Of pro-life ephiphanies

This NH article, focusing on neighboring-ex-governor Romney raises a good point about a given candidate's ability to woo voters. Changing one's mind on an issue is certainly understandable, but I think it's fair (not to mention wise) to look beyond a candidate's rhetoric.

Pro-life leaders divided on Romney: "Five New Hampshire pro-life leaders split in their opinion on the sincerity of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's abortion epiphany.

. . . .

Karen Testerman, president of the pro-life Cornerstone Policy Research group, said of Romney, "Everybody has an ability to change their opinions because they get more information. But there is some flawed logic when he says he is against embryonic stem cell research but yet is willing to support abortions for cases of rape and incest. Why is a life at seven days more precious than a life at 14 or 20 weeks?"

Testerman said that McCain "has a good voting record," but she said he does not excite pro-life activists, and overall, "He doesn't seem to be getting the spark, based on the event attendance I've seen."

She named Brownback and Huckabee as "100 percent" pro-life."

Fred Thompson is likely to face these same questions. Intellectual integrity or consistency bolsters a person's credibility in my opinion. Too many candidates try to finesse a controversial issue--too often it works when they're merely hoping to appear resolute and principled and serious.

Cross-posted at wisdomisvindicated.blogspot.com