Newt Gingrich: Pro-Life But Says Life Begins at Implantation

lifenews.com ^ | 12/2/11 | Steven Ertelt

[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?”"

[circlecity]

"human life begins at implantation rather than conception, which science has established as the starting point for human life."

Science has established no such thing. And while I don't necessarily disagree with conception as being the beginning of life the question is metaphysical not empirical.

[Jim from C-Town]

He is actually, intellectually correct. Without the implantation of the zygote into the uterine wall, there is no pregnancy.

It is a distinction without a difference when applied to abortion. It becomes important in genetic research. The moral issue is convoluted with this fact.

[JimSEA]

I’m not all that religious but am quite interested in science. The moment of creation of unique DNA is clearly the beginning of an individual human life. If human life is to be valued, as I believe it must be, that is the beginning point.

People spend much of their lives presenting absurd arguments in support of what they consider their self interest.

[gimme1ibertee]

Conception is the beginning of life. Two cells join together and the cell begins its work of creating a baby.I'm not an embryologist,biologist or any other kind of 'ist',but i've watched enough documentaries to see what happens when a sperm cell and egg merge.All kinds of activity-the spark of life-is ignited.
Until the cells merge,they're just male and female cells waiting to get together.
On the issue of stem cell research,why isn't Newt (or any other candidate) pushing the adult stem cell approach to research and just steer the conversation away from embryonic stem cells?

[circlecity]

"I’m not all that religious but am quite interested in science. The moment of creation of unique DNA is clearly the beginning of an individual human life."

And how can you prove this with the science you are quite interested in other than by just arbitrarily defining life as the "moment of creation of unique DNA" which would just be begging the question by assuming that which you seek to prove.

[BarnacleCenturion]

“It is a distinction without a difference”

Wrong. Newt just became a Catholic a few years ago and is already a CINO.

It’s excommunication time!

[Joe 6-pack]

At least the question is not above Newt’s pay grade. Life begins when Newt says it begins, dammit.

[I-ambush]

I couldn’t disagree more; the issue is a matter of empirical knowledge, with metaphysical implications. It is an undisputable fact of biology that a new human being, with unique genetic endowment, is created at the moment of conception.

[circlecity]

"I couldn’t disagree more; the issue is a matter of empirical knowledge, with metaphysical implications. It is an undisputable fact of biology that a new human being, with unique genetic endowment, is created at the moment of conception."

How does that scientifically equate to life? Every body I ever saw in a casket had a "unique genetic endowment" but there was no life there. Show me the objective, empirical, scientific basis for your definition of life as unique DNA.

[jpsb]

Life begins at conception, pregnancy begins at implantation.

[frogjerk]

“It is a distinction without a difference” Wrong. Newt just became a Catholic a few years ago and is already a CINO. It’s excommunication time!

Believing that life begins at implantation time rather than at conception I don't believe is grounds for excommunication. As long as he doesn't promote contraception or abortion Newt would be good from a Catholic standpoint.

[TortReformer]

The bigger point here is that Newt is actually dissecting the issue. His critical analysis actually impresses me and frankly I would have to agree with him. You can have a zygote with all of its unique human traits, but until implantation occurs, the chances of that zygote maturing into a human being is about 20-30% if I am not mistaken. Once implanted, there is greater than a 50% chance of maturation into a human being. While this has no implication on the abortion issue(nobody gets an abortion before implantation), it does show the man actually is a critical thinker.

[kara37]

However, without pregnancy there can be no life.

[nikos1121]

So if that’s the case, the Morning After pill is a simple form of abortion? Yes or no?

[kara37]

You can have a zygote with all of its unique human traits, but until implantation occurs, the chances of that zygote maturing into a human being is about 20-30% if I am not mistaken.
*****************************************

You are correct. There is only about 25 to 30 percent chance that the zygote will actually implant.

[paladinan]

jpsb wrote:

Life begins at conception, pregnancy begins at implantation.

EXACTLY. You can have a zygote with all of its unique human traits, but until implantation occurs, the chances of that zygote maturing into a human being is about 20-30% if I am not mistaken.

Correction: the chances of that human zygote maturing into a NEW-BORN human being might be in the probability range that you cite; he/she is ALREADY a human being, by virtue of membership in the species. Are you assuming that "birth = beginning of human personhood"?

Once implanted, there is greater than a 50% chance of maturation into a human being.

See above; a living human zygote is ALREADY a "human being"; it doesn't "gradually develop into a human being" (which is nonsense, anyway).

While this has no implication on the abortion issue(nobody gets an abortion before implantation),

That may be a matter of mere semantics: it's beyond question that living human beings die by human choice, both before and after implantation (and also before and after extra-womb viability, birth, etc.)... which is the main problem with abortion in the first place.

it does show the man actually is a critical thinker.

That may be true, to a limited extent, on this issue; but since he has joined the Catholic Church, he has an obligation to inform his conscience using Catholic teaching (among which is the fact that human life begins at--and must be defended unequivocally at and after--conception. He is not morally free to choose his own stance on the matter, while still professing to be a faithful Catholic. He must jettison either one or the other.

[paladinan]

jpsb wrote:

Life begins at conception, pregnancy begins at implantation.

EXACTLY.

You can have a zygote with all of its unique human traits, but until implantation occurs, the chances of that zygote maturing into a human being is about 20-30% if I am not mistaken.

Correction: the chances of that human zygote maturing into a NEW-BORN human being might be in the probability range that you cite; he/she is ALREADY a human being, by virtue of membership in the species. Are you assuming that "birth = beginning of human personhood"?

Once implanted, there is greater than a 50% chance of maturation into a human being.

See above; a living human zygote is ALREADY a "human being"; it doesn't "gradually develop into a human being" (which is nonsense, anyway).

While this has no implication on the abortion issue(nobody gets an abortion before implantation),

That may be a matter of mere semantics: it's beyond question that living human beings die by human choice, both before and after implantation (and also before and after extra-womb viability, birth, etc.)... which is the main problem with abortion in the first place.

it does show the man actually is a critical thinker.

That may be true, to a limited extent, on this issue; but since he has joined the Catholic Church, he has an obligation to inform his conscience using Catholic teaching (among which is the fact that human life begins at--and must be defended unequivocally at and after--conception. He is not morally free to choose his own stance on the matter, while still professing to be a faithful Catholic. He must jettison either one or the other.

[EternalVigilance]

The cornerstone self-evident truth of the matter is contained in our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence. Life begins at its creation. Period.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

There is no moral difference between blocking the already-created human being from implanting in the uterus and locking a five year-old boy or girl out of the house with no clothes on in subzero weather, or locking Grandma in a closet without food and water until she's dead.

Barbarism, with an academic-sounding gloss. That's what Gingrich is pushing.

[gimme1ibertee]

Yes.