Newt to CatholicVote: “Human life begins at conception.”

CatholicVote.com ^ | 12/4/2011 | Joshua mercer

[Notwithstanding]

The Gingrich campaign contacted me directly last night about the comments that he made to ABC News. The campaign sent me the following statement from Newt Gingrich. (Which is also on their website).

I am very glad that the Gingrich campaign was quick to respond to the fallout from the ABC News interview and that they came out with a strong pro-life statement which reaffirms the scientific fact that life begins at conception....

[patriot preacher]

There goes Newt — talking out of both sides of his mouth again!

[DNA.2012]

Wow, rude, paranoid, morally corrupt, and inane.

You packed a lot into one post.

[paladinan]

Notwithstanding wrote, in reply to my comment):

Yes, we are to afford the rights of a person to the embryo from the moment of its conception (fertilization). (CCC #2270 & #2274). But my position is that the CCC does not address or imply what that means with respect to the property and inheritance rights (for example) of a frozen microscopic embryo in a lab.

I can't help but think that this is completely irrelevant to the case. You wrote, earlier, that "It is an extremely rational and morally defensible position to hold that a human embryo in a test tube is NOT a person." That flatly contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church (to Whom Mr. Gingrich now belongs) on a grave matter; it is not rational, nor is it morally defensible, to convert to a Church Who forbids one's own views on a topic of unspeakable gravity.

Such an embryo is human, but is not necessarily a human person.

I'm afraid this makes no sense at all; personhood is the function of having a soul, and all newly-conceived human beings have souls (almost all of whom are tainted by the stain/privation of Original Sin]. One cannot possibly claim that the "embryo = not necessarily a human person" is in any way consistent with Catholic teaching.

Once such an embryo is returned to the womb and implants, that embryo is fully alive

Now, I must ask you to think about this reasonably! "Being alive" is a Boolean (i.e. one of two mutually exclusive choices) value: either one is alive, or one is not. It may well be the case that we (by-standers) do not know the status (i.e. alive or dead) of any GIVEN person (e.g. a prisoner of war, a man who fell down a cliff, out of our sight, while rock-climbing, etc.), but it beyond question that he must be one or the other; one does not, and cannot, become "more alive" or "less alive". The only times I've even heard such terms were in cases when someone was making an ill-advised reference to so-called "quality of life", or else to some other subjective description of their feelings (e.g. "when I ski, I feel fully alive!").

and developing and the law should protect such an embryo as if he/she was a person - we don’t know exactly when such an embryo attains personhood in God’s eyes so we err on the side of caution.

Friend, if you embrace Catholic teaching, then you must embrace the fact that we know PRECISELY when life begins (i.e. when the body and soul are created at the moment of conception). Again: we might not be able to time such an event in any given person's life to the nearest second, but: what of it?

Conception is when human life begins. But when does human personhood begin? If we say at conception, then we have a conundrum with all the embryos in freezers - are these frozen persons? Do they stay suspended in ice until the end of the world or the freezer breaks?

Surely you must realise that you've swerved away from logic, and embraced mere rhetoric, here! All of your supposedly rhetorical questions have clear answers:

1) But when does human personhood begin? A: at conception

2) If we say at conception, then we have a conundrum with all the embryos in freezers - are these frozen persons? A: Yes, they are... and it is an unspeakable horror which the Church condemns, utterly.

3) Do they stay suspended in ice until the end of the world or the freezer breaks? A: Yes... or until they are thawed for attempted implantation (and probable immediate death), or thawed in order to be torn asunder for medical experiments, or a hundred and more other possibilities.

Of course as a Catholic I err on the side of protecting human life in the womb - and I also want to halt the creation of embryos invitro precisely because of this abhorrent situation in which we have thousands of these frozen human beings who almost certainly don’t meet the definition of “person”.

You really do need to think carefully about this: personhood is the state of being created in the Image and Likeness of God--by which we have a self-aware intellect, a radically free will, and a memory (aside from having a body, complete with animal passions)--and those powers are intrinsic to the SOUL, which is created at conception.

Who is the unused (discarded) frozen embryo’s father - the sperm donor or the man who was married to the woman who had the embryos created?

That's a bit like asking "who's the father: the biological father who died when the child was an infant, or the adoptive father who is the only 'father' the child has ever known"? Biologically, the biological father is the father; that's rather self-evident, isn't it?

If his parents die, how long should a frozen embryo’s inheritance be held - indefinitely? 5 years? 30 years? Should the embryo’s already born sibling be deprived of that portion of the inheritance because the frozen embryo might someday be born?

You seem to be following a train of thought that says: "Here are some tactical legal difficulties with the personhood of the unborn child at earliest stages; it is useful to avoid these difficulties; therefore, embryos cannot possibly be persons!" That's simply silly, dear fellow; personhood is not determined by one's convenience or utility to others. Even if the legal problems increased ten-thousand-fold, it would not affect the personhood of the living embryo, one jot! One might as well declare a baby born of surrogate parents to be a "non-person", simply because the implications for inheritance would befuddle several lawyers!

If such a frozen embryo was created in a Mexican lab and then transferred to the USA would Catholic-compliant pro-life laws address whether that embryo is a citizen of Mexico or the USA?

I trust you know that citizenship of a particular nation has nothing especially to do with one's personhood in the eyes of God?

If such a frozen embryo is in the lab for 5 years before being transplanted and eventually born, would a Catholic law require that person to be able to vote 13 years after birth because otherwise it would be deprived of the human rights it gained at fertilization?

Given that the Catholic Church does not oblige any given voting age (or voting at all, for that matter--monarchies are perfectly in keeping with Catholic teaching), this is quite beside the point... and again: no amount of bureaucratic inconveniences could ever excuse the denial of the right to life of any human person (fron conception until natural death). I admit to being a bit baffled as to why you wouldn't see this rather self-evident fact! "Red tape" does not translate into "freedom to massacre at will", you know.

Is such an embryo eligible for welfare benefits?

See above; welfare is not mandated by Church law; nor would any such "red tape" difficulties justify the removal of any person's right to life. Surely this is obvious? Would Hitler have been justified in killing Jews on the basis that the paper-work involved in giving them rights under German law would be too cumbersome for the clerks in charge of it?

Does such a person have a right to develop into a baby?

Well... do you have the right to develop into an adult who is one year older than you are at present? The issue is quite the same. All other things being equal, the answer is "yes, of course!"

How would a catholic law achieve that, given the fact that the Church actually flatly and universally condemns transplanting such embryos into women in all cases - even for the purely selfless reason to offer the embryo a chance to have a normal life?

I assume you're referring to Donum Vitae, and to Dignitatis Personae (the subsequent clarification of it)? The Church forbids transplanting embryos in that state (at present--it's a policy which might change in the future; it's a Church discipline, not a Church teaching) at least partially in order not to enable and/or give cover to the gravely evil practises of IVF, cloning, etc. I have to confess, I don't see any intrinsic evil involved in such a "snowflake adoption"; but for now, we are to obey. But as to your point: this particular policy of the Church is NOT due to any supposed denial of the humanity and personhood of the embryonic child by the Church! Dignitatis Personae makes that quite clear, in fact (section 4).

We have some guidelines, but the Church leaves these questions without definitive answers.

The Church leaves some things (at least for now) without answers; but this is not one of them, friend; your reasoning simply doesn't square with the teachings of the Catholic Church (see above) or with fallacy-free logic.

These issues are not black and white.

Some are not (at least, not yet); this, and many others, are.

[MHGinTN]

I’m not warmed up yet. Your evisceration will linger until I choose to flash the blade, troll.

[Salvation]

 

 

 

 

Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said: "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

 

The greatest challenge facing the western world is not violence from without, but the tragic decision to take a life within.

[Salvation]

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."

~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980

 

 

[Salvation]

Newt has changed dramatically. Here are some FR links about his conversion.

Newt Gingrich on Catholicism and JPII
Why Newt Gingrich Converted to Catholicism
Exclusive: Newt Gingrich Opens Up on Catholic Conversion and Embracing 'Overt Christianity'
Newt Gingrich on his conversion to Catholicism
Gingrich Keeps Quiet on Catholic Conversion (received into Church over the past weekend)
Exclusive: Newt Gingrich conversion details; plans release of JP2 documentary
Gingrich to Become Catholic During Easter Season
The Newt Evangelization: Gingrich to become Catholic

[JPX2011]

I understand how you feel. I’ve been lurking a long time and n00bs have to be vetted. I plan on sticking around. Just needed the right push to jump in and join the discussion :-)

Best Regards

[DNA.2012]

You lack all such capability.

[no dems]

Thanks for the correction. That didn’t “feel right” when I typed it. Thanks again.
no dems

[babygene]

“Didn’t he just say it didn’t?”

No, he was speaking of the political reality today. In that sense it does open a big can of worms...

[babygene]

“He’s the inside the beltway politician who after he left office made millions peddling influence.”

His company made 1.2 million over 10 years. That’s not a lot of money. Assuming he was the only one on the payroll, that’s only 120K a year...

[Yaelle]

Re going to jail for a miscarriage — if every embryo is a full human, would there have to be an investigation into every miscarriage? Far fetched but just one tricky point.

[Yaelle]

I’m afraid I consider it ‘dehumanizing’ to call an embryo-aged human ‘a potential human being’. Your mileage may vary, but a rational explanation for your beliefs will be assumed until shown otherwise. I just don’t agree that a several hundred cell embryo is not yet a human being.

---

If you test embryos at the 3 day old stage, you find that many are aneuploid; their chromosomes are mismatched in number and they will stop growing and progressing quite early. Before week 13. This aneuploidy of the embryo is nearly totally the result of an aneuploid EGG. The sperm can be at fault but not as often.

So those embryos, while human, while deserving of respect as life, will never ever ever make a baby. They will never ever ever grow to the 2nd trimester.

And mostly we do not know this about our embryos, so we should treat each embryo as if it would become a full human. But an embryo that never could become a baby would be a strange thing if it were given equal status to a human being. It’s a potential human.

Life begins at conception. That is for sure. But some embryos don’t make it - sometimes from external factors, but mostly from chromosomal factors that can be predicted if the embryos are CGH tested.

[xzins]

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.

Italicized above are Gingrich's actual words. Note the underlined section. That is what Gingrich thinks. Now, someone can say he is wrong about placental blood being a source of embryonic stem cells, but they can't deny that he thinks they are, and that he opposes loss of life.

[xzins]

You certainly seem determined to sacrifice zygotes that you define as dead. What’s up with that?

What's up is that I think you have not followed my comments in this discussion. I've clearly indicated that I'm speaking of zygotes that have passed beyond viability. They are eventually sloughed off in the regular menstrual cycle. That's just a biological fact.

Now, "what's up" is a discussion. In the discussion, I have pre-stated my position that life begins at conception. However, if we enter into a discussion on implanted versus non-implanted zygotes, then the discussion has to be able to address all of the associated facts.

Your concern that some legalistic mind would try to interpret "unimplanted" as meaning both "pre-implanted" and "past the possibility of implantation" is a valid concern in my mind. It needs to be addressed.

If we don't have the open discussion, then we leave it to our kids and friends and co-believers to have the discussion framed by others who don't share our beliefs.

Personally, I don't like that idea.

Nor do I like the notion that just because one is discussing a subject that they are advocating anything other than what they specifically say they are advocating.

It makes it impossible to have a discussion.

Does that mean I can't discuss the realities of drugs with kids without coming across as an advocate of drug abuse?

[GourmetDan]

"What's up is that I think you have not followed my comments in this discussion."

Well, what I think is up is that you are making a distinction without a difference as an argument for using test-tube zygotes for experiments and treatments.

"I've clearly indicated that I'm speaking of zygotes that have passed beyond viability. They are eventually sloughed off in the regular menstrual cycle."

Who in the world is capturing post-viable zygotes sloughed off in the regular menstrual cycle?

"Does that mean I can't discuss the realities of drugs with kids without coming across as an advocate of drug abuse?"

Given how you've been doing w/ zygotes, I would say no you can't.

[GourmetDan]

"What's up is that I think you have not followed my comments in this discussion."

Well, what I think is up is that you are making a distinction without a difference as an argument for using test-tube zygotes for experiments and treatments.

"I've clearly indicated that I'm speaking of zygotes that have passed beyond viability. They are eventually sloughed off in the regular menstrual cycle."

Who in the world is capturing post-viable zygotes sloughed off in the regular menstrual cycle?

"Does that mean I can't discuss the realities of drugs with kids without coming across as an advocate of drug abuse?"

Given how you've been doing w/ zygotes, I would say no you can't.

[xzins]

Dan, you’re just being silly now.

That is the trouble with trying to have a serious discussion. We have all kinds of mind-readers out there who are also negative thinkers. First, they pretend to know what you’re thinking despite what you say, and second, they always assume the worst.

I can’t help you. You’ll have to climb out of that one with the help of the Lord.

[MHGinTN]

What I’m reading between the lines amounts to ‘a severely handicapped human is not a full human being’. Sorry, that’s how your rationalization sifts down. You are trying to focus our attention on the severely handicapped in order to rationalize the dehumanization of the non-handicapped, until a convenient age for granting huamnity is decided upon. The ‘healthy’ zygote is a diploid, meaning equal chromosomal complement from father and mother. Are these ‘healthy’ embryo-aged beings only potential humans in your calculus? At what age in their life-span do you assign full human status?