In the wake of Romney's speech to MA Citizens for Life, some have been questioning anew Romney's moral convictions on life. William F. Buckley takes the opportunity to reflect. Some clips:

"There is pretty outspoken derision, on the hustings, on the matter of Mitt Romney and his evolved stand on abortion. In Iowa, which Romney recently visited, a county chairman accosted a skeptic. What he said was that Romney's opposition to abortion was the result of a 'thoughtful moral process.' People on the other side, whether of Romney, or of abortion, are expressing their skepticism."

"What I have found most arresting is the refusal of so many in the pro-choice army to submit the question to 'thoughtful moral process,' as we have been told Mitt Romney did. One can choose to ignore the moral question, but one cannot easily decline to acknowledge that there is a moral question underlying the dispute."

"The movement to eliminate thought on abortion has failed. Failed, because there is an assertive human point at issue, which cannot be denied consideration, any more than the question of slavery could forever be denied consideration."

"Mitt Romney is hardly entitled to the Republican nomination just because he has confessed his doubts on the subject of abortion. But moral history is likely to bow its head to remark this sign of life of the moral conscience. "

I think Buckley is hitting upon something significant here, which is, much of the skepticism regarding Romney's reasoning for becoming more pro-life is largely rooted in an aversion to moral contemplation and discourse. Romney's "conversion" experience strike sincere to those who believe in coming to an understanding through learning and seeking to become better. I suspect that many of those who view it as pandering would prefer moral thought be driven from the res publica.

Significant moral problems are ignored in the guise of abstract notions of precedent and penumbras. What is lost is the limitation on human understanding that should inform even those who do not have faith in the sanctity of unborn life. A moral inquiry might proceed like this...

Hopefully, everyone can agree that it would be wrong to kill a person for no good reason. The best science can do in determining when a developing baby becomes a person is to say "I don't know." Consciousness is difficult to discern. In light of the fact that we do not know when a developing baby becomes a "person" it would be very reckless indeed to destroy that life for no good reason because it could be a person. As such, abortion on demand in the first trimester is very reckless. You could be killing a person. Society's basic function should be to protect people, especially those who cannot protect themselves. Hence, it would be fair for society to legislate restrictions on abortion pursuant to that duty.

When Mitt Romney says, he thinks state's should be able to legislate on the issue of abortion, he is essentially saying that state's should be allowed to have a moral discourse about life. Simply put, "The Roe v. Wade mentality has so cheapened the value of human life that rational people [see] human life as mere research material to be used, then destroyed."