Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich: Pro-Life But Says Life Begins at Implantation
Posted on 12/02/2011 9:51:20 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
In a new interview with Jake Tapper of ABC News, Gingrich said human life begins at implantation rather than conception, which science has established as the starting point for human life.
Tapper asked him, Abortion is a big issue here in Iowa among conservative Republican voters and Rick Santorum has said you are inconsistent. 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?
Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question, Gingrich said. My friends who have ideological positions that sound good dont 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?"
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Science has established no such thing. And while I don't necessarily disagree with conception as being the beginning of life the question is metaphysical not empirical.
It is a distinction without a difference when applied to abortion. It becomes important in genetic research. The moral issue is convoluted with this fact.
I’m not all that religious but am quite interested in science. The moment of creation of unique DNA is clearly the beginning of an individual human life. If human life is to be valued, as I believe it must be, that is the beginning point.
People spend much of their lives presenting absurd arguments in support of what they consider their self interest.
And how can you prove this with the science you are quite interested in other than by just arbitrarily defining life as the "moment of creation of unique DNA" which would just be begging the question by assuming that which you seek to prove.
“It is a distinction without a difference”
Wrong. Newt just became a Catholic a few years ago and is already a CINO.
It’s excommunication time!
At least the question is not above Newt’s pay grade. Life begins when Newt says it begins, dammit.
I couldn’t disagree more; the issue is a matter of empirical knowledge, with metaphysical implications. It is an undisputable fact of biology that a new human being, with unique genetic endowment, is created at the moment of conception.
How does that scientifically equate to life? Every body I ever saw in a casket had a "unique genetic endowment" but there was no life there. Show me the objective, empirical, scientific basis for your definition of life as unique DNA.
Life begins at conception, pregnancy begins at implantation.
Believing that life begins at implantation time rather than at conception I don't believe is grounds for excommunication. As long as he doesn't promote contraception or abortion Newt would be good from a Catholic standpoint.
The bigger point here is that Newt is actually dissecting the issue. His critical analysis actually impresses me and frankly I would have to agree with him. You can have a zygote with all of its unique human traits, but until implantation occurs, the chances of that zygote maturing into a human being is about 20-30% if I am not mistaken. Once implanted, there is greater than a 50% chance of maturation into a human being. While this has no implication on the abortion issue(nobody gets an abortion before implantation), it does show the man actually is a critical thinker.
So if that’s the case, the Morning After pill is a simple form of abortion? Yes or no?
You are correct. There is only about 25 to 30 percent chance that the zygote will actually implant.
"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..."
There is no moral difference between blocking the already-created human being from implanting in the uterus and locking a five year-old boy or girl out of the house with no clothes on in subzero weather, or locking Grandma in a closet without food and water until she's dead.
Barbarism, with an academic-sounding gloss. That's what Gingrich is pushing.
Whoops... apologies for the double-post! My computer froze/went sluggish, for a few moments while I posted...
I see. And you would define the beginning of life as what and when and based on what authority? Just curious.
I am not all that religious based on the fact that all religions are creations of self interested men (or women). Should I be a Methodist, Calvinist, Catholic or Mormon. Which of those groups are divinely inspired? Science is merely a logical construct for ordering the collection of data and the examination of matter. It makes no pretense of being the end all of existence although some of its practitioners like Dawkins try and do so. Atheism itself is a religion as practiced today.
I’m not attacking your beliefs but I likely do not share them. I’m certainly not trying to convert anyone, I’m just explaining where I’m coming from.
Yes, this is what I believe also.
Definition from Wikipedia:
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
An over-educated, self-serving, egotistical, mean tempered bully.
It is Human.
It is growing or will grow over time if nourishment and shelter are made available
Ergo it is Unique Human Life. Or if you will, A Person.
Not sure why people have problems with this, the concepts and proofs are quite simple.
Bodies in caskets are not growing. They are decaying. Give them all the nourishment and shelter you like. No growth. No new cells will be produced.
An interesting read on embryology and the beginning of life:
Please, if they won’t excommunicate Pelosi, you think they would excommunicate him?
Thank you. In the article you referenced is a well stated expression of what I was trying to get at:
” Tobegin with, scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an “ovum” or “egg”), which simply possess “human life” into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new
human being is produced.”.
Twist this - on Newt
“98.6% Lifetime Pro-Life Rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). For the 20 years that Gingrich served in Congress (1979-1999), Gingrich supported the pro-life position in 70 out of 71 votes...
Pledges to Sign Two Pro-life Executive Orders on the first day of a Gingrich Administration.”
You realize the slippery slope we’re in with this discussion.
I envision that you will, if not already, have the means to make a designer baby. The single YUPPIE chooses the sperm donor, and has the egg and sperm fertilized in vitro, and the embryo grows within an aquarium of sorts outside of the biological mother’s womb.
I think this is a page out of Huxley’s Brave New World. The aquarium is at the rate temp., Oxygen saturation etc. AT term, the baby is “born”...
Contrast that same scenario in a totalitarian society whereby certain “Human acquariums” are not given adequate Oxygen, and the baby’s IQ is kept at say around 65 to 75 so as to assign this child to street cleaning or some other remedial job.
If we allow this sort of thing to happen, i.e. birth outside of the womb, then it contradicts our accepting life at conception because we are altering that life.
In other words, what happens to that fertilized egg is important. I can assure you that once the science allow to design babies, young mother’s will be happy to watch a child grow outside of the womb, and without spouse.
Ectoptic pregnancy is not a uterine implant but fallopian or elsewhere.
Put down the mirror and walk away -
There is a distinction, but it’s not important politically. There is no legislation on the table, nor any that is likely to be proposed, where Newt would be likely to vote against the side of life, whether he thinks it begins at conception or implantation.
Before someone “goes there”, there is NOT going to be a full-scale ban on birth control (nor any serious proposal of one) that prevents implantation any time soon, so Newt’s view on this is irrelevant at this time.
I don't exactly know. The only way you could objectively define the concept of "life" is through scripture, thus any definition I accepted would have to be scripturally based. However, my study of scripture offers no definitive answer. Certainly, the bible considers what the world calls a "fetus" to be a live person but at what magical point does this occurs, I don't know. I do know that if it can't be established then the default position must be not to risk murder which is what the taking of a life would be. If the question really is "above Obama's pay grade" (ie. unascertainable) then just going ahead committing what is very possibly murder is indefensible. Accordingly, life at conception becomes the moral imperative if we place any ultimate value on life at all.
"I am not all that religious based on the fact that all religions are creations of self interested men (or women). "
There's no scientific basis for saying all religions are the creations of men. You assume that. I appeal here to your previous statement that you prefer science, yet there is no scientific basis for your presupposition. There is a transcendent God and there is even mucho empirical evidence to back that up if you would like to explore the issue with an open mind.
"Should I be a Methodist, Calvinist, Catholic."
Why not just be a Christian first? The first Christians never heard of any of those terms. Yet, each of the above theologies you mention (Calvinist is a theology not a denomination. Presbyterian is the most well know Calvinist denomination) are pretty much the same when it comes to the fundamental tenets of Christianity - what we call the core Gospel. C.S. Lewis referred to this as "Mere Christianity". In fact, C.S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity" would be a GREAT place to start if you just want to explore the answers to your questions in more depth. Also read the book of John in the Bible. Before you read the book of John pray that your eyes and heart be opened to receive any truths this material may contain. If you're not sure who to pray to just pray to the God of that circlecity guy on the FR board. There's only one God so rest assured the right person will get the message. ;-)
"Science is merely a logical construct for ordering the collection of data and the examination of matter. It makes no pretense of being the end all of existence."
You are absolutely right. There is no basis in reason to assume that reality does not transcend the empirical. There is much data, however, to suggest it does. If there is a possibility there is non empirical truth don't you want to know what that is? Wouldn't you want to be aware of truths which will affect you personally, intimately and permanently? Wouldn't you want to at least be sure you've investigated the matter as far as you possibly can? The only thing at stake is eternity and admit it, you know things don't end here.
Sure, he’s way better than Obama or the typical liberal on life, and would probably do some good in office. We are in primary season, however, and that’s a good time to make comparisons and hammer out positions as we try to field the candidate who best represents our principles in the general election.
Newt’s stand on life is not logically coherent. He can’t point to either science or philosophy to make the case that human life begins at implantation.
Also, holding exceptions is not logically consistent either. If one believes that preborn children are individuals that have human rights, how do they suddenly lose those human rights in certain circumstances? It would be like being against slavery except in cases where the slave was inherited rather than bought.
After the two self proclaimed devout Catholics Pelosi and Biden. I am not concerned about this. It is a true statement of fact. It is not a moral statement of conscience. If the next president is able to keep abortions from increasing, he would be more effective than any pro-life president in history. A human life amendment and or replacement of liberal judges is the only hoe for our society. Newt backs a human life amendment and would appoint origionalist judges. He has stated he would re sign the pro life executive orders. That is all we can expect from a president
I am assuming that he believe harvesting embryonic stem cells would be fine. In fact why not take any unused fertilized eggs in storage at fertility clinics and donate them to science. How about private businesses buying sperm and eggs and making their own production of embryonic stem cells. The beginnings of a "Brave New World".
Is his position really a Pro-Life position?
All good points in Newt's favor.
However, this is classic Newt. On the one hand he is solidly conservative, articulate and sees the big picture. Then he goes and gives the liberals the "camel's nose in the tent". In this case the justification for harvesting embryonic stem cells.
Are you Pro-Life?
Do you believe we should be taking measures to make sure that all conceptions become implantations? If not, that’s a loss of life, yes?
Yes, I was there once myself.
The biblical logic is the verse that says, “The life is in the blood thereof.” and the fact that there is no blood until implantation.
It also deals with the countless numbers of fertilized eggs that never implant.
Now, I don’t know to what extent Gingrich has thought of this biblically or only in terms of the fertilized eggs that are sloughed off rather than implanted.
It is not an irrational position.
What made me change?
Honestly, I think it was spiritual prodding by the Catholics on this website. They were the first to suggest to me the line, “if it weren’t alive, we wouldn’t have to kill it.”
So, it is a spiritual response rather than a biological response.
I am pro-life.
I recognize that all fertilized eggs do not become implanted. I also recognize that if we legitimize harvesting fertilized eggs, or creating fertilized eggs in a lab, for scientific use we are not pro-life. What is the big difference between that and an abortion. The egg being in a uterine wall makes it human?
Um, Snowflake adoptions?
-—”I recognize that all fertilized eggs do not become implanted.”-—
But that means a baby is lost, right? Should we not make it a top priority in society to stop the death of our youngest babies?
What’s your answer to the question? Should we not undertake a program to begin the process of making sure no woman’s fertilized egg fails to become implanted?
People take drugs specifically to prevent the newly-conceived baby from implanting, thus aborting that baby.
If we hold to this then abortion as a legitimate form of birth control should be okay until the fertilized egg has developed to a point where it begins to make it's own blood.
It is not an irrational position.
I think it is if you believe life begins at conception. If you believe life only exists when the body produces blood it would be later. If we don't believe life exists until "he breathed air into you" then it would be at birth.
And eptopic pregnancies are taken into account by the Church of Rome.
A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube. While the doctor would opt for the least risk and expense to the mother, all the options presented to her involve terminating the pregnancy.
There is no treatment available that can guarantee the life of both. The Church has moral principles that can be applied in ruling out some options, but she has not officially instructed the faithful as to which treatments are morally licit and which are illicit. Most reputable moral theologians, as discussed below, accept full or partial salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube), as a morally acceptable medical intervention in the case of a tubal pregnancy.
Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.
In other words a spontsanious abortion accures due to the direct actions of the operation.