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 ...
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?
Not accurate.
People take drugs specifically to prevent the newly-conceived baby from implanting, thus aborting that baby.
Yes.
Quite correct.
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.[3]
In other words a spontsanious abortion accures due to the direct actions of the operation.
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.[3]
In other words a spontsanious abortion accures due to the direct actions of the operation.
Instead of playing 20 questions to try and present some reason that harvesting fertilized eggs for science is a good thing why not just post why you think Gingrich's position is so good. I've given my reasons for saying it's wrong. What are your reasons it's so good?
You are right, Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that human life begins at conception, the beginning, not at implantation. Newt is wrong and if he does not want to be criticized as a “Polosi” catholic, he had better read the Catholic catechism.
Life began for each of us the moment He decided to create each of us, for us to interfere with His decision in any way is killing.
A non-implanted egg can only take two distinct paths:
1. It can die either naturally or through the use of some form of abortifacient.
or
2. It can develop and eventually be born.
So, it seems to me that the pro-life position MUST BE to never do anything that causes death to the fertilized egg.
-—”Instead of playing 20 questions to try and present some reason that harvesting fertilized eggs for science is a good thing why not just post why you think Gingrich’s position is so good. I’ve given my reasons for saying it’s wrong. What are your reasons it’s so good?”-—
I’m just looking to find out how you intend to protect conceived eggs which are not implanted from suffering an early death. It’s not a trick question. Are those babies not worth saving?
So .......... Mr. Newt agrees with Planned Parenthood and stiffs a scientific fact and the Catholic Church’s foundational dogma: HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.
I guess he isn’t that smart nor such a devout Catholic.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
You do have a way with a phrase. Powerfully stated.
Looks like Newt is a Catholic in name only.
If he doesn’t correct his position on this, he has lost me.
If Newt denies the Catholic teaching that life begins at conception, how many other teachings does he reject? Does he still believe that divorce is permissible, as he did long ago?
Callista better keep an eye on him!
Newt is starting to sound like a Cafeteria Catholic!
We have enough of them around DC these days—Pelosi, Biden, Casey, etc.
Rick Santorum is the only true Catholic in the race.
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.