Skip to comments.Newt to CatholicVote: “Human life begins at conception.”
Posted on 12/04/2011 7:50:15 PM PST by Notwithstanding
The Gingrich campaign contacted me directly last night about the comments that he made to ABC News. The campaign sent me the following statement from Newt Gingrich. (Which is also on their website).
I am very glad that the Gingrich campaign was quick to respond to the fallout from the ABC News interview and that they came out with a strong pro-life statement which reaffirms the scientific fact that life begins at conception....
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicvote.org ...
Gingrich Reaffirms His Belief in the Sanctity of all Human Life, Born and Unborn
Atlanta, GA - (12/3) In advance of this evenings forum hosted by Mike Huckabee, Newt 2012 released the following statement today from Newt Gingrich regarding his belief in the sanctity of all human life, born and unborn.
As I have stated many times throughout the course of my public life, I believe that human life begins at conception. I believe that every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived. I also believe that we should work for the day when there will be no abortions for any reason, and that every unborn child will be welcomed into life and protected by law.
That is why I have supported, and will continue to support, pro-life legislation that not only limits, but also reduces, the total number of abortions, with a view to the eventual legal protection of all unborn human life.
As I have also stated in the past, on day one of my administration, I will sign an executive order reinstating Ronald Reagans Mexico City policy that prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions overseas. I will also work with Congress to repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood so that no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund abortions but rather transfer the money so it is used to promote adoption and other pro-family policies, and to enact legislation that provides greater protections for the unborn.
In terms of new pro-life legislation, I stated as recently as November 19 at a public form of candidates in Iowa that I support Congress enacting pro-life legislation under the 14th Amendment, including legislation that would define personhood as beginning at conception.
As I have also made clear in several of my public pronouncements throughout this campaign, I oppose federal funding of any research that destroys a human embryo because we are also dealing here with human life.
My convictions on human life are longstanding, deeply felt, and irrevocable matters of conscience. I will do all in my power always to foster reverence for life.
Gingrich has converted to Roman Catholicism several years ago.
Good enough for me.
I won’t even consider a candidate who can’t stand up and agree with this statement.
>> Newt: “I believe that human life begins at conception.”
Hard to imagine at what point thereafter life is injected.
I hope he really means this.
Newt is as big a flip flopper as that other guy.
Didn’t he just say it didn’t?
I know he means it. I just hope he doesn’t go wobbly when squeezed. Same for all politicians. None of them are perfect. They all go wobbly on some things from time to time. Life is hopefully too black and white an issue for him to cave on.
W was actually pretty good on life - he had a rational explanation for allowing use of then-existing embryo stem cell lines (though I don’t accept that rationale).
But Gingrich sees it through Catholic glasses - and Catholic moral philosophy does NOT allow for W’s “existing” stem cell rationale.
So, Terence is too stupid to see the lie in what Tapper sought to establish. Not surprised to see someone at CNS try this deceitful ploy anew. The issue Tapper was asking about was not WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL LIFE BEGINS, the line of questioning was about the point at which the law may be successfully applied to protect nascent life with our current state of science. Are you proud to be pushing this repeat deception, this effort to fabricate a lie?
Apparently he mis-spoke.
The reason he issued this statement is to correct himself.
You got it.
Newt is a big fraud...typical inside the beltway politician.
interesting, this. He just said something different in the last few days.
“I know he means it”
And you know that how?
According to the Newt people: ***I am very glad that the Gingrich campaign was quick to respond to the fallout from the ABC News interview...***
Looks to me like he means only to say whatever he needs to to get pro-lifers on board for Iowa and beyond. I read about and heard what he previously said about ‘implantation’ and Newt seemed mighty sure about that position too.
“Or maybe at some other time, like when I’m speaking to a different audience.”
Newt is a liar.
He will flip and flop as much as he can to get elected.
This man can not be tusted. He is a serial adulterer and ran out of town by his own party because he was corrupt.
He’s trying to steal Romney’s title as a world champion “Cover the Road” politico.
Yep, they always misspeak, don’t they?
Besides, all this campaign rhetoric doesn’t line up with his actions any how.
He promised the Susan B. Anthony List that, given the chance, he would sign immoral, unconstitutional “fetal pain” legislation. The polar opposite of a personhood, Fourteenth Amendment position.
And he supports pro-abort politicians like Scozzafava, and many others.
Given the choice between believing their words and believing their actions, I will go with the latter every single time.
Gingrich is a big phony. Big news, right?
Right. Two debates. One between Newt and Newt and another between Mitt and Mitt.
Gotta be honest with you: I fell for the sound bite, too. Had to “see” the interview for myself from start to finish.
Obviously, it was very different than we were being led to believe.
They did exactly what you say: twist an answer about how law could be successfully applied to protect nascent life and turn it into “Newt doesn’t believe life begins at conception.”
I am going to start approaching “gotcha” moments against Newt with 100% suspicion from now on. I am embarrassed that after all this time, I still fell for the nonsense.
Gingrich is a professional politician and as such I worry that once he was sworn in and in place, he would return to previous positions that are unpopular now.
O.K. I realize I am wading into some deep water here, but I really want to understand.
Gingrich says he is pro-life. He may have come to his beliefs thru age or religion. What revelence is it to “where life begins?” If one is pro-life, one is pro-life. Unlike our current rESIDENT who believes nobody should be punished with a baby and believes in late term abortion.
He has already said that he thinks embyronic stem cell research can be accomplished in other ways..i.e. umbilical cord.
Many years ago, the Catholic church believed that the mother should be sacrificed for the child. And if both died, so be it.
So if an ectopic pregnancy presents..what is the answer?
And before you answer, consider that the mother may be your wife or mother. And that ectopic child is a human life.
No, but there are posters at Freerepublic who want to believe there is a duplicity here when there is not. They have an agenda that really has nothing to do with the sanctity of the unborn little ones.
Now what’s Michelle gonna do??
It is an extremely rational and morally defensible position to hold that a human embryo in a test tube is NOT a person.
Such an embryo is human, but is not necessarily a human person.
Once such an embryo is returned to the womb and implants, that embryo is fully alive and developing and the law should protect such an embryo as if he/she was a person - we don’t know exactly when such an embryo attains personhood in God’s eyes so we err on the side of caution.
Conception is when human life begins. But when does human personhood begin? If we say at conception, then we have a conundrum with all the embryos in freezers - are these frozen persons? Do they stay suspended in ice until the end of the world or the freezer breaks?
I don’t think the questioner had any clue about what he was asking and the necessary nuance in Newt’s answer.
The moment of personhood is not an easy issue to be certain about.
Of course as a Catholic I err on the side of protecting human life in the womb - and I also want to halt the creation of embryos invitro precisely because of this abhorrent situation in which we have thousands of these frozen human beings who almost certainly don’t meet the definition of “person”.
A woman/girl/female in America has a right of self defense. An Ectopic pregnancy will in most cases kill or severely damage the mother. I know of an ectopic pregnancy which happened when the embryo implanted in the exterior of the liver. That child made it to term and is alive today and so is the mother. But that was an extremely rare thing ... until medicine discovered how to excise an ectopic pregnancy, the event almost always ended in death of the mother and of course the alive little one at very early age.
The goal must be to try and save both individual humans involved, but alas our medical science has not reached that level of sophistication yet. We are getting very close, but are not there yet. It will involve, with ectopic implantation, the removal of the implanted embryo and reattachment to either an alternate female utewrus or reimplatation to the mother's inner uterine lining, or an external artifical amniotic envirnoment. Japanese reaserchers are getting closer, havign a few years ago kept a fetal goat alive in an artifical womb for seventeen weeks, to normal birth age.
A woman/girl/female in America has a right of self defense. An Ectopic pregnancy will in most cases kill or severely damage the mother. [ I know of an ectopic pregnancy which happened when the embryo implanted in the exterior of the liver. That child made it to term and is alive today and so is the mother. But that was an extremely rare thing ... ] Until medicine discovered how to excise an ectopic pregnancy, the event almost always ended in death of the mother and of course the alive little one at very early age.
The goal must be to try and save both individual humans involved, but alas our medical science has not reached that level of sophistication yet. We are getting very close, but are not there yet. It will involve, with ectopic implantation, the removal of the implanted embryo and reattachment to either an alternate female uterus or reimplatation to the mother's inner uterine lining, or an external artificial amniotic environment. Japanese researchers are getting closer, having a few years ago kept a fetal goat alive in an artificial womb for seventeen weeks, to normal birth age, IIRC.
Exactly. Thank you.
You should know.
The Church has not changed in the least.
A child in utero must never be intentionally killed no matter what the reason.
Pregnant women often refuse cancer treatment and die in order to save a babe in utero. I know my wife would insist on that. I have friends who have died this way and the baby is healthy. We have a canonized Saint Gianna whose children are still alive - she sacrificed her life so that her child could be born healthy. The kids attended her canonization!
We believe it is always wrong to intentionally kill a person who is innocent. Always. And we treat unborn children in the womb as persons.
Now whats Michelle gonna do??
It won’t take her long to find another one of the GOP cadidates to try and bring down. Let’s see; Whose turn is it. I guess it’s either Santorum or Huntsman. All the others, she’s already successfully under minded Except Paul and Romney. Paul, she doesn’t consider a serious threat. And Romney...... she’s steered clear of dissing him. She thinks he will be the GOP nominee and she wants the VP spot.
Newt’s an intelligent individual. As a Catholic he knew that his previous statement ran counter to Catholic moral teaching. This new statement while correct certainly gives me a moment of deep pause. We don’t need anymore CINO Pelosi’s and Kennedy’s.
To All FReepers who don’t buy Newt’s story here:
If you think Newt is flip-flopping, again, for political expediency, may I ask you to seriously consider Rick Santorum?
I want to clarify: it is morally acceptable to take cancer treatments if you are pregnant because your goal is NOT to kill the child, but to kill the cancer. I simply brought this example up because it is an example of the heroic virtue the Church hopes we will exhibit when we make choices such as the choice to not kill a baby to protect a pregnant mother’s life. I will note that the likelihood that killing the unborn child will save the mother’s life is almost zero. Such a medical situation happens 1 in a million times.
I think the question was about frozen embryos, and he answered with the distinction between human live and human personhood in mind.
Frozen embryos are not persons. They are human lives, but they are not persons.
Got it? The tiny frozen embryos in the lab are not persons. Of course these embryos deserve respect and should not be used for experiments or as commodities. In fact making such embryos should be outlawed.
Do you think that a newly orphaned child whose parents died leaving 7 frozen embryos in the lab should only take 1/8 of his parents estate so that 7/8 can go to the 7 embryos on ice in case someone plants them in a womb someday? If you think these 7 embryos are persons then your answer is yes. it is VERY nuanced. It is NOT simple as you wish to paint it.
There lots of other examples.
You offered, "It is an extremely rational and morally defensible position to hold that a human embryo in a test tube is NOT a person." Allow me to offer an alternate perspective.
The human begun at union of the father's chromosomal addition to the mother's chromosomal addition is a unique human being at his or her earliest age. With the very first cell division (mitosis), the new individual life is directing his or her own growth and development according to the plan/system/pattern God established for human children.
By the time normal implantation occurs, the new individual has already divided cells into two basic groups based upon the job for gestation about to be done; an nner cell mass will build the body of arms, legs, organs, etc, while another cell group will build the first organ for survival, the placental sac. But both groups are the construction of and by the newly conceived individual human being implanting for survval.
The new individual life seeks to implant for sustenance and protection, but the mother's body builds none of the body or placenta or amniotic sac; the new individual is so conceived to do it all if just sustenance and protection are available.
From the first division of the zygotic human, there is a unique human present, whether in a petri dish or abdomen ...and men could be made to carry a child to term by arranging implantation in the external tissues of an abdomenal organ. Would make no difference to the child.
To arbitrarily cite the moment of implantation as the start of an individual human life is not scientifically sound and a forked road of self deceit: if the embryo does not implant in the female body where conception occurred is not a flawless point of clarity, since the child conceived in a petri dish can be implanted to any willing body and continue living and growing.
I have heard Orrin Hatch claim that embryonic beings in a petri dish are not human beings until they are implanted. The technicians watch for a growth stage to a few hundred cells before trying to implant an embryo. They are not watching pigs or cows or monkeys, they are watching tiny humans grow to the age for implnatation.
The embryonic individuals in the petri dish are already human beings and do not magically become human beings just because of implantation. The technicians are now even determining the sex of the embryonic individual before selecting for implantation. That the sex can be determined before implantation ought o tell us the embryo is already a human being at earliest age.
You signed up today to try that deceit?
Correction accepted. The statement speaks for itself. It’s strong, unambiguous, and determined. Not one taxpayer dollar to Planned Parenthood, an adjunct of the DNC.
I found your post interesting.
Who made the decision that it is morally acceptable to take cancer treatment to save the mother? The Church?If even one in a million dies..is it still not death?
It is morally wrong to conceive eight embryos and freeze seven. The only truly moral way to do artificial insemination is to try the process one embryo conceived at a time, or implant all conceived embryos and try to bring them to natural birth. You might even line up several ‘mothers’/surrogates so no conceived embryo is ‘frozen like processed fish’.
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.
Self Defense -
In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaigns 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 spouses wrist.(1)
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.
Personhood is not a biological phenomenon.
It is a metaphysical phenonmena that the law also recognizes.
The embryo if fully human and fully alive at conception (when egg unites with sperm). But that is biology.
Now, I advocate that such a human life should be protected by law from the moment of conception in the mother. That is because the moment of personhood is not certain but we presume it is very early.
We don’t know for certain that the human being in the petri dish is a person and the Church certainly teaches that we should NOT implant such embryos hoping to give them a chance to develop (into what we would eventually be certain are persons).
Does that help?
The Church insists that ALL such implantations are gravely immoral - even when done purely out of compassion for the frozen embryos.
It is morally wrong to create any embryos except the natural way. It is morally wrong to remove any embryos from the mother.
In other words: artificial insemination is always immoral.
Sounds like you have been reading the script of next week’s episode. Likely right on except the Lady only spikes those higher in the polls and Paul probably scares her, as for as Mitt and the VP spot and am betting you have read that coming episode as well.
For this alone, I’d vote for Newt instead of Slick Mitt even though I’m not thrilled with either of them.