Gingrich Breaks from Some in Anti-Abortion Community on When Life Begins
EmailWEST DES MOINES, IOWA — It may seem a technical point to some, but to those focused on abortion as an issue, it isn’t.
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.
But he expressed confidence that he can win the vote of anti-abortion activists despite this difference.
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.
What I reject is the idea that we’re going to take one life for the purpose of doing research for other purposes and I think that crosses a threshold of de-humanizing us that’s very very dangerous.
-Jake Tapper
Republicans Duke it Out in Arizona 
Rick Santorum Defends Earmarks
So the important thing to Newt is where the human lives. Nice to know he draws a line somewhere.
Posted by: GeoffMilke | December 2, 2011, 1:43 pm 1:43 pm
Science has long been clear about when a new human life begins. For example, “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology,” 4th edition, which was written for medical students (not seminary students), says on page one: “Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male…A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”
Posted by: Mary Allen | December 2, 2011, 1:50 pm 1:50 pm
It is a VERY BIG issue to pro lifers. He is on the verge of blowing his nomination if he continues with this position. Leave to to Newt to allow his ego to be very stupid. He just can’t leave things alone. Just plain STUPID!
Posted by: Perplexed | December 2, 2011, 1:58 pm 1:58 pm
Look closely at what he said.
Statement #1 – “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.”
Statement #2 – “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. What I reject is the idea that we’re going to take one life for the purpose of doing research for other purposes and I think that crosses a threshold of de-humanizing us that’s very very dangerous.”
His first position defines that an embryo is not alive until implanted. The second position he turns around and refers to pre-implanted embryos as “a life”. He’s playing both sides of the argument and he is smart enough to know it..
Unacceptable.
Posted by: AMcGuire | December 2, 2011, 2:06 pm 2:06 pm
It’s a debatable point. If a naturally fertilized egg doesn’t successfully implant in the uterine wall, then the woman’s body will pass it. A fertilized egg growing in the fallopian tube as an ectopic pregnancy can seriously harm the mother.
Therefore, it’s pretty safe to say that implantation creates a viable pregnancy that should not be ended, while a fertilized egg working it’s way towards the womb has potential to be a successful pregnancy.
Obviously, the situation is different for frozen fertilized eggs. I still don’t like the idea of using them, but at some point in time, the donors will have no use for some them (hopefully because a few have been used to get a successful pregnancy).
I generally believe, however, that placental cells and adult stem cells show more promise, so disposal, and not experimental use of frozen fertilized eggs is preferable to me.
Posted by: RenoDave | December 2, 2011, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm
I’ll go with the science.
The most fundamental principle of biology is that life begets life. That means the egg cell is a living cell and the sperm cell is a living cell. From that follows that the fertilized egg is living. There is no point in the process of reproduction when the thing we (scientifically or otherwise) call “life” is absent and suddenly appears. Life is continuous.
So anyone who argues that when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg you don’t have a human life, is arguing against basic science.
Posted by: John T | December 2, 2011, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
If you say life begins at conception, then a physician or nurse is committing murder if they remove an ectopic pregnancy, which is dangerous. This is what’s caused the problem with the “Personhood” amendments in various states. So maybe that’s where Newt gets the implantation idea.
His opinion is certainly better than those of the “pro-choice” Dems who accept killing a baby at any time before birth.
Posted by: MissButterfly | December 2, 2011, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
As one person put it, “Anyone who has ever bought a condom knows when life begins.”
Posted by: Mary A | December 2, 2011, 3:44 pm 3:44 pm
Well, Newt… another Pelosi moment. She’s also a Catholic In Name Only [CHINO], as you know. I don’t have a problem with your claiming Catholicism or that life begins at implantation. It’s your hypocrisy. You know the doctrine as well as I do. As a historian, you’ll know the reference: “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?” Goodbye, Newt.
Posted by: the Centurion | December 2, 2011, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm
Rick Santorum for President!!!!!! He is a true Catholic~~~~
Posted by: Patricia Gubala | December 2, 2011, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
I don’t understand Gingrich’s statement. It sound as if he is saying there is more than one fertilized egg conceived for implantation. Am I reading this wrong?
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2011, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
A zygote is to a man as an acorn is to an oak tree. Lest a seed falls to the ground and dies, it does not bear fruit. Lest a zygote attaches to its’ source of nourishment, thereby dying to being a zygote it simply passes from system unnoticed. More pass than implant successfully.
Posted by: Bwana Ubuntu | December 2, 2011, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm
There are two questions: 1) ‘When does life begin?’ which is answered by the science as many have noted. The second is What value do we place on the new life?’ Newt can only provide an opinion on the second. Society may decide when to grant ‘personhood’ to the new life but we should stop arguing about when life begins. Although many new lives don’t survive to the point of implantation or to the point of birth, they are still lives. The Supreme Court made a collossal mistake when it failied to make this distinction. The Catholic Church understands the distinction and has been firm in its position that we value life from conception to natural death.
Posted by: S Farrell | December 2, 2011, 6:42 pm 6:42 pm
“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.”
You get adult stem cells from placental blood, not embryonic ones. Getting embryonic stem cells ALWAYS means loss of life. I think he should push the argument that no cures have come from embryonic stem cell research, but there are over 70 cures from adult stem cells. Adult stem cells does not kill a person. The media does not understand the reason why drug companies do not want to fund embryonic stem cell research is because they think it is money down the drain.
I could still vote for Newt if he is nominated because he is not as bad as the Democrats. I think Newt is electable, so far.
Posted by: Betty | December 2, 2011, 9:37 pm 9:37 pm
Is it possible that he answered that question rightly and then they asked a question about implantation that he then answered but after the editing it came out as though he was giving the wrong answer to a different question. That’s about the only good scenario I could come up with. I hope he quickly comes out stating clearly that life begins at conception, period. We’ll see soon enough. This does make me sick to my stomach to think he may actually think that about whether life begins at conception. This is absolutely HUGE.
Posted by: David | December 3, 2011, 2:44 am 2:44 am
These days you could probably clone a human from the DNA in a finger nail clipping, so is trimming your nails abortion?
Posted by: Jack | December 3, 2011, 2:52 am 2:52 am
Those who claim that basic science supports the idea that life begins at conception don’t seem to be really interested in what science says beyond how it may support their religious position. This confirmation bias gets in the way of what science actually does say about when life begins. A fertilized egg is not a viable life. Newt understands this. He may be an adulterer, a liar, and a fraud, but he gets this one right.I fear Huntsman is right, republicans are in danger of becoming the anti science party.
Posted by: colinalcarz | December 3, 2011, 5:58 am 5:58 am
This story is a bunch of BS designed to attack Newt. Newt would never disagree with Catholic teaching on this issue.
Posted by: Terry O'Brien | December 3, 2011, 6:03 am 6:03 am
Just lost my vote!
Posted by: plainsm | December 3, 2011, 10:04 am 10:04 am
If “The life is in the blood”, as the Bible says, a fertilized egg doesn’t establish a blood supply until it implants in the uterus. Perhaps that’s the scientific basis for Newt’s comment. Regardless, he would be leaps and bounds better than the present occupant of the Oval Office, as would any of the Republican candidates. I plan to vote for whomever they nominate, even Romney. My beef with Romney is he wouldn’t even vote for the Fair TAx in the unlikely event it passes without presidential support. Newt is at least open to the idea of tax reform.
Posted by: gail mcmillan | December 3, 2011, 10:25 am 10:25 am
The entity which implants is an early human embryo at the blastocyst stage. The secondary oocyte is the gamete which is fertilized by the spermatozoan. Immediately the first cell division occurs and the living human organism is on its way.
This growth and differentiation, which starts right away, is characteristic of living things. Newt’s arbitrary idea to wait a week before calling the human embryo a living thing is contrary to what is observed by developmental biologists.
Newt is hanging on to EMBRYONIC stem cell research after the leading company, Geron has bailed out on it (because it produces no results). Do we have to let him waste our tax dollars on stuff which produces no good results? You know he’s also clinging to Global Warming, long after date and email dumps from East Anglia University have shown it to be fraudulent.
Posted by: Pharmer | December 3, 2011, 10:35 am 10:35 am
That which implants has already existed for days — going from single-celled to multi-celled individual. Mr. Gengrich’s biology is wrong. Don’t look for my vote if he doesn’t correct this glaring error.
Posted by: Kathryn Schutz | December 3, 2011, 11:23 am 11:23 am
In 1970, an editorial in the Sept. issue of California Medicine,proposed a linguistic strategy of semantic gymnastics–”avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception” and separation of the “idea of abortion from the idea of killing” as essential for obtaining widespred acceptance of not only abortion but also euthanasia.
Posted by: robert | December 3, 2011, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
Actually, the Catholic Church has never declared when life begins…no one knows when the God given soul is joined to the body.
Posted by: John | December 3, 2011, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
Newt is not Catholic anyway..He has excommincated himself “ipso facto” …he has severed himself from the True Catholic Church….
Posted by: Michael | December 3, 2011, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
John… sadly, you are simply wrong about Catholic Doctrine, but Pelosi [Catholic In Name Only] continues to repeat this nonsense even though she has been told of her error. Ensoulment IS NOT the test of when life [personhood] begins, except [as I understand it] in some Jewish communities. See Catachism of the Catholic Church: 2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
Posted by: the Centurion | December 4, 2011, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
For all of you folks who may not know, Newt is talking about a viable preganancy. For those of you who may not be aware…2 out of three pregancies are MISCARRIAGES. Got it????? That means in the REALITY of life only 1/3 actually make it to “IMPLANTATION’ and are “VIABLE.”
So Newt is correct in taking this view. It is reasonable to protect those viable fertilized eggs and not those that are not viable. Not so freakin controversial when you examine the facts eh?????
Posted by: Nick099 | December 5, 2011, 8:28 am 8:28 am
Please don’t compare acorns to trees. Please don’t compare a viable fertilized egg to a non-viable fertilized egg. In truth all of them are fertilized eggs. If you believe that the fertilized egg, Zygote, is the first stage of a persons existence then life begins at conception.
I’m sorry Newt had to slip into this “mid” category. As a pro-life person I have always placed my support behind pro-life candidates that believe as I do. Fortunately there are still a couple of candidates that still believe that life begins at conception. Hopefully one of them will make it to the top.
Posted by: Don Smith | December 5, 2011, 9:00 am 9:00 am
You know this entire discussion can be taken to ridiculous extremes with very little effort whatsoever. While I happen to believe in a woman’s right to choose, I do not support abortion as a everyday birth control device, but let me get to the point.
It could be argued that an unfertilized egg is also “life” or “potential life” and therefore should not be allowed to be wasted, thereby requiring all women to be fertilized as soon as they begin having menstrual cycles. Likewise, male sperm could similarly be classified as “life” and masturbation resulting in “spilling one’s seed’” declared a criminal act.
While you may feel that the above statement is ridiculous, stop and think a minute of what an easy leap it would be for a slightly off-kilter philosophy to make just such a declaration and attempt to require the rest of the world to follow suit.
Once you let the common sense succumb to “doctrine” as generated by who-knows-what source, you will have opened a door that you wil never be able to close.
Posted by: Brrrrr | December 5, 2011, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm
Obviously, life begins at the moment of conception.
That’s why we all agree that a fertilized egg is a chicken.
Posted by: Joey Tranchina | December 5, 2011, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm
Newt is technically right and that is true Pro-Life.
A Fertilized egg is just that.. an egg. But unless there’s a problem, a FERTILIZED egg WILL IMPLANT; so, technically, they’re nearly the same. But only an IMPLANTED egg, once it plants in the uterus draws from the mother’s blood and now Blood , WHICH IS LIFE, is creating the spark in which to Grow.
But all Life is from GOD and is GOD. What makes that egg do so? DNA from GOD.. ALL natural processes are from GOD, not from man. So, if some want to say a fertilized egg NOT PLANTEd is life that will die, so be it. The Egg will die if it is not planted into the mother’s womb so that it can suck the nutrients from her blood lining the uterus.
Either way, NEWT IS PRO-LIFE. An abortionist believes life begins only when successfully born. To Obommie and his friends, life begins only after the age of 15.
Posted by: Jere C. Hicks | December 6, 2011, 11:55 am 11:55 am
My dad, a devout Catholic, held the same position as Newt. His analogy was that of an oak tree. He said that if you hold an acorn in the palm of your hand it will never become and oak tree. All it will ever be is an acorn. It only has the possibility of becoming an oak tree once it is implanted in the ground, therefore, he said a fertilized egg is not a human and never will be a human unless it attaches (implants) to the uterine wall. So, in his view, there was a seven day period where life did not begin.
Posted by: luze | December 15, 2011, 11:29 pm 11:29 pm