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 dont 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 speakers 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 doesnt share the most basic of conservative principles."
And abortifacients being peddled as "contraception."
If the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life is negotiable, anything is negotiable. Anything at all.
And if there was ever a politician that proves it, it’s Gingrich.
Methinks that Gingrich needs to go back and talk to his Roman Catholic catechist group. Either he didn’t listen when he was going through RCIA, or they didn’t do a very good job.
Devils advocate questions.
So what happens to all those unused embryos? Is it murder when someone doesn't use them. Is it OK to leave a life frozen for months or years?
If life begins at conception than IVF is evil and probably results in almost as many murders as abortion. I'm not sure on the the issue but that is the only consistent stance.
And this has exactly what to do with life beginning at conception?? An ectopic pregnancy is one of the very few circumstances in which abortion is legitimately allowed (i.e. to save the mother's life).
I’d rather focus on retaking the Senate and keeping the House, than vote for a leader who will further disparage the GOP. Besides the Ron Paul support is very vocal and large. If they decide to do a write-in vote, no GOP candidate is going to win.
We live in a republic.
We do not have a king.
Our president does not have the power or authority to determine this.
Intellectual my a$$.
No doubt he’s looking to the recent referendum in Mississippi. Heck, there’s plenty of freepers who are unwilling to admit to the scientifically unassailable statement that life begins at conception - as it would cause “problems”.
No doubt he’s looking to the recent referendum in Mississippi. Heck, there’s plenty of freepers who are unwilling to admit to the scientifically unassailable statement that life begins at conception - as it would cause “problems”.
>> 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.”
Is that what he “believes”? I doubt it. One is not conceived then later gifted with life.
Newt, if you’re ill-equipped to handle the extraordinary range of very difficult questions, then get out of the damn race.
The process of implanatation of the fertalized human embryo (the zygote) does not occur when the woman is taking birth control pills or when there is an IUD present in the uterus. Both change the lining of the uterus so it is inreceptive to the attachment of the zygote. This is why Roman Catholics, who believe life begins at inception, have not been receptive to birth control techniques.
The question about implantation makes me wonder if people paid attention to what was being taught in their sex education classes.
both computer and operator error: inception = conception.
Didn’t become a catholic to make his mistresses, I mean wife’s, family happy?
And the Newtbots accuse Cain of being vague on the pro-life issue... I bet Gingrich never gave $1 million of his own money to encourage women to not have abortions, like Cain did.
Isn’t this just more hair-splitting by Bachmann mistakenly thinking its gonna boost her into the instant lead?
Most voters won’t have a clue on the difference between what some deliniate as “conception” and “implantation”. In my non-OB/GYN mind, I’ll be damned if I know any difference.
Just to point out the absurdity..... one could say “conception” occurs when the “CONCEPT of gettin it on” occurs.
OR - he's a big fat phony! Typical Newt - he cannot be relied on to take the conservative position. How anyone can even contemplate supporting him as our nominee is beyond me.
Oh, but he's a great debater. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Why? Seems it would eliminate a lot of very difficult questions if people would admit life began at conception. When does he think life begins? The second Tuesday at 3:38 AM in the third month if the month has an R in it and only then if it falls after a full moon on the 12th of the previous month?
Bye bye then...
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.