Romney's Fluid Abortion Stance a Case Study in Morality vs. Philosophy

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R) has never been able to satisfy critics who say he has changed his position on abortion. Once identified as "pro-choice" (that is, supportive of legal abortion), he now claims to be "pro-life" (supportive of the protection of unborn human life), but his "conversion story," so to speak, is unconvincing. Whereas former President George H.W. Bush famously changed his view after one of his own children adopted a baby who otherwise would have been aborted, Romney claims to have been swayed while considering the implications of human cloning within the context of a debate over pending legislation during his term as governor of Massachusetts. While Bush's change of heart has the virtue of personal transformation, Romney's comes across as little more than a pragmatic political course correction.

Ironically, Romney's latest verbal misstep on abortion is a statement which actually expresses the classic conservative position and provides an interesting case study in the often overlooked conflict between morality and philosophy. "My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney said in an interview, "Instead, I would let states make their choices."

Long forgotten in the decades-old debate over abortion is the real reason why Roe v. Wade was considered a disastrous decision by those of the "conservative" persuasion. It had nothing to do with the violation of the sanctity of unborn human life and everything to do with an egregious usurpation of federal authority over the states. In other words, for traditional conservatives, it was not a question of Judeo-Christian morality, but of the underlying principles of constitutional government.

That the litmus test for "pro-life conservatism" has become support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion nationwide is one of the great ironies of American political history. This is not to say that the elimination of abortion across the board nationwide would be a bad thing. Obviously, the encroaching tide of the culture of death needs to be stemmed in whatever way possible. But support for a constitutional amendment goes against the principles of classical conservatism. In other words, there are elements of classical conservatism that are, in fact, at odds with a consistent Judeo-Christian moral vision. It is the latter which ought to guide those who seek to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us. When a philosophy conflicts with morality, philosophy must either be altered or abandoned.