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."
God says “at conception”. Any man or woman who says differently, isn’t worthy of the Christian vote.
http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/index.html
The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution
A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.
WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and
WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and
WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and
WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person’s physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and
WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;
THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.
Looks like I’ll be sitting out this years’s Presidental race again. Pro-illegal and pandering republicans will not get my vote.
Noot cannot separate the two.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
That is our national creed, upon which our form of government and our claim to liberty is premised.
Sometimes Gingrich even pays lip service to it. But he doesn't live up to it. Not even close.
My wife and I had a hard time having kids originally, we spent 10 years trying unsuccessfully. We finally went to an IVF doctor and had them combine my sperm and her some of her eggs together and then implant them, 2 of 4 took and we now have twins. I am very strongly pro-life and I don't see anything wrong with what we did, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I know that to some every masturbating is killing a potential child, but you have to recognize that you are in the vast minority of opinion.
Bachmann is just being her usual spiteful self.
Yes, it does. The morally sound answers to those questions are hard. But it was made hard by people like Gingrich who want to go down the slippery slope just a bit to comfort themselves, which has already transformed society into a culture of easy solutions with murderous consequences. Gingrich is interviewing for a position where all of the decisions are hard, yet wants to run away from the issue.
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.
Yes, that is moral cowardice to not act as one believes, but Gingrich would have use believe that "believing" away moral problems in search of easy answers is better.
This is the most unpresidential thing he has said. Can I expect him to make any difficult choices as president? Is he just going to "believe" away the deficit?
Newt’s view also leaves the door conveniently open for the use of embryonic stem cells.
I hate to hear that Newt said this. It seems as though the Republicans are determined to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory and give Obozo 4 more years in the White House.
I hate to hear that Newt said this. It seems as though the Republicans are determined to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory and give Obozo 4 more years in the White House.
If life did not already exist within a frozen human, why would a doctor “implant” it?
Your comments do not make sense.
“Newt is referring to IVF treatments”
No, he is referring to stem cell research. He is trying to create a loophole so that life can be created for research purposes and then be discarded. Since there is no implantation involved he wants to say that he is not discarding human life, but according to Catholic doctrine, he is.
Neither will there be without fertilization. Which, of course, comes before implantation.
Newt is a bigger lair than Cain.
What, it's above your pay grade, Newt?
What, it's above your pay grade, Newt?
While it's one thing to disagree with Newt on this, there isn't any legislation, proposed or otherwise, that this particular detail will make one iota of difference on in how he votes on that legislation.
While it's one thing to disagree with Newt on this, there isn't any legislation, proposed or otherwise, that this particular detail will make one iota of difference on in how he votes on that legislation.
While it's one thing to disagree with Newt on this, there isn't any legislation, proposed or otherwise, that this particular detail will make one iota of difference on in how he votes on that legislation.
While it's one thing to disagree with Newt on this, there isn't any legislation, proposed or otherwise, that this particular detail will make one iota of difference on in how he votes on that legislation.
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.