He seems to really be owning his newish pro-life stance. I'm personally getting more convinced of his genuine belief. He says:
"[w}hat some see as a mere clump of cells is actually a human life. Human life has identity. Human life has the capacity to love and to be loved. Human life has profound dignity, dignity undiminished by age or infirmity.”
And it's not only his words - the article goes on to cite some action that supports his words:
"As a result of this conversion, he stated that he publicly acknowledged his error. He sought to live up to his commitment to life by fighting to ban cloning and embryo farming. He sought to define life at beginning at conception rather than at implantation. Additionally, he supported abstinence education in schools."
Then regarding the judicial side of the problem he says: "Make no mistake: abortion and same-sex marriage are not rights to be discovered in the Constitution.”
Here's the rest of the article:
I guess that I would think this "conversion" more trustworthy if it had been accompanied by some deeper religous conversion also - but he was already Mormon. It just makes me wonder if he just uses the "religious man" as a political type - to convince true believers that his policy is based on principle, not just politics. I am doubting his commitment to Mormonism since he was simultaneously Mormon and Pro-Choice for so long. And when his level of commitment to his religion is questioned then it automatically brings into question his level of commitment to anything - especially the all-important pro-life topic. But...at least he's been acting like a pro-life man recently, it certainly is better then just saying it, or not saying it in Guliani's case.