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."
I didn’t lie about you in any way. I simply reported exactly what I heard, accurately.
As I said, get over it. Years have passed. Nobody cares about it except you.
In any case, I will continue to “berate” lawmakers, organizations, and individuals who pass, or try to pass, immoral, unconstitutional, lawless laws. They are destroying the moral, constitutional and legal basis of the argument against the practice of child-killing, and and the moral, constitutional, and legal foundations of our country. Thanks.
“Newt is referring to IVF treatments, which I have no problem with what so ever.”
I agree; Newt is almost certainly talking about IVF, since IVF often results in “extra” embryos which can then be used later by the parents, or donated to others who can’t even achieve healthy embryos. My husband and I also used IVF and have two terrific children as a result. I wouldn’t change a minute of that.
Newt is also probably talking about “the pill” in birth control, since the pill works by preventing implantation. If you legally define life as beginning at conception rather than at implantation, that is going to doom use of the pill. Many people would be happy about that, but many millions of families use the pill as their form of birth control, and would fight you tooth and nail if you tried to get rid of it.
And as another poster pointed out, Newt is probably also talking about ectopic pregnancies, where the embryo is implanted accidentally in a fallopian tube. If the ectopic pregnancy does not resolve itself (which I believe it does sometimes, but not often), then surgery is required to remove the embryo in the tube. Otherwise, the embryo will eventually grow to a point where it ruptures the tube and causes anything from severe infection to pretty much immediate death for the mother. Thus one could say that implantation in a fallopian tube is an UNsuccessful implantation.
So while these circumstances may be tedious to discuss at great length, they really should be part of the conversation.
You are correct about the role of mucose production. There are two methods used by IUDs sold in the United States. One way is by the encouragement of Mucuse production to create a barrior to the sperm. This is the method of the Mirena IUD which secretes progestin for this purpose. The Mirena IUD provides double protection against pregnancy because it also affects the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The copper ParaGard IUD does not have hormones. It works by activating enzymes in the lining of the uterus, which prevents the implantation of an egg.
Right to Life -
Asked in an interview on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” whether he agreed with Republicans who oppose Federal abortion payments in cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of a mother, Mr. Gingrich said: “No. First of all, I think you should have funding in the case of rape or incest or life of the mother, which is the first step.”
http://rightonlife.org/2011/11/24/pro-life-groups-should-say-no-to-newt-and-pooh-pooh-perry-2/
Self Defense -
“In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders –- in some cases for actions as minor as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse’s wrist.(1)”
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/the-inconvenient-truth-about-newt/
Newt does not support the right to life or the means to protect it and is nothing more than a flip-flopping RINO, just like Mitt Romney.
Here’s another poll on the GOP race that just got started, so the numbers are very skewed right now. Everyone can forward it around to anyone planning on voting in the Republican GOP primary or caucus, in an attempt to get a larger and more representative voting base:
http://micropoll.com/t/LEzBOZFlnc
When ever life begins is a fundamental question of the State Goverment. For without an answer there can be no law.
You did what about the lie, once it was exposed, other than to tell me to “get over it?”
Or another "conversion of convenience"???
So Christians shouldn't vote, then? (That's a reasonable position, but is that what you mean?)
Unless I’ve missed something, but until we have aquarium babies, life does begin with inplantation.
This whole discussion is another example of ‘perfection propaganda’.
Newt is expected to be an expert in every area of study; biology, geology, mathematics, religion and economics.
When he suggested that impoverished kids could learn a work ethic by cleaning their schools for money - he was accused of over-reaching.
When he confirmed his pro-life bona fides, he was berated for not making a distinction between a zygote and an embryo.
What’s next? Not using the correct light bulbs?
I think that we conservatives think too big sometimes. Where the Left has been implementing their policies bit by bit until they get what they want, we are an all-or-nothing mentality. This may not be 100% what we want, but it is a big step in the right direction. Baby steps, he is wise taking baby steps right now. We will get there....
At conception, a human embryo consists of a single cell.
At implantation, about 9 days later, it consists of around 100 cells.
The embryo (blastocyst) is growing, dividing, developing, and starting to differentiate. That is the very definition of life. And, of course, it is human life: because it is the product of human conception, it can't be otherwise.
The only "very difficult question" this raises is why Gingrich couldn't have picked up a basic medical textbook and learned this himself, before spouting his ignorance on the subject in public.
You might do well yourself to pick up a basic medical text book.
When a sperm fertilizes an ovum it usually takes place in the fallopian tube. It is not until around 7 to up to 16 days later, around the same time that implantation occurs, that the father’s genetic code is fully passed to the blastocyst. If implantation never takes place the fertilized egg is passed through the woman’s body completely unnoticed by the woman as the pregnancy hormone hCG is not produced unless there is implantation.
I don’t know off hand what the exact numbers are but many ovums are fertilized and begin cell division but never implant and never fully receive the father’s genetic code.
While cell division occurs shortly after fertilization, one could say the egg is now “alive” (some also make the case that every egg and every sperm is alive too – “every sperm is sacred” to borrow from Monty Python).
And heck, I had a pre-cancerous mole removed and that was “alive” in the sense that it there was rapid cell division, although I do recognize that it would ever have become a baby. But one can also make a reasonable scientific argument that since the father’s genetic code isn’t full passed and integrated until around 7 to 16 days later and around the time that successful implantation occurs, that this is the point at which the blastocyst becomes a zygote or embryo and a fully individual person in its own right and a viable pregnancy.
Stem cells are present and can be taken from the blastocyst but not until around the 7th to 10th day after fertilization; stem cells are not present at the exact moment of fertilization. So the stem cell argument from day one is rather mute.
Why does this matter?
First of all, I am pro-life and I oppose all abortions except in extreme cases where the life of the mother is at stake with very little or no chance of the baby being brought to term, i.e. ectopic pregnancies. I am torn over the very rare cases of pregnancy due to rape or incest but even then, I think any abortion after 1st trimester should be considered only in the most dire of cases, again something like an ectopic pregnancy. But to me an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and until the blastocyst implants and receives the father’s genetic code, there isn’t a pregnancy or an individual “person”. Dance on the heads of pin all you want but that is biology pure and simple.
Secondly therefore, I am not opposed to birth control when it doesn’t end the life of the embryo after successful implantation. So yes, I do not consider the pill, (even the morning after pill), condoms, IUD’s, etc. to be “abortions”. If your religion deems all forms of birth control to be immoral, then simply don’t use birth control. But don’t by means of legislation based on your religious beliefs, outlaw all forms of birth control including tubal ligation and vasectomy, for which there are many legitimate medical reasons for having. If you want to practice the rhythm method or believe that sex is only for procreation or want to have 20+ kids like the Duggers, be free to do that – no one is stopping you from adhering to your beliefs – although don’t expect me to pay to support your children.
Lastly, while Newt may seem to be inconsistent to some, I don’t find his position troubling at all. Claiming that “life” begins at the exact moment that sperm meets egg is troubling because it does open to some very difficult questions.
As someone in favor of a small and limited government I don’t think the “State” and certainly the POTUS is qualified to decide matters of birth control; abortion; especially non-life threatening or late term abortions being an entirely different matter.
Does anyone here really want to put doctors and pharmacists in jail for dispensing the pill or drug stores for selling condoms? Does anyone here really want to jail a woman for having a tubal ligation or a man for having a vasectomy? Does anyone here think that it is really the job of the POTUS to decide these matters?
Irrelevant. In an ectopic pregnancy the status of the baby is moot point: The pregnancy cannot make it to viability.
And saying that life begins at implantation is Newt's way of dodging the "birth control pill blocks implantation" debate.
So you demand Presidential candidates promise to ban condoms, IUDs, birth control pills and masturbation?
The result will be a 100% homosexual society.
Good luck with that.
Oh that’s smart, real smart. I am assuming that when because of people like you, Barry Hussein the Marxist usurper is re-elected you won’t be complaining when he stacks the Supreme Court with more homosexual progressives? You realize, that, right? They must get control of the Supreme Court and people like you are more than happy to help them. Kiss America goodbye if it does.
Presidental race again.
_________________________
AGAIN??? SO you sat it out last time too? Gee thanks for helping put a Marxist in the WH. Damn fool.
I agree, but it seems that lately on here, too many expect a perfect 100% flawless candidate. That doesn’t exist, well Palin was close, but nobody is perfect.
What a beautiful video. Amazing. Mesmerizing.
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.