Posted on 12/04/2011 2:29:55 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
In an interview with ABC News on Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he believes that human life does not begin at conception but at "implantation and successful implantation" because if you say life begins at conception "you're going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions."
Gingrich also said that his "friends" who take "ideological positions" that human life does begin at conception "don't then follow through on the logic of" that postion.
Gingrich's statement was criticized by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who like Gingrich is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and by commentaries posted on pro-life websites.
Gingrich made his statement in an interview with ABC News's Jake Tapper in West Des Moines, Iowa.
"Abortion is a big issue here in Iowa among conservative Republican voters and Rick Santorum has said you are inconsistent," Tapper told Gingrich. "The big argument here is that you have supported in the past embryonic stem cell research and you made a comment about how these fertilized eggs, these embryos are not yet 'pre-human' because they have not been implanted. This has upset conservatives in this state who worry you don’t see these fertilized eggs as human life. When do you think human life begins?"
Gingrich responded: "Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question. My friends who have ideological positions that sound good don't then follow through the logic of: 'So how many additional potential lives are they talking about? What are they going to do as a practical matter to make this real?
"I think," Gingrich continued, "that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that's been successfully implanted that now you're dealing with life, because otherwise you're going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult quesitons."
Tapper then asked: "So implantation is the moment for you?
"Implantation and successful implantation," said Gingrich.
"In addition," said Gingrich, "I would say that I've never been for embryonic stem cell research per se. I have been for, there are a lot of different ways to get embryonic stem cells. I think if you can get it in ways that do not involve the loss of a life that's a perfectly legitimate avenue of approach.
"What I reject," Gingrich told Tapper, "is the idea that we're going to take one life for the purpose of doing research for other purposes and I think that crosses a threshold of de-humanizing us that's very, very dangerous."
Wesley J. Smith, who authors a blog about bioethics on the website of First Things, posted an entry on Saturday that was sharply critical of Gingrich's statements to Tapper.
Smith pointed to an embryology textbook he had quoted in his own book, Consumer's Guid to a Brave New World.
"If we want to learn the unvarnished scientific truth about whether an early embryo--wherever situated--is really a form of human life, we need only turn to apolitical medical and embryology textbooks," Smith wrote.
"For example," wrote Smith, "the authors of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th Ed.) assert: 'Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte is fertilized by a sperm...' The fertilized egg is known as a zygote, which 'is the beginning of a new human being ...' More to the point, the authors write: 'Human development begins at fertilization' with the joining of the egg and sperm, which 'form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized ... cell marks the beginning of each of us a unique individual.'"
Rep. Bachmann put out a statement on Friday, expressing disagreement with what Gingrich had told ABC News.
“Newt Gingrich stated today that life begins at implantation not at conception," said Bachmann. "But those who are truly involved in the life issue know that life begins at conception. Additionally, the former speaker’s description of the life issue as 'practical' is a rejection of the most sacred principle that each and every life has value, a principle recognized by our founders in the Declaration of Independence of the most basic right with which every human is endowed. This along with his inconsistent record on life is just one more indication that Newt is not dedicated to protecting the lives of the unborn and doesn’t share the most basic of conservative principles."
Thank the Lord that it entirely possible to govern this country as a Constitutionalist, while at the same time trying to live one's life based on the teachings, vaules and opinions of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, a President Gingrich should be expected to award clemency to virutally every capital appeal that came across his desk, and to avoid military interventions like the one we engaged in in Afghanistan. Can't have it both ways.
Precisely. This is a religious question and is therefore beyond the scope of the US Government to define.
What we have scientific proof of is that all mammalian life begins at fertilization.
Yep. It's right up there with proof of evolution.
Or did you just decide that Man really is nothing more than an animal?
Thank the Lord that it entirely possible to govern this country as a Constitutionalist, while at the same time trying to live one's life based on the teachings, vaules and opinions of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, a President Gingrich should be expected to award clemency to virutally every capital appeal that came across his desk, and to avoid military interventions like the one we engaged in in Afghanistan. Can't have it both ways.
Did you even read the article? He states that he is against this practice, and has always been so.
The eye of Newt will implode, and the “angry old badger will appear for winter.
Yeah. Welcome to my world. I know it's somewhere between conception and ability to draw the first breath.
Better to err on the side of life, but...
Thanks Clint N. Suhks.
I will vote for NO candidate on ANY political party who supports illegals in any way.
The embryos are definitely created in a state of mortal danger. The danger is entered into by intentional acts, whether or not the parents or lab personnel understand (or “believe”).
If the child is begun for his or her own sake, as a means to an end in and of him/herself, and nurtured and cared for with respect as any other child, then there can be an argument for using the doctrine of unintended consequences or double effect.
But the standard would be high.
At the least, the doctors, parents and techs are guilty of manslaughter, just as you would be if someone died after a car crash when you choose to drive after a couple of drinks or skipping your car inspection, knowing your brakes don’t always work.
Who knows what lip service he may or may not pay, but in fact he is pro-choice for states like Ron Paul and Gerald R. Ford, and he excepts the children of rape and incest victims from the equal protection of their God-given, unalienable right to live.
...I know, as I'm sure he does, that adult stem cells have been proven very effective in treatments, while fetal or embryonic stem cells haven't.....and those of us who are prolife......do not support fetal stem cell research.
What I'm not sure of is what point you were trying to make???
By the way, Perry has also promised to sign immoral, unconstitutional “fetal pain” legislation, given the chance.
Stupid straw man and a complete non-sequitor.
I can and do practice medicine based on evidence derived from verifiable, repeatable experiments. We can go anywhere in the world and find the same reaction to the same medications.
Again, what is implanted? Do the techs in either the in vitro lab or the embryonic stem cell lab just scoop up all the material in the petri dishes and hope they got a “live one?”
“”one iota of difference on in how he votes on that legislation.””
He wouldn’t get to vote on any legislation!
“”An ectopic pregnancy is one of the very few circumstances in which abortion is legitimately allowed (i.e. to save the mother’s life).””
An ectopic pregnancy can be ended by spontaneous abortion - or surgically. I was lucky enough to get to the operating room as the tube ruptured. Not a pleasant experience but I never thought of it as an abortion.
Veto or sign.
Perry signed the Texas fetal pain law in 2005.
It is not perfect but it has punished several murderers and been the impetus for the conversation that changed the minds of several non-pro-life Freepers and acquaintances.
Our prenatal law is better than we could have gotten if we had insisted on including prosecution of the mother and doctor for currently legal elective abortion. It was a step to this year's law that did not have the rape and incest exception and the hoped for Human Life Amendment.
Since there is no such proof, then you are not a human person either under current law.
I'm not quite sure of what you mean by a straw man and a non sequitur.
Is it a straw man or a non sequitur to point out the the US government has no Constitutional authority to define a spiritual event? Or is it both?
It seems to me the question is exactly on point.
Is it a straw man, a non sequitur or just stupid to agree with you that mammalian life begins at conception? Did I err in noticing that to use this as the sole criteria means that a human is spiritually no different than any other mammal?
Do the techs in either the in vitro lab or the embryonic stem cell lab just scoop up all the material in the petri dishes and hope they got a “live one?”
Nope, they use the exact same techniques they use to genetically engineer better pigs.
We are better than pigs because we have souls.
Show me when exactly a soul picks up a body.
Is this because our country is finished or is it because the msm has sharpened its game so well that it can easily destroy true Conservatives?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.