This video just came out from the Romney campaign....
Note that this is on the Mitt Romney youtube channel, a channel his webpage links to.
Now on his campaign page, in the generic "values" section, Romney says, emphasis added:
Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country
that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in
the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more
than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart
Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws
of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so
divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court
to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a
decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands
of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered
through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and
not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Mitt Romney is "pro-life" and believes that "life" begins at conception but his campaign is putting out a video that touts his support for abortion when the circumstances are right. When a child is conceived as a result of rape, incest or can be a danger to the life of the mother, that life that began at conception is expendable.
Let's be clear. If life begins at conception and all human life is precious, then it doesn't matter what the circumstance are behind that life coming into being. Perhaps he is sincere but muddled on this position but more likely Romney is simply pandering here. The "rape, incest, life of the mother" clause is cover for conservative politicians but make no sense. There are tragically lots of people walking around that were conceived as the result of rape or incest and many more that were born in spite of the danger to their mother (Tim Tebow anyone?). They are not less worthy of life than people conceived by loving married upper class parents who were seeking to conceive a child.
Someone says on the one hand that he is pro-life and opposes abortion but then turns around and says that some human beings, defenseless children who committed no crime, can be punished for the acts of another. That is not being pro-life. That is being a politician. I don't expect any more than that from him but those who tell us we are duty bound to vote for Romney because he is "pro-life" need to rethink what that term means.