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 ...
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.”
http://rightonlife.org/2011/11/24/pro-life-groups-should-say-no-to-newt-and-pooh-pooh-perry-2/
Self Defense -
“In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s 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 spouse’s wrist.(1)”
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/the-inconvenient-truth-about-newt/
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.
Thank you for that very intelligent post. It is an interesting question b/c until the egg implants, it can never live. I guess you could talk about the difference between fertilization and conception.
In any event, Newt’s stance is firmly opposed to conception b/c obviously that concerns an egg that has implanted.
Unless that other candidate wants to come out in favor of a ban on IVF and treatment of mothers with ectopic pregnancies they are a bigger hypocrite.
Life begins at conception.
Legal protection should be absolute upon implantation.
Cancer treatment is taken to fight the cancer (NOT to kill the baby). Often the treatment does not kill the baby and sometimes it does not even really do much damage to the baby. But sometimes it can end up making the baby sick enough that it dies. But the child is NOT “terminated”. The doctors did not intend that the baby die, and in fact they did what they could to keep the baby alive and healthy. All such cancer treatments are morally acceptable - even if the odds are very high that the baby might die as a result of the drug or other therapy that is done to cure the mom.
But if a woman supposedly will die unless the baby is killed (the baby itself is causing the woman’s health problem or the presence of the baby is making the health problem so serious that mom will die unless the baby is removed from the womb), then the act of intentionally killing the baby so that the mom won’t die is always immoral. The doctor INTENDS to kill the baby (to benefit the mother’s health). This is ALWAYS immoral. It is simply ALWAYS immoral to intentionally abort an unborn child.
No Mikey, second guessing women is way to difficult for an old redneck. I just call em as I see em.
Why do ANY of you believe this man??? “Snake oil for sale! Snake oil for sale!”
An ectopic pregnancy is caused by factors that may be treated under Catholic bio-ethics.
Unfortunately, that treatment will have a secondary effect of terminating the pregnancy.
More details here... http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/conflict_of_clarity/
“So if an ectopic pregnancy presents..what is the answer?
The pregnancy is doomed when an ectopic pregnancy occurs.
(I don’t even think that is considered an abortion in that case.)
And yet, in the last couple of weeks, Gingrich also answered a questionnaire with support for rape and incest exceptions.
And he supports immoral, unconstitutional “fetal pain” legislation, which while recognizing the personhood of the child, explicitly allows them to be killed.
And he supports pro-child-killing politicians for public office. Folks like Dede Scozzafava.
And that’s for starters.
As usual, Gingrich is playing conservatives.
“..I’d vote for Newt instead of Slick Mitt even though I’m not thrilled with either of them.”
Take a another look a Santorum and Bachmann. If Mark Levin likes them best, they must be pretty solid conservatives.
There is not such a thing as an 'implanted egg'. The 'egg' (I take it you mean to write ovum, not egg, we are not chickens) once fertilized is no longer an egg, it is a zygotic embryo.
Lastly, it might in fact be a good discussion to discuss the vagaries of 'conception' and 'fertilization'. There are stages in the processes that we conservatives really ought to get a better understanding of, so the progressives cannot baffle us with bullshit as they do now via their dead-soul media whores.
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.