS it to be legal because they think that it should be, and someone who won't oppose it because they know it would be a waste of time and energy and prevent you from getting elected?

If you're not serious about something, you're not serious about it.

Shrug. He was serious about it. He made a conscious choice to not push it in a situation where he would be incapable of doing so successfully.

If Romney is "pro-life", than so is Guilani, and McCain, and 95% of the country. Rendering the term meaningless.

Um, McCain IS pro-life. Always has been. He's

Re:

[Bill Dog]

But how do you distinguish from someone who WANTS it to be legal because they think that it should be, and someone who won't oppose it because they know it would be a waste of time and energy and prevent you from getting elected?

I would distinguish them with different labels: "Pro-choice" vs. "effectively pro-choice". Trying to coopt and grotesquely expand and distort the label "pro-life" to get elected or defend a candidate is dishonest.

Someone's broken into your house and attempting to make off with a lov

Re:

[pudge]

I would distinguish them with different labels: "Pro-choice" vs. "effectively pro-choice". Trying to coopt and grotesquely expand and distort the label "pro-life" to get elected or defend a candidate is dishonest.

Sorry, but just because YOU disagree with how the label is used doesn't make it dishonest. I have no problem with the label being used that way; why is your definition better than mine? Further, so long as the position is clearly explained, it cannot reasonably be called dishonest.

Re:

[Bill Dog]

It is when he's trying to tell a group (pro-lifers) that he's basically like them, when he's not. No one's buying it -- not just ME -- look at the polls.

Re:

[pudge]

It is when he's trying to tell a group (pro-lifers) that he's basically like them, when he's not.

Yes, in fact, he is. On what basis do you claim he's not?

Conflicting info

[multimed]

I still don't know enough about Romney to decide what I think in general, but in reading this journal entry and some other things I've read to try and find out, I'm getting conflicting info. From an MSNBC article [msn.com]

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has had an epiphany on abortion - not once, but twice.

The first time was when Romney was a young man in the 1960s and his brother-in-law's sister - an engaged-to-be-married teen who became pregnant - died in a botched illegal abortion.

Roughly three deca

Re:

[pudge]

That strikes me as being more than just submitting to the will of the people and into the wrong morally but right public policy area.

I was not defending his 1994 view, but his 2003 view. I submit that it was pretty clear to those of us in MA that in 1994 he was pro-choice, but in 2003 he was not. Indeed, this was much-talked about in 2003.

I am not arguing that he has never changed his views on abortion. I am arguing that he has not changed suddenly in order to win the GOP nomination for President. If that were the case, he would have had a much different line when he was trying to become governor of Massachusetts. In 1994 he said h