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.
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.
At least the question is not above Newt’s pay grade. Life begins when Newt says it begins, dammit.
"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.
Twist this - on Newt
“98.6% Lifetime Pro-Life Rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). For the 20 years that Gingrich served in Congress (1979-1999), Gingrich supported the pro-life position in 70 out of 71 votes...
Pledges to Sign Two Pro-life Executive Orders on the first day of a Gingrich Administration.”
There is a distinction, but it’s not important politically. There is no legislation on the table, nor any that is likely to be proposed, where Newt would be likely to vote against the side of life, whether he thinks it begins at conception or implantation.
Before someone “goes there”, there is NOT going to be a full-scale ban on birth control (nor any serious proposal of one) that prevents implantation any time soon, so Newt’s view on this is irrelevant at this time.
I am assuming that he believe harvesting embryonic stem cells would be fine. In fact why not take any unused fertilized eggs in storage at fertility clinics and donate them to science. How about private businesses buying sperm and eggs and making their own production of embryonic stem cells. The beginnings of a "Brave New World".
Is his position really a Pro-Life position?
Um, Snowflake adoptions?
Looks like Newt is a Catholic in name only.
If he doesn’t correct his position on this, he has lost me.
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.