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 don’t 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 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?”"
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
The biological processes that occur in a corpse are well-defined, and are more or less undirected chemical reactions. Rigor mortis, for instance, occurs as a result of the depletion of ATP--the cell's main source of energy--which stops being regenerated upon death. Individual cells may remain alive after death, but without breathing and circulation, will not remain alive for long.
I really don't want to get too complicated here; self-directed (self-sustaining) biological processes are what I was referring to.
Undirected? How are they any less directed than any other chemical process? They are also no less "self-sustaining" than any other process. They are sustained just as long as necessary to accomplish their purpose, just like every other chemical process.
Exactly how much detail do you require here?
Most chemical reactions occur because the reactants are present, and the reaction is energetically favorable. Nothing directs an acid and a base to combine and become a salt: they just do that because of physical laws. Chemical reactions are not, in and of themselves, life or symptomatic of life.
Self-sustaining biological reactions occur as a result of signals that are originated in countless ways, both internally and externally (with respect to the cell). For example, a hormone molecule binding to a cell surface receptor initiates a cascade of events within the cell: gene transcription can be up or down regulated; inactive pro-enzymes can be cleaved so that they become biologically active; each of these events leads to other events. This is just a small example of the countless directed reactions that occur in a living cell and do not occur in non-living cells. For the most part, reactions within a living cell do not happen spontaneously and require an energy input.
Rigor mortis, the example of a non-living biological process that I used before, happens spontaneously and does not require energy, like any biological process that occurs post-mortem. A non-alive cell is incapable of responding to signals.
I am not certain what your purpose is in these questions. Are you genuinely looking for information, or are you looking for a way to define life that somehow excludes humans at the beginning of development? If you want information, I'm happy to provide it. But if you're looking for a "loophole" by which to scientifically exclude early stage humans from being alive, there isn't one.
Well said.
Pregnancy also begins at fertilization, in the absence of intervention. The embryo shares information with mom by chemicals/hormones before implantation.
Human intervention - or the ability to intervene - doesn’t change embryology.
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.