Gingrich: Life does not begin at conception
UPDATE 12/3, 7:49a: In light of Gingrich’s comment yesterday, Dr. David Prentice has listed all the presidential candidates’ statements on embryonic stem cell research at the Family Research Council Action blog.
12/2, 3:41p: For such a supposedly smart man, presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich sure is stupid on the subject of biology. Gingrich told ABC’s Jake Tapper today:
Tapper: 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?
Gingrich: Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question. 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?’
I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life, because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions.
Tapper: So implantation is the moment for you.
Gingrich: Implantation and successful implantation. 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.
So what if “an extraordinary range of very difficult questions” is opened up by the biological fact that life begins at conception? Is Newt saying truths shift depending on how tough they are to discuss?
And s/he is not a “fertilized egg.” S/he is an “embryo.”
And, as Ramesh Ponnuru points out, “Gingrich may have forgotten where he stood, but he did in fact back embryo-destructive stem-cell research in 2001.”
Finally, placental stem cells are NOT embryonic stem cells. They are adult stem cells.
I have never trusted Gingrich on the Life issue. How can someone who calls himself pro-life support taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research?
Of all the Republican presidential candidates, Rick Santorum has the best record on the Life issue and is the most articulate. Michele Bachmann is good, too. Ron Paul is a Stephen Douglas on abortion – let the states decide. Cain speaks gobbledygook on abortion and is toast anyway. I think Perry is toast, too, although he’s also good on the Life issue. (He said his Gardasil executive order was a mistake, and I believe him.) UPDATE: Someone just asked me about Huntsman, one of many nonstarters I’m not going to bother with.
Mitt Romney? Even though he hasn’t signed Susan B. Anthony List’s pledge, I still trust him on the Life issue way more than Gingrich. People call Romney a flip-flopper, but he flopped our way. We must welcome converts. And Romney vetoed a bill to fund embryonic stem cell research. He’s more than talk.
Gingrich picked a sorry hill to die on. He apparently doesn’t know embryonic stem cell research is so 2000s.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
(*banging head against desk, wall, etc.*)
Why, oh, why, oh WHY do we have such wretched/tarnished choices re: the life issues… and from a newly-converted (though apparently poorly catechised) Catholic, no less? Any of them would be light-years ahead of Obama, but… honestly!
What about the $50 abortions under Romeny care in MA? Was this before or after his conversion?
I don’t think pro-lifers will need to worry about Romney, because he has finally chosen a constituency and it involves mostly fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, who are typically pro-life. I don’t see a reason why he would need to flip on abortion unless he wants to start appealing to liberals again, which I highly doubt is his strategy. Not that he personally gives a damn about abortion, but it works for his current agenda. If abortion is your only issue: great!
Newt and Calista need to take a cruise, visit some jewelry stores, and quit torturing conservatives.
Didn’t conservative icon Ronald Reagan sign a bill legalizing abortion in California?
He later expressed regret.
I agree that Rick Santorum is the best on life issues and is articulate. I have watched some of his videos and heard him speak in the debates. By far he is the most consistent and honest defender of life and other traditional values. I am not sure why the Republicans haven’t rallied around him. He is also young compared to some of the other candidates. I think the fact that the mainstream media dislikes him provides Republicans with even more reasons to back him. He may be the most conservative candidate but why is that considered a liability in the Republican party?
I would like to see more debates where Rick and Mitch square off.
If we’re discussing candidate’s position on life issues, Rick Perry would NOT be considered “good on life issues”. In his years as Texas Governor, Perry has executed 235 inmates in Texas, more than ANY other Governor in U.S. history….and counting. What’s so pro-life about that? Please note this next to your “good on life issues” assessment of him.
The results of the Catholic Vote Thanksgiving poll are nullified by today’s Newt news.
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=23391
Mary wrote:
Didn’t conservative icon Ronald Reagan sign a bill legalizing abortion in California?
He later expressed regret.
That’s precisely the point: Mr. Gingrich has NOT expressed regret for this comment… especially since he made it less than 48 hours ago, and it can hardly be written off as a “past error from which he gradually detached himself”. President Reagan’s repentance was hard-won and sincere, as his later actions and comments showed. If Mr. Gingrich says, next week (for example), that he has chatted with some competent Catholic Church authority (or anyone whose head isn’t muddled on life-issues) and accepted (and will obey) correction on the point, I’ll be much more at ease. For now… this is troubling, to say the least.
What does “successful implantation” add? I mean, why did he have to throw that in? Is there an implantation that he would not accept because it was or would be unsuccessful? That was a little weird. In fact, the more Gingrich talks, the weirder he sounds overall.
If Newt is so smart he sure flunked biology…saying the escr come from umbilical cord and life does not begin at conception. Get out of town Newt!!!!!!
I don’t see why the “family values” crowd would ever consider this guy for a second anyway, regardless of whatever views he has on abortion. He is just a bad guy in general. He certainly doesn’t care about marriage and he doesn’t have the voting record or even the talk to support pro-life… I would rather see Romney in office than him any day.
Wow, what a blow. He was my best bet for intelligence going into the primary. How he can say two such stupid, scientifically erroneous statements (3 if you count “fertilized egg”) is astonishing. NOW who gets my vote??!
No candidate is perfect, but any of these is perfectly suited to give us a greater chance to win pro-life victories in 2013 and beyond. Seriously, would either Gingrich or Romney veto pro-life legislation presented to them? But first, we have to get one of them in the driver’s seat.
Equally important is the matter of supreme court appointments. It matters little how much pro-life legislation we pass if an activist liberal/pro-abort court knocks it all down. Of the two current front runners which of the two can we count on to appoint solid judges that would support the pro-life cause?
Jill…anything that Newt has said or done prior to his conversion to the Catholic faith, I would not even bring into the equation unless he states the same thing. No where here does he say anything contrary to being a pro-lifer…you are twisting his words if you ask me….you go against your own rules when you called Newt stupid….If I am to understand this article that you wrote...Newt is saying that a fertilized egg (an egg meets with the sperm) is when a soul is created by God….what is wrong with that…I agree 100%….I am not a biology major by any means, so hold back on the ‘stupids’ and explain yourself nicely….you are getting very picky here and you have many questions for Newt yourself, so please don’t try and explain what the man is saying when you are not sure yourself. In all due respect, I believe the Catholic convert is the best man for the job as President of the USA in 2012. You also forgive some of the other candidates on things but Newt gets no break with you. However, you may not be Catholic or a learned Catholic and understand the Sacraments at all and what it means to be a true Catholic.
Thank you Jerry,
Great post. If we’re looking for perfection we’ll give the election to Obama.
For heaven’s sakes folks, you don’t see the forest for the trees. Its who will get on the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Its who will be appointed to the Cabinet.
Its who will get rid of Obamacare.
Jude, where in the world is Newt “saying that a fertilized egg (an egg meets with the sperm) is when a soul is created by God….what is wrong with that…I agree 100%.”
He didn’t say that at all. He said human life begins at implantation, when a human being is 5-9 days old.
And he made that statement today, obviously after he converted to Catholicism. As Tapper wrote in the beginning of his piece:
Breaking from groups that believe human life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized — also the position of the Catholic Church, of which he is a member — former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told ABC News he believes life begins at implantation.
“If Mr. Gingrich says, next week (for example), that he has chatted with some competent Catholic Church authority (or anyone whose head isn’t muddled on life-issues) and accepted (and will obey) correction on the point, I’ll be much more at ease.”
A potential candidate for president taking orders from a religious official on his political positions (or beliefs that directly inform them) would put you at ease? Why do I get the feeling that you (and a few other people here) wake up every morning and curse the foul luck that caused you to be born in 21st-century America instead of 15th-century Italy?
I expect a man petitioning to be the leader of the free world to be able to stand on his own two feet, intellectually and morally. That doesn’t mean that religious beliefs or obligations can’t be an influence, but it certainly does mean that they can’t supplant personal judgment. If Newt Gingrich truly arrived at the position that he stated in the interview as a result of measured and deliberate consideration, then relinquishing it in the way you suggested would make him intellectually unfit for any elected office.
Now that I have read some calmer articles, I understand what Newt said….and I agree, he probably just crucified himself – no pro-lifer should vote for him unless he gets humbled and re-educated himself on this issue.
Thanks, Mary. Who was it that said words to the effect that we must elect the most conservative candidate that can win? We can substitute the word “conservative” with the words “pro-life” and that would work too.
For what it is worth I am appreciative of all of the Repub candidates who are putting their lives in the public spotlight and with that the unceasing scrutiny by a hostile and anti-life, anti traditional American values MSM. Most men of Mitt’s and Newt’s age are looking to slow down a bit. Certainly each of them have the resources to not work another day in their lives if they so desired. If they don’t already have grandkids to lavish time upon it would probably be a possibilty within the next few years. God speed to them.
Jill quotes Tapper:
Breaking from groups that believe human life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized — also the position of the Catholic Church, of which he is a member — former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told ABC News he believes life begins at implantation.
Once again we have a Catholic politician trying to out-nuance the theology and teaching authority of the church on the abortion issue. This is really problematic, but not surprising given the way the American church has dealt with other prominent Catholic politicians who have ignored the teachings of the church with impunity and have done so for decades.
If indeed Newt is the smartest kid on the block he sure misfired on this, but I am not ready to give up on him yet. Not saying I support him but we have a long way to go yet before the positions of all of the candidates are fully vetted. One thing for sure: Obama must be defeated.
ok, this was Newt at Thanksgiving
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UexN5YOQajA&feature=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UexN5YOQajA&feature=shareAt the Family Leader Thanksgiving Family Forum on November 19, 2011, Newt says “personhood begins at conception.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mlOZ6k6grw&feature=related
HERE, NOW THIS HELPS EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, EVEN ME!!!
Unfortunately Mr. Gingrich makes a common error, confusing “new life” and “pregnancy”. Some biology textbooks declare new life begins at conception while pregnancy begins at implementation. He, like many others, has confused the two and declared new life begins at implementation.
Jill, you really have a way with words! I laughed out loud when I read paragraph 10. Also, Newt is smart? I could not make heads or tails of his responses to the interviewer. I would expect a smart guy to be a little better at expressing himself.
Overall, I am leaning toward (still considering others) Newt Gingrich as the best candidate. This is very disappointing, that he lacks an accurate understanding of the biological facts. Granted, biology is not his field, but he really needs to get better informed. Not necessarily from a ‘religious official’ either, as the facts in question are not related to religious belief.
WELL, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NEWT IS CONFUSING HIS WORDS AND WHAT HE SAYS NEXT TO CLARIFY HIMSELF (AS I PRAY HE DOES) WILL DETERMINE MY VOTE. AND BY THE WAY, WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO IS NOT PRO-LIFE – VOTING FOR THE LESSER OF THE 2 EVILS WILL NOT HAPPEN UNDER MY ROOF…I HAVE GOD TO ANSWER TO AT THE END AND MY FAITH IN GOD IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN ME LIVING ON THE STREETS, WHICH I HAVE DONE BEFORE IN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION.
It’s not “stupid” to put the beginning of life at implantation. Many years ago, prior to Roe v. Wade, I saw a TV show in which a doctor arguing AGAINST abortion legalization put the beginning of life — or at least the beginning of pregnancy — at implantation.
About Reagan’s abortion liberalization bill: what he signed was a bill allowing abortion under certain circumstances. He believed the “mental health” provision would be interpreted narrowly, to allow abortion in the case of women who had previously suffered post-partum psychosis or women who were in genuine danger of a mental collapse if they completed the pregnancy. It ended up being broadly interpreted to allow abortion in cases where the female was distressed by her pregnancy. He later stated that he had no intention of allowing the law to be interpreted so broadly.
In all this talk about different candidates, no mention of Bella Abzug?
I don’t think pro-lifers will need to worry about Romney, because he has finally chosen a constituency and it involves mostly fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, who are typically pro-life. I don’t see a reason why he would need to flip on abortion unless he wants to start appealing to liberals again, which I highly doubt is his strategy. Not that he personally gives a damn about abortion, but it works for his current agenda. If abortion is your only issue: great!
Unless the wind shifts. I hope it won’t, as I know every other pro-lifer does, but hope is hardly a guarantee. A politician taking a “pro-life” position because it’s politically expedient can’t be trusted to do the right thing if it stops being politically expedient to do so. And we’ve had more than enough of that sort of “pro-lifer” in government. I’m done compromising. Being pro-life may not make someone a good candidate by itself, but not being credibly pro-life makes someone a bad candidate, without needing to look at any other considerations.
Romney is a bad candidate. I don’t trust him and I flat refuse to vote for him, even if he ends up being the anti-Obama ticket. Either the Republicans run someone who is genuinely pro-life or they loose my vote and have no one but themselves to blame for it.
I wish prolife folks would get on the Santorum bandwagon.
“Romney is a bad candidate. I don’t trust him and I flat refuse to vote for him, even if he ends up being the anti-Obama ticket. Either the Republicans run someone who is genuinely pro-life or they loose my vote and have no one but themselves to blame for it.”
Alice, that would make no sense for the reasons stated by others above….court appointments and PP defunding etc would be a thousand times better under anybody but Obama.
We need to stop tolerating “better than the worst possible option” in our politicians and demand better from them. I’m gonna stick to my guns on this one. Either the GOP picks someone with a real pro-life record or they can count me out.
Doug:
Maybe someone could launch a write-in campaign for Bella opposite Obama in the Dem primaries. Maybe we can convince enough people she is still alive…or it might not even matter to them!
Well, we know already that they’re more than willing to accept votes from dead Chicagoans.
Newt opens his mouth and inserts his foot often; this sure is not the first time.
Why can’t a candidate stick to his conscience?! They all make me sick.
I don’t trust him. A lot of conservatives, who look at his voting record, say he has a bad one. Like all the other RINOS, he talks a good game. I’m going strickly by politicians actions from now on. I’m with Courtnay, Santorum all the way.
P.S. click here to see a 7 minute pro-life video of what you can do to stop abortion, even better than voting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOgeHtQqYTg&feature=email&email=comment_received
What’s the point of flailing away at Gingrich for placing the beginning of life at implantation instead of fertilization?
He is clearly saying that abortion, which rips an implanted embryo or fetus out of the womb, destroys human life.
Newt is probably one of the best possible choices for president. He can open the door to a number of pro-life policies. Look at the progress we’ve made with a pro-choice president in office.
If this seriously hurts his support, and if by result we lose the election to Obama once again. . .well, honestly, we’ll have deserved it. For wanting everything to be easy. For wanting everything to be perfect. When it comes right down to it, it will not be the president, but the people, who abolish abortion. The sooner we accept that, the better.
Denise,
Four Decades ago, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology redefined conception and pregnancy to begin at implantation. This opens the door to IUD’s, chemical abortifacients that prevent implantation, and embryonic stem cell research.
The definitions are very consequential.
Gerard Nadal says:
December 3, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Denise,
Four Decades ago, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology redefined conception and pregnancy to begin at implantation. This opens the door to IUD’s, chemical abortifacients that prevent implantation, and embryonic stem cell research.
The definitions are very consequential.
(Denise) Do you think measures to ban IUDs and certain types of The Pill would be likely to pass? A great many girls and women rely on these methods of contraception. Many other methods are less effective.
If such measures did pass, isn’t it very likely that they might lead to MORE surgical abortions simply because effective contraceptives have been banned?
Yes, I know people don’t have to be heterosexually active. But the vast majority of post-puberty people in the fertile years.
Yes, I wish more people related to each other on an intellectual basis. I’m 54. It’s a lot easier now that I’m out of the age range at which females are most alluring. It’s much less likely for a female in her 20s.
so what do you think about this Jill?
To me, it is just some sentenances that Newt has said in the past and they put it together to shut us pro-lifers up because there are no quotes.http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gingrich-clarifies-life-begins-conception/235611
Hey Jude:
Sorry, I couldn’t resist! Anyway, good find on the clarification.
Hey, Jerry, Hey anybody, I don’t think it is a clarification at all. I am done with Newt. I have to go with Mitt Romney because he hasn’t flip-flopped in a long time and he can be forgiven as well as Newt. And Mitt has a healthy body, a healthy loving family life and that makes for a good start with me and the rest I like….Mitt can be the guy, I will pray about it and see where God leads me…Jill can keep us abreast about Mitt if she wants to.
ok…my friend came up with this one…On Dec. 8th, Newt will celebrate the IMMACULATE IMPLANTATION feast day. While we celebrate the feast day of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION….hey, maybe Newt will get the Holy Spirit to understand the feast day properly.
Ron Paul, for years, has authored and sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act which DEFINES life starting at CONCEPTION. Maybe you should look it up before you start spreading misinformation. Under Ron Paul life would be defined as starting at conception, therefore any abortion would be legally defined as murder. Murder is a state’s issue and both the mother and the abortionist can be charged. It is only a state’s issue for Ron Paul when it is a murder case.
And Romney had $50.00 legal abortions in his state-that is frightening!
I for one would side right now with Pro Choice.
I understand this is the minority on this web site but maybe someone could shed some light on me to why I should change my view.
As of right now these are my views
1. I do not believe a person should just get an abortion as a way of birth control.
2. I understand to view of Pro Life people on it being a baby even before it leaves the womb. (Fetus is latin for off spring)
3. I am not a christian so do not use christian values or views to try to swing my stance.
4. I believe abortion to remain legal to an extent. *Incest, Rape, Mother dying during labor, First Tri-mester*
5. I would prefer adoption over abortion but understand why people do it.
I have been respectful on this issue so please give me the respect back while answering this.
1. People ARE using it as birth control. Over 50% of all abortions are performed on women who have already had a previous abortion.
2. “baby” is an informal, non-scientific noun. Depending on the person, they may or may not apply it to their offspring at any given time in their life. I still call my 9 year old daughter my baby, but to be sure, I do not conflate this term with the notion that she is an infant. “Offspring” is scientifically accurate regardless of the age of the offspring in question. However, another accurate noun would be “human being”, which SHOULD entitle them to basic human rights, first and foremost the right to live.
3. secularprolife.org
4. No Pro-Lifer supports a woman dying during labor. Doesn’t it make sense to save at least one life than to lose two? We think so as well. Not all Pro-Lifers are without exceptions. You can still maintain those exceptions while identifying as “Pro-Life”. However, most of us don’t think the circumstances of one’s conception or parentage should dictate the legality of their killing. Instead of offering a dead child to the victim, how about counseling, support, and justice for the victim and her child? Also, why do you support abortion during the 1st trimester? Is that human being less human than older human beings? Why?
5. I have been in a crisis pregnancy situation. I can understand why people do it. Now that my daughter is 9 years old, what I don’t understand is HOW they can do such a thing to their child.
I hope this helps. I eagerly await your response.
Drew,
See? Nothing to fear here. Come in, the water is warm.
1. People ARE using it as birth control. Over 50% of all abortions are performed on women who have already had a previous abortion.
( Very alarming figure. I would have to think more about a way to prevent this without banning abortion. I understand everyone draws the line somewhere and we should look into decreasing this statistic )
4. No Pro-Lifer supports a woman dying during labor. Doesn’t it make sense to save at least one life than to lose two? We think so as well. Not all Pro-Lifers are without exceptions. You can still maintain those exceptions while identifying as “Pro-Life”. However, most of us don’t think the circumstances of one’s conception or parentage should dictate the legality of their killing. Instead of offering a dead child to the victim, how about counseling, support, and justice for the victim and her child? Also, why do you support abortion during the 1st trimester? Is that human being less human than older human beings? Why?
( I could not call myself a pro-lifer unless I fully supported life regardless of situation. I can call myself middle of the road. You stated that no Pro-Life wants the mother to die during labor. I would say no human should want the mother to die during labor regardless of choice or life stance. My stance on this is hard for anyone but if the doctor came to me and my female companion and said it is either her or the baby there is no way I could say the baby. * My stance on the first tri-mester was improperly worded considering the above statement. But I do support abortion during the first tri-mester also. I have many reasons to this and understand that it is still life but I believe a person should have the choice in this time. There is a vast majority of baby/fetus that can not live outside the mother during the first tri-mester and that is a reason I draw the line there.
At the end of the day I believe we should do everything in our power to preserve life but must take everything into consideration before abortion. I do not believe this is a topic a person should decide either way quickly. I do not believe a parent should pressure there child into having the baby or having a abortion but give them advice and support and hope whatever decision was made was the best thing to do at the time in there heart and mind. )