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 ...
Newt’s veneer is starting to crack.
I had wondered if his conversion was true, or if it was just for convenience.
A leopard does not change his spots, just because he changes religions.
What is your answer to that?
Definition of ABORTION
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion
2: monstrosity
3: arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest
Defining “Abortion”
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/asmf/asmf3.html
The term “abortion” actually refers to any premature expulsion of a human fetus, whether naturally spontaneous, as in a miscarriage, or artificially induced, as in a surgical or chemical abortion. Today, the most common usage of the term “abortion” applies to artificially induced abortion, which is the subject of this pamphlet.
In 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions legalizing abortion in all 50 states during all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason, medical, social, or otherwise.[
The vast majority of all abortions performed today are done for social, not medical reasons — because a woman doesn’t feel ready for a baby at the time, because her partner wants her to have an abortion, etc. Approximately 93% of all induced abortions are done for elective, non-medical reasons such as these.
Abortion ends a pregnancy by destroying and removing the developing child. That baby’s heart has already begun to beat by the time the mother misses her period and begins to wonder if she might be pregnant (about 31 days after the mother’s last menstrual period or LMP).
Surgical abortions are usually not performed before seven weeks, or 49 days LMP. By that time, the baby has identifiable arms and legs (day 45) and displays measurable brain waves (about 40 days). During the seventh through the tenth weeks, when the majority of abortions are performed,[7] fingers and genitals appear and the child’s face is recognizably human.
What’s yours?
I am for protecting human beings from conception forward.
I guess you really don't have a defense for Newt's position that as long as the fertilized egg isn't in the uterine wall it's okay to do what you want with it.
You will never get an argument from me on that. Now the question is how will Newt's supporters respond to this.
If Newt is the nominee now Pro-Life voters have to evaluate their support of him. He is pretty solid on appointing good judges, but where does this slippery slope stop. Is it like the exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother.
It depends on how you look at the matter, as historical or prospective.
If you are asking when did I begin, obviously when you were conceived. It is certain that you exist, not at all certain that a fertilized human egg will get to live long enough to reach maturity. Let me put the matter this way: every human being who has ever existed assumed his separate identity when he/she was conceived.
Newt has a hard time with first principles. A true pragmatist, however, simply accept as a given, and absolute that life begins with conception. Then he would do his level best to get the number of allowable abortions as close to zero as possible. Forget the word games. Forget the thought experiments. If you keep focused on the means to achieve your gold, you won’t have time to worry about the logic of it all. This is, after all, a matter of will, not intellect. Newt dithers. That is not a good sign.
Preserving embryos in a freeze, waiting before their inevitable death is to me a moral horror. Because it is to beg the question of their humanity, just as the Spanish on Hispanyola did about the question of the humanity of the Indians.
Preserving embryos in a freeze, waiting before their inevitable death is to me a moral horror. Because it is to beg the question of their humanity, just as the Spanish on Hispanyola did about the question of the humanity of the Indians.
To all you Newt supporters
A little light reading for your enjoyment
Has mister science guy, Newt Gingrich, ever heard of a test tube baby... How about we ask them?
Look folks, the influence peddler is playing y’all for a bunch of chumps...prove him wrong...
"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner himself commit some act that amounts to forfeiture."-- William Blackstone
But the question was not when pregnancy begins. It was when human life begins.
I suppose it is arguable that pregancy begins only at implantation. Yet I believe the evidence is that even before implantation, the fertilized egg is already secreting "pregnancy" hormones.
However this latter argument is a useless abstraction, akin to the argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
What matters is the human life that is extinguished, either by abortion, or by destruction of embryos in vitro.
I am not a Newt supporter as yet. I am very aware of his flaws. Newt’s chief fault is his lack of focus. Sometimes I think he suffers from ADD. Not kidding.
Good argument. very good.
That's inaccurate. Science cannot define a starting point for human life. That's because the egg and sperm are both alive. Fertilization occurs when the membranes fuse; after that is a process of moving the chromosomes into the nucleus so that the ovum has a full set of 46 chromosomes. The little zygote won't implant into the uterus until almost a week later, but cells are dividing and it is quite actively developing during the time leading up to implantation. It is most certainly alive during this whole process.
There is no point at which the ovum, sperm, or zygote are devoid of, and then reacquire, life. If they become devoid of life, they remain dead.
Speaking as a biologist, I will say that there cannot be an arbitrary point at which human life begins. Life exists as a continuum; it can end, but it doesn't begin.
The definition of life is that biological processes are occurring. There are biological processes in the ovum, in the sperm, and in the zygote that results when they fuse. Since all of these entities are biologically quite active, they are all alive. And when each of these cells comes from a human, they are all human.
Perhaps a more meaningful "start" point would be when these living cells take on the characteristics of a unique human being. And that would be soon after fertilization--I would select the first cell division as the point at which a unique human exists, although that point could arguably be moved back to the moment of conception. The reason I wouldn't choose conception as the start point is that the fusion of an ovum and a sperm don't necessarily lead to a viable zygote; sometimes, they fuse and, for whatever reason, the process that results in a growing zygote fails.
biological process occur in a corpse.
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.