Posted on 11/22/2011 9:43:27 AM PST by marshmallow
In the past, Newt Gingrich has been for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, according to quotes that Ramesh Ponnuru unearthed today on The Corner.
In 2001, during the same time that President Bush was being pushed to federally fund ESC, Newt cut pro-lifers off at the knees and called for federal funding.
Newt said:
My hope is that [President Bush] will draw a sharp distinction between research on fetuses, which I think would be abhorrent and anti-human, and research on cells that are in fertility clinics that have never been in anyone’s body, in terms of being — becoming a person, and which, frankly, are currently unregulated and will disappear. And I think that’s a different kind of question. These are not prehuman cells in the sense they’re going to be implanted. . . . I have a 100 percent pro-life voting record, but I’ve always drawn a distinction at implantation. And I think there’s a real difference in the two kinds of cells. I notice that former senator Connie Mack, who is himself is a Catholic, takes the same position. And I think people who’ve looked at this issue can honorably disagree. But for many of us, there’s a very, very real distinction between doing something with an unborn child, a fetus that is implanted, and doing something with cells in a fertility clinic that are otherwise going to be destroyed.
I've also never understood the obsession with implantation. And what the heck is "pre-human" anyway?
And there's absolutely no logical reason to differentiate between embryos in wombs and embryos in refrigerators. Does our purpose for them change who they are? It just makes no sense, except if you're running for office and you understand that being against any kind of stem cell research that can.......
(Excerpt) Read more at creativeminorityreport.com ...
Some folks just think it's okay to murder humans at varying life stages.
Don’t know if he changed on anything. Doesn’t seem much like Jesus on feeding the hungry or blessing the peace makers.
They say Newt has baggage, but here’s one I never even heard of before. Unless most Evangelicals and a good chunk of Catholics are complete frauds, I don’t see how he gets past the primary.
Newt's entire life is one big undisciplined event... after another... after another... etc etc etc..
But of course there is that "AMAZING GRACE, How sweet the sound, that saved a Wretch like me".
They all know that truth.
What if he admits he was wrong and states that harvesting any fetus for any purpose is a sin?
I think it is clear to everyone, maybe except the idiot kid of Ronald Reagan, that human embryonic stem cells have given us nothing and in fact adult stem cells are showing a wealth of promise. In 2001, Bush was asked to allow the research of only a set number of embryonic cell lines. Are we sure Newt was not talking about those at the time?
Has he been asked today how he thinks on the subject? Has anyone on this forum ever changed their mind faced with new information or experience?
The quadmire in Washington that involves the worst partisan politics that I can remember, cannot be solved by a Mitt Romney and surely not by reelecting the dumbest most incompetent president of our time. I think it will require real reform and fresh ideas. It will require tested leadership.
All of us have doubts on all the candidates. None of the candidates are perfect. Of the candidates, Newt strikes me as being the most capable of articulating our views on the wide variety of issues.
I learn from him, when he speaks. I think in time the American public on all sides will agree with a man who appears to be the most correct on the issues facing us today.
I welcome an open and honest debate between our leading candidates. I would love to see Mitt and Newt discuss their philosophies at length, and then the victor does the same with Obama, if he dare agree to debate.
I don’t think Cain is able. Backman is also a light weight. Perry, well, Perry is Perry and needs to better define who he is and what he can do, but I don’t feel confident he can lead us.
Of them all, I now prefer Newt. I’ve made this decision three weeks ago, and have no regrets thus far. I’m listening to the debates tonight with eagerness. His answers are fresh each time, and not a regurgitation of 9-9-9 or the tired rhetoric of Romeny.
In summary, I’m for Newt. I accept his faults, which in my mind are minor, and believe that he is the best person for the job of those out there running.
Old folk tales and superstitions continue to rule the stage for most people in that regard.
Newt is educable ~ or maybe he's not ~ we know, for example, that the Planned Parenthood people are ineducable ~ they know what they like to kill.
So, we could hold a debate on the topic and see which candidate has the best grasp on reproduction and killing.
Newt is the only person in the US who actually balanced the federal budget in the past 40 years.
John Kasich deserves more credit for that than Newt.
A leopard does not ... can not change his spots.
Has he changed his perspective on divorce and remarriage?
I agree with you, and also one must understand the bigger of picture of how Newt thinks on the subject of health care.
He has said many times that treating a disease is far more expensive than curing the disease.
The treatment of Alzheimer’s is costing us billions per year without affecting the overall quality of the individual. Yet, Newt says that if we had a full assault on finding a cure for the disease like we did for Polio, it would cost far less over all.
Would anyone here deny that science look at a viable cure under every rock? In 2001 there was an erroneous idea that embryonic stem cell research was the panacea of all human illness. We know now that they are not, and that the same value if not more can be gleaned from adult stem cells, but are we going to condemn the politician or scientist who didn’t understand that then?
What’s more what if embryonic cell research done in other countries resulted in wide spread cures for cancer, brain disorders, paraplegia, congenital defects, even hair loss (:-) ). We all know that humans from all over the world would be clamoring for this knowledge and science.
Thank God, that stem cells are a better source.
Sure, we all feel sorry for the folk stuck in the wheelchairs, and none of us would want to lay there paralyzed for any period of time, but these are RARE occurrences in terms of everything else going on in this world.
Why it should suddenly be necessary to give up our moral codes and start ripping the unborn to pieces just to provide a chunk of meat here and there to folks who will, for the most part, not enjoy any benefits for any serious period of time, is a good question ~ and it should be tossed to our candidates in a general debate.
This is a teachable moment.
This is just Bull sh-t...
Newt F’ing Gingrich is a “Progressive” / liberal / socialist. That fact that hes a big enough F’ing whore to supposedly “convert” to another religion to get rid of some of his “negatives” should be the bid ASS red flag that even the the most dense morons can see.
Newt is the enemy in the tent as are ALL the F’ing RINOs. F—k Newt and F—k every other POS RINO.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR NEWT OR MITT. I WILL NOT SEND MONEY. I WILL NOT HELP GET THEM ELECTED. and most importantly... I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO FEELS THIS WAY!
To all the POS progressive GOP idiots who haven’t realized the game has changed... F—K YOU!
Pelosi is catholic (little c on purpose) also.
Whatever one’s position on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, it is undeniable that ESC research has been a total failure. The only successes have been with adult stem cells.
I’m a Catholic. Convert, same as Newt and minus the 3 wives.
It ain’t his Catholicism that’s causing him to cut prolifers off at the knees.
Whatever it is, is pure Newt.
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.