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."
Gingrich had no business converting to Catholicism if he had no intention of following Church teachings. The guy is Clinton redux.
“”Veto or sign.””
Got it........sure don’t want to set any precedence in a president voting on legislation, do we? obozo didn’t want to vote yay or nay on any legislation but I’m sure he’d love to now.
Under current law I became not just a human person, but a Natural Born Citizen, at birth.
No wonder you’ve never gotten a law passed. You can’t stay on topic.
You are, of course, wrong once again. You simply must get better help.
Well, unless some other more conservative entity appears out of the woodwork and "gains traction", it apparently is going to boil down to Newt vs. Mitt. Of that pairing, I'd have to go with Newt.
“”Newt Gingrich said he believes that human life does not begin at conception but at “implantation and successful implantation””
I don’t even know know HOW or WHY he made this jump!!! This is really too far out there for me. Do we have to say goodbye to Newt now too? Sure is beginning to look like it.
Not true. Anyone to Bush's right is destroyed in the press before they can get any votes.
And down this path lies the government making a law that says you're an aardvark with no rights at all which is the problem when people look to current laws to determine rights.
This video on the development of a baby shows that at 25 days the heart is formed and thereafter starts beating. It seems to me that if the beating heart is stopped deliberately, that is killing.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/astounding_video_shows_fetal_development_in_detail.html
So we have to choose between milquetoast Mitt and a guy who lies to his wives and new found Church?
I think I'll puke now.
Noone has to prove the existence of the soul to justify laws against murder or the use of regulated material and licensed personal for the purpose of killing or putting human lives in a state of mortal danger.
If we must prove the soul exists to prove that a person is a person, how do I know that you are a person?
Yes I know why this was done, and yes I know that it enabled the downfall of slavery in the US a bare three generations later.
The situation is what it is. I don't much like it either, but Sarah decided not to run. Would you prefer either Mitt (or Obama)?? And I'd say that Gingrich is WAY more truly conservative than McCain.
We know that both the pill and the IUD prevent the sperm from reaching the oocyte - anyone who practices natural family planning understands the significance of the thickened cervical mucus due to the progesterone surge after ovulation.
Reference: experiments done by Croxatto and by Durand.
However, I don’t advise IUD’s because they can also interfere with implantation and with development of the child.
(And, BTW, The women who take progesterone to support early pregnancies understand how progesterone works to improve the chances of implantation and continuation of the pregnancy.)
Ummm, because I vote?
I’ll vote for the nominee but Gingrich is moving into territory where I may not be able to pull the lever for him. The guy damn well knows that life begins at conception and this Clintonian implantation bs flies in the face of the promises he recently made to the Catholic Church. History tells me that Gingrich’s promises are worthless.
Technically, umbilical cord blood, amniotic cells and placental cells are all sources of ethical fetal stem cells.
Besides having studied this subject for over ten years, testifying and speaking many times at our Texas legislature and for many clubs, I have a personal interest. My granddaughter’s life was saved by a bone marrow transplant using an anonymous little boy’s umbilical cord blood, when she was 15 months old, back in 2001. https://lifeethics.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/umbilical-cord-blood-saves-lives/
So, according to you there are 2 tests for personhood, if we can scientifically prove the soul and/or if the entity votes?
What about children under the age of 18?
And you would be wrong: but that figures, since you're just trying to justify your screen name.
See also Tristram Shandy Chapter 2.VIII:
‘Good God!’ cried my uncle Toby, ‘are children brought into the world with a squirt?’
Cheers!
The soul can’t be measured, yet.
For the twin - it looks like the twinning capacity may be there from the first.
Nevertheless, we can’t kill two for the price of one, either.
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.