« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Is Newt Pro-life?

By: Paula Bolyard (Diary) | December 3rd, 2011 at 05:14 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

Newt Gingrich caused a stir this week by departing from the orthodox pro-life reservation. In an interview with Jake Tapper, Gingrich said that he believed that life does not begin at conception:

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 [emphasis added].

Well…not so fast there, Mr. Speaker! Newt would say that he’s never been for embryonic stem cell research per se but some would say that’s not an accurate statement, per se.

In 2001 Gingrich said this to Bill O’Reilly:

“Well, I agree with Senator Bill Frist, as the only medical doctor in the Senate and as a world-class heart surgeon. I think that there are ways to have appreciation for life, to recognize the sanctity of life, but nonetheless to look at fertility clinics where there are cells that are sitting there that are not going to be used to create life. They literally today, they’re unregulated, they can be thrown away. And I think the president, I hope the president, will find a way to agree that there ought to be federally funded research.”

In 2006, Gingrich told Discover Magazine that while he was opposed to stem cell research for abortions, he was not against it for unborn embryos in fertility clinics and gave guidelines for federal funding:

“I think the federal government needs to set an example by making sure that when it is the funding source for such research, it is subject to serious ethical guidelines. I am against human cloning research, and I am against research on aborted fetuses. Having said that, I would not seek to ban research on stem cells in fertility clinics.”

At the time Gingrich said this, The Dickey-Wicker Amendment (signed into law by President Clinton) outlawed such federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. In 2009, President Obama lifted the ban through executive fiat and he and Kathleen Sebelius have spent the last two years in court trying to explain why he has the right to ignore the law. But I digress.

The point is that it appears Newt’s position on embryonic stem cell research is more closely aligned to Obama’s than it is to the traditional pro-life position (and that of Newt’s Catholic faith) that believes life begins at conception and should be protected because it is endowed by his Creator with the unalienable right to life.

This is not to posit that Gingrich is a subversive pro-abortion radical hiding in the midst of the Republican party. Indeed, Gingrich had a solid pro-life voting record when he was in Congress, though some of his colleagues have said he is not in favor of outlawing the practice. And he has supported candidates who actually are pro-abortion radicals. In 1998 he called for tolerance of Republicans who supported the hideous practice of partial birth abortion, vowing to campaign for them:

“It’s the voters of America who have a right — in some places they’re going to pick people who are to my right, some places they’re going to pick people who are to my left and in both cases, if they’re the Republican nominee, I am going to actively campaign for them, because when they get to Congress, whether they are a moderate Republican from the northeast, whether they are a very conservative Republican from the south or west, whatever their background.”

This is all important for a few reasons.

First, this primary has become a game of inches. As the polls inch up and down, sometimes hourly, taking the liberal position on embryonic stem cell research matters to a lot of very sincere pro-life people.

Second, this is another example of Newt telling people what he thinks they want to hear. Earlier this week I posted a diary about Newt’s climate change debate with John Kerry. In that debate to an audience at NYU, Newt was not the fearsome bulldog we’ve all seen in the debates. He was conciliatory and agreeable. He was slobbering all over John Kerry’s book on the environment and rambling about the problem of “carbon loading” and what government should do about it. In 2006, when Newt wasn’t running for president, he was thinking it was a good thing to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. Today, under pressure from conservatives, he said,

“I would say that I’ve never been for embryonic stem cell research per se.”

Per se. Words are funny things, aren’t they? Watch for Gingrich to squirm out of this in the next couple of days. The explanation will start with the words, “What I said was…”

This is Newt being Newt. If we nominate Newt to be our candidate, we will have to apologize to Mitt for calling him a flip-flopper.

A third reason this is significant is that it demonstrates a deficiency in Gingrich’s dedication to a pro-life agenda. While I realize that jobs and the economy are important issues this election and the candidates are spending most of their time and energy on them, we can’t ignore the social issues. We can’t give the candidates a pass and hope for the best.

There are states across the nation that are passing pro-life laws that will surely end up in federal courts and ultimately, the Supreme Court. Whoever is president in 2012 and beyond may have the opportunity to nominate judges who can uphold those laws, putting severe limits on abortion.

Gingrich has vowed to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, but exactly what does he mean by pro-life? He’s also promised to stop taxpayer funding of abortion, defund Planned Parenthood, and stop funding abortion overseas (the Mexico City policy). Still, he’s stopped short of proposing to make abortion illegal through a human life amendment (as Rick Perry has proposed), indicating that he prefers to promote adoption.

This just gives me one more reason to not support Newt. I believe he would be a marginally pro-life president, if elected, but I would not be under any illusions that he would move the ball forward for the pro-life moment and for unborn babies.

UPDATE Monday 12/5: Gingrich changed his mind on this issue and now says he believes life begins at conception. The Hill reports that Gingrich has updated his website to reflect the change. Or maybe it’s not a change. Newt says, “I have stated many times throughout the course of my public life I believe that human life begins at conception.” I guess he was just confused last week when he told Jake Tapper something different and in his 2001 interview with O’Reilly and his 2006 interview with Discover Magazine. Sheesh. That didn’t take long.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

lucasblack

I thought I was the only one who thought life began at implantation. This may hurt him a little bit in Iowa, but this is something I actually feel quite strongly about and this just makes me like him more.
If the GOP ever tries to take the idea that an egg fertilized in a lab is a life that must be protected to it’s logical conclusion, the party would be devastated. It would basically kill IVF and stopping people from having children is one of the most horrific things you can do emotionally. Props to Gingrich for understanding this and speaking up on it. I hope it doesn’t cost him too many voters, though.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

doesn’t stop IVF. It stops experimentation and destruction of the embryos created by IVF. Newt’s view is different than that of National Right to Life and many other RTL organizations.

lucasblack

Actually, it does effectively stop IVF. This is something I have personal experience with. You can’t just fertilize one egg at a time (unless you have unlimited money and time) because you don’t know which ones will actually ‘grow’. You will almost certainly wind up with more fertilized eggs than would be safe to implant (though the quality will be uneven).
A fertilized egg in a dish will not become a baby unless additional steps are taken with it – no more than a sperm or an egg by itself will. Only when it’s implanted will it then be on it’s own and you would have to interfere with it to stop it from becoming a baby. My respect for Newt just shot up even further with his stand on this issue.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

The difference in opinion here does not necessarily come at the point of whether or not to allow IVF. It’s about what to do with any embryos that remain. Some, like Gingrich, believe it’s OK to destroy those embryos. Others, like myself, believe that doing so ends a unique human life.

The Westchester Institute has an excellent white paper, When Does Human Life Begin?, that explains:

“Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined

andystone

embryos left over from IVF? Not trying to make any point, just curious.
wonkish1

This is a subject I quite frankly don’t know much about.

So what happens to embryo’s that are not implanted today? What do you think should happen to them? How is it possible for the excess ones to turn into life?

Would be interesting to learn a little bit more about this subject.
http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

I think it’s difficult to figure out what to do with these human embryos that are in suspended animation in test tubes. Parents are left with the options of leaving them in their frozen state indefinitely, allowing them to thaw out and die naturally, allowing the lab to destroy them intentionally, donating them for stem cell research, donating them to another family for IVF.

If you believe this is a human being with a soul and its own DNA, it seems the only humane option would be to donate them to another family, but that’s not always an option and even that opens all sorts of other questions we probably haven’t even anticipated.

I think those of us who are pro-life and want to be consistent must backtrack and examine whether it is humane to create life, knowing that it will potentially -or likely – end up in this situation. I think we do have to consider the issue of excess embryos and whether the science has run ahead of the ethics. Is it moral to create “spare” embryos simply because IVF is so difficult and has such a low success rate? Do we shelve our pro-life views for pragmatic reasons?

In my opinion, a consistent pro-life position says that we do not. We don’t create life knowing there’s a likelihood it will be intentionally destroyed.
wonkish1

I would say its probably clear that donating the excess isn’t much of a solution. Not only will there be few people that want them, but also there will still be more embryo’s than people to take them, right?

And correct me if I’m wrong, but IVF is used by people who have trouble otherwise conceiving, right? If that is true than I think people can appreciate that an unintended consequence of ending IVF might be to deny many parents the blessing of a child of their own.

From my very far 10,000 ft away overgeneralized look at this subject matter I always got the impression that this is a morally complicated area that doesn’t seem like it would be easy to have consensus on(even from people who are very pro-life). Does that seem right or am I missing something?

tricianc

WHICH NEWT would show up at the White House each day?
He’s flip flopped more than Mitt.

Gingrich reverses his position that life begins at ‘implantation’

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/197179-gingrich-reverses-position-that-life-begins-at-implantation

Even saying he’s ALWAYS been for life begins at conception. He’s lying. His lifelong beliefs have been abortion for the THREE exceptions.

PREVIOUS GINGRICH STATEMENTS:

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/28/iowa-christian-conservatives-split-on-gingrichs-right-to-life-record/

Here are examples of previous statements on abortion and stem cell research that give some social conservatives pause.

TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTION

The New York Times on April 10, 1995, reported,

andystone

if what it takes to get rid of Roe v. Wade is to replace it with a legal definition of “life begins at inception”, it would be by far the greatest victory for social conservatism in half a century IMO.While I may like a cherry on my cake, I first need to find a cook who can and will actually bake the cake.

Common_Cents

The left skirts the discussion by always pursuing exceptions and women’s choice. They’ll never discuss the point of life.

They do not want to bring up the discussion because they have nothing in which to defend themselves.

Why does nobody ask the left, if you are pro choice, then how the heck do we have laws for double homicide for a pregnant woman? When that woman could have had an abortion earlier that day and then it would have been single homicide? It makes no sense.

Here is how we make tremendous progress and expose the “woman’s choice” frauds:

Get all legislators in a room. Put out fetuses in jars chronologically at progressing stages of development from conception to just before birth. (similar to the bodyworlds exhibits did) Each jar has the science of what functions that fetus has, what it feels, its development and so on.

Each legislator has to pick a jar that they would defend from that point on as life, which would then be eligible for constitutional protection. It’s really that simple and would go a long way to expose the left and make them justify their position on choice of infanticide or not.

At the very least, it would serve to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave it up to the state. In turn, the states could go through the same exercise. Heck, every citizen should go through the exercise.

Those that believe in life at conception may object, but we have to ask ourselves, “how is the perfect, being enemy of good” been working? This is not selling out, but rather continuous improvement drastically moving the needle to the side of life.

At least we can narrow the gap and I do think there is some room to discuss and deal w/ the exceptions of rape/incest etc…If you reduce your differences down to a matter of days, post conception, you have gone leaps and bounds in continuous improvement. I think Gingrich’s position of implantation can take a week or two. If we could agree that protections start a week or two past conception, the exceptions of rape/incest etc…are wiped out, giving those exceptions the option of day after pill etc…

It’s easy to talk about “choice” in a sterile debate, but is much harder to pick a jar and defend your radical position. Reality bites.

Until something like this happens, both sides are talking past each other. the left continues to skirt the issue by screaming choice, no matter how often or loud we yell life.
http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

Whenever he’s asked if he thinks it should be illegal, he tends to waffle. When pressed, he will say he personally thinks it should be, but then he quickly moves to saying he would like to make adoption easier.

I’m sure there are many people, like you could not care less about this.

However, there are many, many social conservatives who find this very troubling and want a candidate who will fight for the rights of all preborn children.

andystone

resent being told I “could not care less” about the right to life. If you ascribe me opinions that are the exact opposite of those I hold, that makes it quite impossible to have a discussion.

Second, Newt has given plenty of indication that he cares deeply about abortion and will work hard towards eliminating Roe v. Wade, down to the point where he’s prepared to seriously confront the Supreme Court and wrote a whole white paper about it:

http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf

(“If the Supreme Court ruled that 2+2=5, would the executive and legislative branches have to agree? Would we have to pass a Constitutional amendment to overrule the Court and reassert that 2+2=4?”)

Protecting life and religious liberty is a very big issue in his program ; he wants to appoint conservative judges, defund PP, reinstate the Mexico City Policy. And, as I’ve said, based on his previous record I do trust Newt is both willing and capable to actually see this program through, unlike some other candidates.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

My reply had typos, so it was communicated rather poorly. First, it wasn’t aimed at you directly. But my point was that there are some in the pro-life camp for whom embryonic stem cell research (and the federal funding of it) is not a big deal. Clearly, for you, it’s not enough to cause you to not support Newt, even when there are other candidates who hold the traditional pro-life position that life begins at conceptions.

andystone

is not that I don’t care about embryonic stem cell research. Yes, such research is utterly immoral and should be stopped. I just don’t see it as the top priority when everyday the Holocaust of the unborn continues and babies close to being able to surviving on their own (or even past that point) are being killed each day. I believe immediate measures must be taken, even if they don’t go all the way to conception. In matters of life and death,95% now is much better than holding out for 100% someday. E.g. let’s say Bachmann gets elected – she would stand up for complete victory, I am sure, but a filibustering Senate would mean a long fight ahead, maybe years and additional millions of deaths. Whereas Newt has a history of actually fulfilling his promises on a reasonable time frame. If that means throwing a bone to the Blue Dogs, so be it, as long as 95% of the Holocaust is quickly stopped – and then we can still push for the remaining 5%, but without thousands dying each day!
http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

He burned a lot of bridges when he was in Congress. Tom Coburn doubled down on his criticism of Gingrich, saying:

“There
andystone

pro-life bills.
David123

I would expect Newt and all the other candidates to nominate originalist judges who would be inclined to overturn Roe v Wade.

However, Newt has a public relations vulnerability on the life issue that the other candidates don’t. Abortion would be much rarer if nobody had sex outside marriage. Abortion can provide an easy out for people who have had sex outside of marriage, and the pro-abortion people can criticize Newt if he tries to restrict abortion by saying, “How dare you punish people for having sex outside of marriage when you yourself have had sex outside of marriage.”
andystone

N/T
David123

In arguing against a Santorum proposal to restrict abortion, the left would say that he’s being a busybody.

In arguing against a Gingrich proposal to restrict abortion, the left would say that Newt is being both a busybody and a hypocrite.
http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

Or said he would try to pass a law to outlaw abortion. He’s said he thinks abortion should be illegal, but hasn’t said he’d do anything to proactive to change that (aside from nominating judges who might do the dirty work for him). Can someone correct me if I’m wrong?
wonkish1

But if you don’t watch a candidates speeches, don’t read his books, etc. I mean how would someone know.

Candidates can’t force themselves onto your computers and TVs with every one of their positions. Until the subject comes up in a debate or something your in the dark unless you go looking for yourself.

In regards to judges, Newt was the first one almost a decade ago to use a piece of history(dating back 200 years) to promote the idea of just abolishing and defunding courts that practice bad constitutional law. So he said that he would actually try to just outlaw the 9th circuit for example and then set up another one the next day. Defunding courts is apparently a check that has been granted to the legislative branch(and signed by the Pres.) to reign in the court system.

It was actually the 9th circuit decision to outlaw “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance almost a decade ago that got Newt back into politics after stepping down. So ending judicial activism is something near and dear to his heart and that extends to Roe v. Wade.
http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

Can you point to a quote in one of his books, in an interview, on his website – anywhere that he says he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned and he would work to do so?

Or even more generally, where he says he would work to make abortion illegal. Appointing judges that share his pro-life philosophy is not the same thing (recall we had that with George HW Bush).

Really, I’d be really open to hearing this. It would make me much more comfortable with him if he ends up being the nominee.
wonkish1

I just pieced together a decent amount from different speeches, interviews, etc.

He signed the pledge on the Constitutional amendment. He’s brought up different ways to make it harder to get them. Plus the judge route.

And you haven’t actually watched the Family Leader Values Debate have you? Newt mentioned one little innovative trick to work around the system on that front in that debate. I would post it, but your missing out on a very good debate so I just suggest you look it up and watch the whole thing.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

Sheesh the guy is full of himself. A full two minute robo-call. He claimed he was the only candidate who had experience in Congress. Apparently he is defining Congress to mean “the Congress when I was Speaker.”

I hung up before the real person came on the line.

lucasblack

Okay, you’re a PerryBot. I understand your attitude a lot better now.

tricianc

People can be for whomever they want. It doesn’t make them a “Bot” nor does it make them wrong.

Both Paula & I are 100% prolife and have the right…no, the DUTY to stand for the innocent. This is why we’re for Perry. Perry is is a man with a core, with principles and he is not just one to say it. He truly believes it but more importantly, doesn’t just sit on the sidelines spouting it. He fights for it. Not just on the subject of Life but in everything. He doesn’t change, nor does he pander. People may not like all he stands for but this doesn’t change nor deter him. Even if it costs him, he doesn’t sacrifice his principles. Never.

Rick Perry is 100% prolife and won’t budge on this for anyone. He is a man with conviction, a core, with principles and he is not just one to say he’s prolife. He fights for it. A fighter is exactly what the innocent need. What America needs.

Lastly,

Okay, you’re not a conservative. I understood your attitude, all along.

lucasblack

I consider both myself and Newt Gingrich to be 100% Pro-life as well. I don’t accept that our definition of where life begins is wrong, so we are just as pro-life as you.
Nor do I accept that other people get to define who is a conservative or a ‘RINO’ or not. I would argue that Newt Gingrich did more than any other person other than Ronald Reagan to tug the country to the right. The fact that Gingrich – who was considered a fringe character back in the 1980′s and early 1990′s – can now be considered by some to be a moderate – is a sign of his success.
Rick Perry led a deep red state. I feel that if he’d been the governor of a state like New Mexico or something, you would he’d had to make some compromises.

tricianc

Perry wouldn’t have compromised…PERIOD.

Rick Perry knows, there is NO compormise when it comes to life.
1bunny

Democrats consistently had a majority in the state delegation, as they had in every election since at least the end of Reconstruction. In 2002 Republicans gained control of the Texas House of Representatives for the first time since Reconstruction.

Despite increasing Republican strength in national elections, after the 1990 census, Texas Democrats still controlled both houses of the State Legislature and most statewide offices. In 1994, popular Democratic Governor Ann Richards lost her bid for re-election against Republican George W. Bush, ending a era in which Democrats controlled the governorship all but eight of the past 120 years.

Despite overall Republican dominance, however, there remain some cities and regions with strong Democratic power. Austin, the state capital, is a Democratic stronghold and a center of progressive political activism. El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley also remain loyal to the Democratic Party. In addition, the mayors of most major Texas cities, though running in “nonpartisan” races, are affiliated with the Democratic Party. Cities like Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio usually support Democrats, while their suburbs are heavily Republican. During the 2004 election, despite heavy losses in congressional races, the Texas Democrats made a net gain in the state legislature for the first time since 1974 (albeit only of a single seat).

During the 2006 election cycle, the Democrats scored major successes by winning six state House seats (five in the general election and one in an earlier special election), cutting the Republican majority in the House by half. They also gained two federal Congressional seats. The Democrats failed to win any statewide offices, however. 2008 saw further Democratic gains. Although the Republicans regained a congressional seat they had lost to the Democrats in 2006, the Democrats gained six state house seats (reducing the Republican majority there to a single seat) and one state senate seat.

The 2010 elections saw a reversal of this trend, with the Republicans taking a 101 to 49 supermajority in the State House. Republicans also captured 3 house seats, one central-Texas seat and two Hispanic-Majority seats in south Texas (one being the 23rd district lost in 2006).

Perry took office in 2000, the state Senate was republican controlled and the state House was democrat controlled and as you can see with the elections over his 11 years in office he has worked with the democrats. It may be heavy republican now but that was because of the sweep of 2010 and the TPM.

So Perry has a deep red state now but it was not so red when he took office. And the history of the state was blue and started trending red since Clinton won office. Carter won TX just to give you an idea. Clinton lost TX so that is about the time line for slowly trending red. And no he did not compromise in these years with his views on pro-life even with democrat influence. In fact look at what he has accomplished against the back drop of democrats in control of part or all of the legislature branches.

valrobex

I’ve opined elsewhere on RS that there are different types of conservatives and that some of the folks here at RS don’t see the distinctions. There are four types of Conservatism: Social Conservatism (SC), Fiscal Conservatism (FC), Defense Conservatism (DC), and Constitutional Conservatism (CC).

Here’s an admittedly over-simplified set of definitions:

The SC, among other things, favors the defense of marriage, is anti-abortion, defends Judeo-Christian ethics, etc.

The FC, among other things, champions balanced budgets, less government regulation, etc.

The DC supports strong borders, a foreign policy through strength, a strong defense, etc.

The CC wants a strict adherence to the Constitution, emphasizes states rights, and the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

All of us, including the Republican candidates, are more or less a blend of these 4 types with different emphasis on each of the four. You’re looking for a SC who aligns with your definition of when life begins. I get that.

If someone disagrees with your SC definition it doesn’t make them “not” conservative. It simply means they’re looking at the candidate through a different lens; perhaps a DC lens, or a FC lens. It doesn’t make them wrong — it just means they’re emphasizing a different aspect of conservatism.

There’s nothing wrong with Chocolate ice cream or with Vanilla ice cream. They are simply different. It doesn’t mean they are not both ice cream. (Or equally delicious… :0)

Hope this helps.

lucasblack

That’s a really great way of putting it! I would describe myself as emphasizing the FC and DC parts of that, though I agree with much of the CC and SC as well. Which is probably why I’m attracted to Gingrich as this is how I see him as well.
That’s one of the best posts I’ve seen at RedState, btw.
valrobex

Appreciate it.
David123

and can help us understand each others differences and differences in emphasis.
acat

libertarians in with the ficons (less regulation == less government) and the concons (constitution == restrictions on government)

I’m really not sure that’s accurate… otherwise, I like it.

Mew

valrobex

You’re looking for a Social Conservative who matches your ideology. And you parsed Gingrich’s answers in order to “find fault” in him.

I too, am very pro-life but consider this: What happens when a naturally conceived newly fertilized human embryo spontaneously aborts? (I am not talking about what happens via BC pills or accidents, and the like.)

In that situation, did a child just die? Or was it such that the embryo was not viable – not capable of sustaining life that would ultimately result in a child? This happens frequently through no one’s fault.

Gingrich is honest enough to admit this situation is not clear-cut.
Furthermore, Gingrich is conservative enough to question the legal line between personal freedom & responsibility and the government’s role to protect its citizens, including the unborn.

You’ve decided on an absolute definition and find fault with those of us who simply can’t answer the question unequivocally.

One thing I do know, the position you maintain would outlaw IVF even though you say otherwise. Keep in mind. there is a distinction between legal issues and moral problems and sometimes it’s difficult to determine the proper answer when they conflict.

cheetah2

No matter how early they occur. I run in staunchly pro life circles. Pro life parents who had lost children this way often do acknowledge them. If asked how many children they have, they very commonly will say they have children that are in heaven already, and then talk of their living children.

Early abortions caused by birth control pills or IUDs result in the deaths of children also.

People who are truly pro life, that is people who understand that a new and unique human being comes into existence as soon as conception occurs, have no confusion in this area.

All that these very young human beings require is shelter in the mothers womb in order to grow and develop. Nothing needs to be added to make them more human, because they are already fully human and fully alive.

valrobex

I totally agree with your example of BC pills and IUD’s. They are more abortifacts than pregnancy prevention.

My query is based more on the research that pregnancy is a very complicated process and innumerable things can go wrong naturally. If the embryo is not viable due to any of the numerous natural causes that result in a spontaneous abortion, is that the death of a child? A common sense answer, but one I’m not prepared to defend, is: “it depends on the term of the pregnancy” Frankly, I don’t know.

Now are the fertilized eggs not implanted during an IVF also children? Are they human, or simply potentially human. (I’m not going into the crap the SCOTUS used to define personhood, etc,)

If they’re children, what’s to become of them is their parents don’t want them? Should they be placed in surrogate mothers and brought to term? If so, what happens if they spontaneously abort in the surrogate mom. In that example they’re clearly dead. Were they killed, or did they simply die. Had they not been placed in a surrogate mother would they still be “alive?”

These are not simple ethical questions and it’s unlikely that we’ll find the answer in this life. What I do know is that to figure out a legal answer to these questions would be harder still. And I’m not the one to figure it out. All I can say is that I simply don’t know.
cheetah2

We can actually prove that when fertilization occurs, a new and unique human life has begun. If we just give that human life what it needs to grow and develop (which at the beginning is nothing more than a womb inside a mom), then some day it will look and act a whole lot like you and me. If it dies at any time along the way, that doesn’t make it any less of a human creature than you or me.

If we decide not to protect a human life from the point where we know for a fact that it did begin, we are just being arbitrary and making decisions based on what we hope or wish were true rather than what we can prove is true.

Viability usually means capable of surviving outside the womb. Well as we know that keeps changing. There was a time when my granddaughter who was born 4 weeks early would not have been viable. Now babies like her commonly do survive, and also ones born even earlier. That is an envelope that will keep on being pushed back, praise God!

You have used the word viable to mean when an embryonic human being is not going to die for some reason. In other words, when it is capable of growing and developing. We can’t determine at what point that has occurred either. Most of the embryos sitting around on ice will grow and develop just fine if given the opportunity.

IVF would be ok if the doctor only fertilized as many eggs as the woman was willing to have implanted all at the same time. (For any sane woman that would be one or two)

When a doctor causes a new human life to begin by fertilizing an egg and then implants it in the mother’s womb and it doesn’t live, the doctor has not caused its death. He has given it a chance to live, which is not a bad thing I guess.

Any time “extras” are done, however, huge ethical problems occur which you have already enumerated, and there always are “extras”. If we draw the line in the only logical place we can as I stated above, then these “extras” are living human creatures, and deserve the same protection as any other human creatures get.

I would suggest that we are violating the rights of those embryonic human creatures, not only if we kill them, but also if we keep them on ice for years, maybe even forever, thereby not allowing them to develop beyond the first few cells of their existence.

Going back to the question of whether Newt Gingrich is pro life or not, I would have to say that he is not. He is supposed to be a highly intelligent person. Regarding this issue either he is not using his famously big brain, or he is just fooling himself, or he is just trying to fool all of us.

I would prefer a president with perhaps not quite such a big brain who is yet capable of figuring out stuff like this and getting the answer right.

I will vote for Gingrich or Romney if I have to because they are better than the alternative, but I am not going to like it much.
lucasblack

Your position would cause the end of IVF. It’s easy to say ‘only fertilize the number of eggs you are willing to implant’. In fact, many eggs will not be successfully fertilized – especially if the egg donor is older. Eggs must be harvested on a very specific timetable – you can’t just take them out and fertilize them whenever you want. And getting the womb ready takes a number of expensive drugs.
The political effect of so limiting IVF would be devastating to the pro-life movement. Now you would see adds with people holding babies who could say, with honestly, that their child wouldn’t have been born is such laws were in place. Now all of a sudden instead of defending birth, the pro-life movement will be perceived as being against it.
Another thing about fertilized eggs is that many of them do not develop well – what should be done with those? Doctors do not want to implant such embryos because of potential problems. It’s not as cut and dried as some have suggested. IVF has all sorts of emotional ramifications for those who have fertility issues, I really don’t think anyone who as not been through it understands what a live wire they will be grabbing if they go after IVF.
cheetah2

that if it had to be done the way I said, it wouldn’t be done at all.

The fact remains that if we accept the only logical position, that all human life begins at conception and that all human life deserves protection, then IVF creates a huge problem in doing that.

Maybe like Newt says, adoption is the answer! If we had no abortion, there would be more adoptable babies available for couples who desperately want children and can’t have them.

Actually it is a bit schizophrenic when you think about it.

Some people are spending piles of money and going through all the trouble and pain and suffering involved with IVF. In the best case scenario, they see several of their own offspring destroyed or sentenced to life on ice suspended at an early stage of their development, in order to gain 1 or 2 kids that they can raise. In the worst case they gain nothing except the destroyed offspring…

Meanwhile, millions of other people are throwing their perfectly good babies away.
lucasblack

Well, I don’t accept that the only logical position is that life begins at conception. I agree with Speaker Gingrich that it begins at implantation.
Adoption is not as easy as you might think and it’s an emotional minefield. Mothers are able to chance their mind even after giving up a child for adoption and there are all sorts of other things that can go wrong. To say nothing of the fact that many people badly want their own biological child.
I can’t support any position that would outlaw IVF as it is currently practiced and would not vote for any politician who supported it in any meaningful way. I also think it would cause a huge setback for the pro-life movement (which has made great strides in recent years) in public opinion.
valrobex

I recognize maintaining that life (and therefore a human being) begins at fertilization is the ultimately safe position. But LucasB has a very valid point.

While I have not personally gone through a situation akin to what LucasB indicated above, I have a very dear friend, who he and his wife lost 11 pregnancies before finally having twins. Nine of the 11 were IVF. Their losses were destroying their marriage and even though they are dear friends I provided professional therapy to them. It was an excruciating test of faith for them both. You should now hear their testimony: Awe inspiring.

But at times they grievously struggled with what was happening to their lost embryos. Were they children? If they were, were they responsible for their deaths?
cheetah2

he didn’t say.

The situation of the couple that you counseled was pretty rough. The questions they had were legitimate ones. It reminds me of what a couple might go through if they conceived children naturally and suffered repeated miscarriages, which does happen in some cases.

They might wonder if it was wrong of them to keep trying to have children when over and over their unborn children died in the womb. Of course it isn’t wrong. They are doing their best to choose life for their children, they aren’t deliberately choosing death for them as a woman who gets an abortion is doing.

I gave my opinion about IVF and why I personally don’t like it, but the fact remains that IVF is legal and people have to make their own decision about it.

I do believe that there is a legitimate concern that the human embryos produced must not be subjected to experimentation or destruction as they are with embryonic stem cell research.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

Don’t get me wrong – if he is the nominee, I will vote for him. But at this point I still have a choice of candidates and he is currently at the bottom of my list. If you read my previous diary about him (linked above), you will see that he is only a small government Constitutional conservative when it comes to eliminate spending that he oppose’s all in.

I’m also troubled by the vast sums of money he was paid by Freddie for his work as a “history” consultant and I don’t just give him a pass on his personal indiscretions. I’m glad he has changed his ways and found Catholicism to work for him. But there are consequences when you’ve made such poor decisions in your past. One of them is that people who don’t know you personally are not going to know if they can take you at your word.

Peggy Young Nance from Concerned Women for America wrote an excellent editorial called When Picking a President, I Still Believe Character Counts. She said:

“Former President Harry S. Truman famously said,

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

For the record, I could enthusiastically vote for Bachmann, Perry, or Santorum. I will hold my nose and vote for the others.

1bunny

stayed on the line and listened to the whole thing then waited 2 minutes (yes I clocked it) for a person to come on the line to “take my donation” I was actually waiting to tell the person to take me off their call list as I am a Perry supporter and Newt is not who I believe will make a good president. After all the listening to Newt “color the truth” and the 2 minute wait I was disconnected. All I could do was laugh at the incompetency. What if I had been a supporter and they flubbed my donation? But I do regret the missed opportunity to tell them no way would Newt ever get my money.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

They would start, “Hello, this is Herman Cain. Please press 1 to continue this call.” (Something like that.) I’d press one and get disconnected. This happened 3 or 4 times. I never did get to hear his message.

tricianc

Gingrich told ABC News on Friday that he believes life begins at

1bunny

is when life begins but does not explain his previous implantation statement to ABC’s Jake Tapper. Says he has said many times throughout his career that human life begins at inception.

I guess he was releasing the implantation ballon idea to see if it would float. Went over like a lead ballon to pro-life activist so he was quick to make a step back without admitting it was a step back.

nathanalbright

….but this adds yet another damaging flip-flip, albeit one he and his fans will not admit, to his already lengthy record. Pretty soon he’s going to have to apologize to Mittens about all the flopping. If he flops too much more he’ll have to take up soccer as a sport.

tricianc

Here are examples of Gingrich

lucasblack

The Catholic Church is also 100% opposed to the death penalty and believe that the rhythm method is the only acceptable method of birth control. I think we would all agree that we would not expect Republican candidates to hold these positions.
Scope

I’m not clear on how Newt was able to become a Catholic with two divorces under his belt. I believe divorce is not accepted in the Catholic religion, unless you are qualified and go through the process of attaining an annulment of the marriage. That is not an easy process, and they are very absolute on what grounds qualify you for an annulment, and I found someone else I love more isn’t one of them.

OTOH- There are some faux Catholic organizations out there that were started and funded by George Soros and Tom Perriello. Catholics united for the Common Good I believe is one of them. Remember the Catholic sister that attended Obama’s signing ceremony for Obamacare, where she received one of the pens he used for that signing? These groups reason for existence was to tell Catholic voters that it was OK to back pro-abortion Democrats, because they had the larger picture of the Common Good at heart, so they were forgiven for the abortion stance. I can’t imagine any traditional Catholic church, other than these faux ones giving Newt a pass, and accepting him into the fold.

Newt’s immigration stance does in fact match with that of many Catholics. They believe that it is everyone’s responsibility to help feed and clothe the poor, which includes the illegal immigrants. That is exactly what they mean by the Common Good. Remember the Catholic church, in NY I believe, from a few years ago that was harboring an illegal woman and her child? She couldn’t leave the church’s property, or she would face deportation.

valrobex

to Roman Catholicism after his divorces. What you’re referring to is the Catholic church’s position after a couple is married within the Catholic church.

Gingrich is not a “faux” Catholic from anything I’ve heard him say. If anything, it appears he has embraced his faith very strongly.
acat

but cannot get married in a church.

American Catholic bishops tend to be very liberal, much more than the average Catholic voter.

Mew

westcoastpatriette

but I think certain sins allow you to be a Catholic but you are denied taking communion. Anybody out there that can clarify this?

acat

There’s church laws, and then there’s the way the American bishops work around and/or ignore them – how else does one explain that, with all the Values issues Pelosi is out of step with church law on .. she’s still a catholic in good standing? – or that Notre Dame could host a speech and grant an honorarium to “partial birth” Obama?

It’s not just that there are rules, it’s that there are competing groups selectively enforcing different sets of rules.

No, cat isn’t a catholic, but has spent quite a bit of time in the company thereof.

Mew
JSobieski

so a lot of the issues of divorce don’t apply.

Had Newt been married “in the Church” and been divorced, he would still be Catholic however, he would be expected to abstain from communion

Scope

I refuse to get into the particulars but, I sought an annulment from my first husband, whom I married as a Catholic in a catholic ceremony in a catholic church. I can promise you that it is like trying to climb Mt. Everest, with two missing legs. I was granted an annullment (sp) because I went through a few years of hoops to get there, including the ex having to testify before the Bishops. It ain’t an easy process, I promise.

Newt had in fact asked for an annullment from his second wife of 18 years Marrianne, but it appears that annulment was never granted. I don’t know if he ever tried to get an annulment from his first wife. It is a fact that if you were not married in the Catholic church, your marriage/marriages would not be recognized in the Catholic church I think, as your vows were not Catholic vows. It seems that it is the same with those that are married in civil ceremonies. I’ve looked for info. on who officiated at Newt and Callista’s marriage ceremony, but only could find that they were married at a Washington hotel, under a tent. If Newt and Callista were married by a justice of the piece for example, the marriage is not recognized by the Catholic church. In other words they are living in sin, I believe.

Someone who is strongly from the Catholic faith needs to weigh in here and explain it all. I’m surely not the one to do it. Besides, I don’t enter religious conversations if I can help it. I just tried to make a point.

circlegranch

into Newt’s faith life. It is my understanding (limited to say the least because I’m not Catholic) that Newt’s history in terms of marriage vows kept and broken, where he was married, etc., may prevent him from communing in the Catholic Church, yet I’ve heard him say he’s a communicant member. Friends that are Catholic say while he was welcomed to join the Church and take the requisite instruction for membership, Communion may be problematic. I remember some of the same discussions being held w/ regard to John Kerry and the Catholic Church and ultimately, some higher up’s in the Church went public and stated Kerry would not be able to take Communion in their churches. How this entire conversation is relevant, however, is the question in some minds that perhaps Newt’s transformation in terms of faith and commitment may be somewhat influenced by his political ambitions. Only Newt and God can answer that but when a person goes through substantial personal changes and starts taking very different positions politically and then within months announces a candidancy, its fair game that people wonder and ask questions.

I appreciate Paula’s comment below about Newt’s habit of name dropping. I didn’t notice that especially till she brought it to light but whether its answering a debate question or making a point in a speech, he does, in fact, frequently drop either a big conservative icon such as Heritage Foundation, an important conservative mind from the present or past, etc. It’s been effective thus far. It will be interesting to observe from now on how many times he laces a response with the mention of a credible person or entity in order to try and underscore his conservative credentials.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

“Gingrich answered:

tricianc

Newt Gingrich’s life long view is that he does not favor an overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Except…now, he does.

Sorry….NOT buying it. I can’t trust him. 70 years old, pro-choice with a record and actions that verify this, but now that he’s running for President….

superpatriot

As Obama was about his birth certificate and his relationship with Reverend Wright.
Please.
Every politician has not been 100% accurate.

I just want Obama outta here ASAP and I think Newt is currently the best to do it.
valrobex

age, tricianc, but I’m close to Gingrich’s age and can assure you that I don’t hold the same views I once held.

As a person matures, the positions they hold when they were 35 will likely change by the time the reach 65, particularly if that individual consistently seeks to understand the truth.

That’s one of the problems with Newt’s longevity in politics. As he has matured through the years his positions changed and some folks point fingers saying that “he’s lying” or “he’s flip flopped.” It’s quite possible that his views have simply changed.

Also remember, Gingrich converted to Roman Catholicism in the past decade and spoke on numerous occasions how it has positively affected him. He’s always been a Fiscal conservative and Defense conservative. It now looks as if he is becoming much more Socially conservative.

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

In 2007 he was advocating cap and trade for crying out loud. At what point do we stop making excuses for his youthful indiscretions?

tomatin

That’s right the whole purpose of this piece is to take as many shots at Newt as possible regardless.

greyeagle

He was pro-choice before he flip flopped and is now pro-life. Who knows his real position.

tomatin

You can’t

nathanalbright

…and I don’t want to post that loathsome link on here, 72 of his 74 votes in the house were pro-life (at least as NARAL defines ‘anti-choice’). I don’t know the other two, and I didn’t want to inquire their site further.

wonkish1

Not just ones directed at Perry.

Hell I’ve corrected a couple lies about Romney and I don’t really like the guy.

tomatin

nt. nt.

tricianc

Gingrich is for abortion

Didn’t we just have this lengthy weeks long debate when it was Herman Cain?

Prolife is prolife. There are NO exceptions. If there are, then you’re NOT prolife.
And Newt is for the 3 exceptions. He even voted for taxpayer funding of them and the stem cell research. He’s also advocated to Congress for Taxpayer funding for abortions as well as including it in Federal employee health plans. He also has stated this in interviews through the years even as late as last week. That is NOT prolife nor is it the Catholic belief. Newt switched to Catholic 2 years ago yet doesn’t espouse their values on life.

He also doesn’t believe life begins until implantation either.

acat

Pro-life, I’m told, also means opposing the death penalty.

As I believe the death penalty to be appropriate, I describe myself as anti-abortion, to avoid the confusion.

Mew
JSobieski

While a religious minister may suggest that a mother risk death so that her baby can live, no responsible policy maker would make self-defense in that instance illegal.

I never understood the logic of the incest exception. If the incest was consentual I don’t see how it is so traumatic as to justify the taking of a life. If it wasn’t consentual, then the real issue is rape.

Rape is the tough one. Could a person be so traumatized as to make continuing the pregnancy an act of torture?

Maybe, but I wouldn’t institutionalize the exception. Just as juries occationally let mothers who kill their kids walk free, juries would have that power in the future.

The bottom line is that we would all be best served classifying anyone willing to repeal Roe v Wade as pro-life. Once Roe v. Wade is overturned, the pro-life movement will splinter like nobody’s business.

Have you ever actually looked at abortion crime laws leading up to Roe? The vast majority of states treated abortion like drunk driving/involuntarily man slaughter, i.e. not murder.

I don’t think it makes sense to pick at people who purport to be pro-life so long as they want Roe overturned.

kowalski

And thank you.

JSobieski

Hope life is treating you well.
kowalski

I misled myself for a long time being “pro-choice.” That experience convinced me of several things very concretely:

1) People can talk themselves into almost anything, particularly if they have a strong internal voice that lets them convince themselves of anything.

2) If you don’t examine what you’re really advocating it makes it more inevitable you’ll make big mistakes you’ll regret.

3) People who have the right idea shouldn’t be castigated if it took them a while to come to it and particularly not if they recognize they were wrong. They’re getting there, in other words. And nobody in a free society can be forced.

Abortion as we currently have it in this country is as much a social phenomenon as it is a matter of legality and morality. I don’t think you can have a real change of public opinion on abortion without a change in the Zeitgeist, as it were — and social change takes time and effort to accomplish. It’s extremely difficult to accompish unless you are willing to do things to people that all of us would abhor – even if the underlying rationale is correct!

People are given free will, or at the very least they have free will. Many people abuse it terribly.

I’m pro-life. I profoundly disagree with abortion, particularly as it is currently practiced in the United States. That wasn’t always the case, though, and I recognize that we got to this point as a matter of social movements and those social movements are not going to reverse those views though the application of blunt force.

I have similar views on gun ownership: I believe every responsible citizen in the United States should own a firearm, and probably several firearms. Men, women, young adults – all of them should own a gun. It’s a very controversial stance in Massachusetts, and one that puts me at tremendous odds with a lot of people in the Commonwealth. But the evidence is on my side. Much of their revulsion toward what I think is perfectly sensible is a matter of misinformation and prejudice. I could go and get angry at them, yell and scream and get up in their faces, but it would be horribly counterproductive. They’re wrong, and I’m well-armed, but the worst thing I could do is anything other than try to persuade them honorably.

You won’t have real progress on abortion until you understand what makes people desparate enough to want one and try to start talking about real reasons why they shouldn’t have one, even if they’re as medically safe as lancing a boil.

Common_Cents

continuous improvement.

You don’t need to swing for the fences every time.
http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

“Have you ever actually looked at abortion crime laws leading up to Roe? The vast majority of states treated abortion like drunk driving/involuntarily man slaughter, i.e. not murder

There have been huge advances in technology since Roe. Consider that we now have 3D ultrasound that shows us exactly what those unborn children look like.In 1973 you could convince people that they were disposing of a blob of tissue. That is no longer the case. I think we can’t predict how the states might treat the offense if abortion were to become illegal. I think the doctors would be the ones targeted and I hope it would be treated as murder.

Menlo

When life begins is not a question of belief or faith and certainly not one of law. It is a scientific and indisputable definition that has been clearly established in biology for well over a century.

How, when, and whether life should be protected or treated under law is a completely separate issue, and not many people for whatever reason seem capable of doing that. I wonder if people are simply that stupid or if they simply carry such strong political views that they mindlessly spout such lies.
sunshinek67

“and his advantage among conservatives and especially tea partiers is huge.”

“You know why?

Because TPer

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

And I find that extremely frustrating. First it was Trump. People were falling all over themselves hoping he would be the “ONE” to come in and tell Obama off and push the birther distraction. Then it was Christie. Now it’s Newt. Instead of looking at who could actually take the country in the right direction, they’re looking for a mouthpiece to rip Obama to pieces in the media and in a debate.

Common_Cents

They are won with a solid knowledge of history and its lessons,
They are won with superior intellect, wit, and timing.
They are won with articulate speech.
They are won with real life experience. They are won with rigorous preparation. They are won with studying your opponents and knowing their platforms/plans.
They are won with substance.
They are won with confidence.
They are won with sincerity.
They are won by resonating with audience.
They are won with practice, honing your skill.

What part of the above isn’t really critical these days to be President?

Debates are an excellent measure of a Presidential candidate.

Debates are not something in a vacuum. They are the culmination of all the above.

Debates are the Sunday win on the field, AFTER solid practice and preparation.
bzip

Yep, that about sums it up. They have completely turn their backs on conservatism, and the direction of this country for whoever can best smack down Obama, It is becoming sickening and even embarrassing.

There are a lot of ways to smack down Obama and not just by debating. Yet we turn our back on conservative principles to possibly nominate a guy with: ethic violations, martial affairs, support of the mandate, global warming, death panels, insider lobbying, the list is endless.

It is clear the agenda by some is turn your back on conservatism for smack down debater – what an embarrassment,

http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

nt

tricianc

Gingrich reverses his position that life begins at ‘implantation’ (& other lifelong held beliefs.)

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/197179-gingrich-reverses-position-that-life-begins-at-implantation

And…if Newt believed life begins at implantation (or conception, as he does today from last week), then he’s still not prolife as he’s for the THREE exceptions. And taxpayer funded, to boot

So he’s a Catholic ( for a whole 2 years now /sarc ) and he doesn’t espouse nor fight for our beliefs? Shame on him.

cheetah2

just give him a few more days.

bzip

Kind like that global warming and mandate thing. Give Newt a few days and I am sure he will adjust his position to ensure the max votes, much like Romney.

andystone

National Right to Life Committee lifetime rating: 98.6%.
NARAL rating: 0%

Such false accusations only weaken the pro-life position by dividing us against ourselves. If you have a specific disagreement with Gingrich, be specific and don’t pretend like he’s in the same boat as Planned Parenthood.

But this is not about Gingrich’s pro-life position, is it? Judging by your other comments about your adverse reaction to a robocall and what not, this is just about your annoyance with Gingrich outstaging a candidate you prefer more. So you’re just throwing as much mud and unsubstantiated insinuation as possible, in the hope some will stick.

wonkish1

The sad part is that it should be obvious to everybody on here. Sadly it isn’t.

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Is Newt Pro-life?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL