TAPPER: 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?GINGRICH: Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question. 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?’
I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life. because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions
TAPPER: So implantation is the moment for you.
GINGRICH: Implantation and successful implantation. In addition I would say that I’ve never been for embryonic stem cell research per se. I have been for, there are a lot of different ways to get embryonic stem cells. I think if you can get embryonic stem cells for example from placental blood if you can get it in ways that do not involve the loss of a life that’s a perfectly legitimate avenue of approach.
What I reject is the idea that we’re going to take one life for the purpose of doing research for other purposes and I think that crosses a threshold of de-humanizing us that’s very very dangerous.
Gingrich is saying above simply that there is a difference between an implanted zygote and one that is not implanted.
He is then saying, "If you take the position that an unimplanted zygote is to be seen as a fully human life, then what are you prepared to do about all those zygotes that do not naturally implant? The number is seen as being as high as 80% of all fertilizations. Will there be funerals? Will there be names? Should there be autopsies?
I think he is then saying that those that are not implanted and being naturally passed through the system are even ineligible for stem cell research.
He would conduct such research on stem cells in placental blood.
Now, IF your 25 year old relative dies, would you approve an autopsy even though many of the cells are still living? Is that similar to studying a zygote that has passed through unimplanted and the cells of which will die?
If your 25 year old relative had not left paperwork but had spoken to you approvingly of organ donation, would you permit his organs to be used? Is that similar to using cells from an unimplanted zygote that definitely, absolutely is dying?
These are the kinds of questions that get Gingrich in trouble. They are exactly the questions that had me at the "implantation life" stage for a while.
I don't think they are questions that mean you are not pro-life. I think they are natural questions for anyone who reflects on the nature and destiny of unimplanted zygotes.
Xzins - nice points.
Gingrich is being bashed because he is willing to discuss the details of everything. That means he discusses things that can’t fit nicely into a platform or an ad.
This is the exact opposite of Romney, who never expresses his candid thoughts about anything and is unwilling to discuss hard details of anything because he might actually reveal something about how he really views the world.
Happily, this is backfiring on Romney. And I think Gingrich’s rise is in part due to his willingness to reveal how he views the world.
Gingrich is wonky, but he really is a conservative wonk. And that means that his proposals once in office will be based not on polls, but on ideas that have been well thought out.
For a guy who is supposed to be the smartest guy in the room it's stunning he doesn't see where this leads. Welcome to a brave new world where we will create zygotes for the production of medical cures and once that is the norm why not take the next step and then manipulate genetic codes so we get the workers/drones we want.
Now, IF your 25 year old relative dies, would you approve an autopsy even though many of the cells are still living?
There is a world of difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. I don't see how harvesting adult stem cells, from cord blood for example, diminishes the special significance we need to give to life. A zygote has the potential to grow into a human being and we shouldn't tamper with this potentiality.