Posted on 12/04/2011 2:29:55 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
"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."
Once again, he makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He doesn't want them experimented on, but his position allows every single one of them to be destroyed.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Just so everyone knows where Noot stands on life issues. I wonder what he means by "successful implantation".
Yes. Mr. Gingrich either has to do more learning or more explaining.
Well, y’all gave me my latest blog post. http://wingright.org/2011/12/04/gingrich-fails-human-ethics-human-embryology/
Even though we are the only species having this conversation, that doesn’t mean that we always get it right.
I was hoping that the recent Catholic conversion of Republican candidate for President Newt Gingrich would ensure that he is pro-life and would act correctly if he is ever elected to an office. Unfortunately, he doesn’t understand the basics of embryology. He fails human ethics and would end up charged with a Federal offense if he tried to make this argument to the Environmental Protection Agency about any animal on the Endangered Species List.
Speaker Gingrich is absolutely wrong to say that we who hold the “ideological” position that human life begins at fertilization have not thought about the implications. If we hadn’t done so on our own, some utilitarian like the Speaker would have forced us to do so.
Just as with any other species, the mammal human embryo is the same species as the mother and father, and the one time when that life begins is at fertilization. What is it that implants? Would the technician in the in vitro lab or even the stem cell lab care what happened to the egg and the sperm if there is no fertilization?
Implantation is another step in that life that began at fertilization of the oocyte by the sperm.
Ectopic pregnancy is an event like cancer or heart attacks or kidney failure: when the normal process doesn’t go the way it should and people die. Because of the immediate and inevitable danger to the life of the mother and the unquestionable inability of human medicine to save the embryonic child, we don’t even count the procedures we do as “abortion.” when documenting abortion and maternal health statistics.
If we did call it abortion, it certainly would not be an “elective” abortion, but a procedure done to remove an eminent and known threat to the life of the mother who could die within minutes due to internal bleeding when the embryo grows too big for the fallopian tube at sometime between 6 and 8 weeks of age.
The sperm is not a life. Some do believe that any sexual act should be directly tied to and open to procreation, but not all Christians who object to abortion or other euthanasia agree agree on this point.
The least educated, lowest technician in the in vitro lab knows the difference between the sperm in the cup, the oocyte and the embryo. Within hours, they know whether the embryo is.
In vitro fertilization is an ethical problem when the embryos are not treated with the respect and care due the human dignity of all our children. The human embryo in the dish is the same species as the embryo in the fallopian tube. (See above.) Several countries have laws limiting in vitro fertilization, the numbers of embryos and some require that any embryo fertilized in the lab be implanted.
First, there is no way to obtain embryonic stem cells other than to destroy or endanger an embryo.The cells obtained from umbilical cord blood and the placenta are technically fetal, not embryonic stem cells. But, as the Speaker notes, no one has to die to obtain them.
And yes, our society has some tough decisions to make. Will we continue to refuse to provide the same protection for our own children that we give to a pelican or a sea turtle?
Potato....potahto....!
Here’s a rag, use it to wipe the drool from your lower lip please.
From what I see at this point...we lose.
There is no “scientific” proof that there is a soul. What we have scientific proof of is that all mammalian life begins at fertilization.
That’s the issue for me as well. I am firmly pro-life and have always supported the “life begins at conception” position. However, while “life” biologically begins at conception, the distinct human life must begin at the origin of the soul. Some may argue that a conceived human logically cannot be considered anything but a human life. And I understand that.
The one issue that causes me some pause is the issue of “twinning”. A fertilized egg can split into 2 distinct zygotes at up to about a week after conception/fertilization. If that embryo was a unique human individual at the moment of conception, complete with a spirit/soul, then what happened days later if/when it split into 2 identical twins? The one became 2, but could one individual with one soul really become two? Does the soul enter after that point?
Ultimately, since I don’t know the answer, I side in favor of life and support the “conception” position.
Just makes me wonder.....
I posted the ABC News/Tapper column yesterday myself but have since found contradictory evidence:
http://www.newt.org/news/gingrich-statement-regarding-his-belief-sanctity-all-human-life
Ask Governor Rick Perry the same question and he would have no trouble answering correctly. He understands the issue and helped us fight clone and kill bills in Texas in ‘05 and ever since.
I love your answer!
“Your post is insulting!....sick!....and truly blasphemous.”
Too bad... It’s possible. And it’s certainly not blasphemous.
“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. “
But this is against the Catholic religion, and Newt claims to have converted to Catholicism. Maybe Newt doesn’t know the religion thoroughly yet.
I think you mean embryonic stem cell research. Some fetal stem cells can be obtained with out anyone dying.
The good news is that destructive stem cell research that depends on the destruction of embryos is dead itself.
http://wp.me/p1FiCk-nJ
‘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.’”
WESLEY J. SMITH combines science with morality, and is one of the most trusted pro-life intellectuals out there!
Well said dirtboy!!!
Your words cheapen the creation of life.
I raise registered Angus cattle. I have about 40 angus right here inside my home...in my nitrogen tank....embryos which I bought for about $500 each. We implant them in the 8 cell stage, morula stage. We have embryo calves born to surrogate animals...but when they were implanted we knew their parentage.. bull and dam.
It may make Newt feel good to dehumanize a yet unimplanted embryo....I think to make us all think that Newt has thought this through further than any other candidate...that he is the smartest guy in the room. But the position makes it clear that he will not offer protection to human life from the moment of conception to the point of implantation...and inside that window of time, anything one wants to do....according to his position,...well what would he say to harvesting these embryos, like we do cattle, and do whatever the minds of any eugenics specialist might want to do...or as we grow these in vitro to an advanced stage, thus avoiding implantation, but still achieving development of the fetus..purely for medical reasons. We raise animals for harvesting their biological parts....why not nonhuman humans? When will this madness stop?
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.