UPDATE 12/5/11: The Gingrich Campaign responded. I’m not entirely sold on the response. Check it out.
News today that presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich believes that life begins at implantation does not come as a great surprise. Other pro-life denizens of Capitol Hill, such as Senators Connie Mack and Orin Hatch have also stated that the embryo is not human until it’s in the womb.
Having recently covered this topic on when a human life begins, I’d like to probe deeper into the thoughts of Mr. Gingrich and extend to him an invitation to a cordial dialogue on this issue.
A telling remark made by Mr. Gingrich sheds light on whence this issue arises:
“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,” he added. “Because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions.”
That last line is the key. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Speaker is guilty of the same error as our pro-choice opponents. He is defining away the human identity and status of the embryo in order to avoid wrestling with difficult questions of responsibility toward members of our species in their earliest and most vulnerable stage of existence.
Yes, by acknowledging the human identity and status of the pre-implantation embryo we find ourselves immersed in a world of searing questions that directly challenge our infatuation with the unchecked exercise of raw political power, of personal predilection without accountability.
We call into question the use of hormonal birth control measures, which carry the risk of preventing implantation.
We call into question the use of chemical abortifacients such as Ella that are marketed as contraceptives precisely because of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s change of the terms conception and pregnancy to be synonymous with implantation.
We call into question the use of IUD’s, which prevent implantation.
We call into question the tearing apart of embryonic humans for medical experimentation.
We call into question the inhumanity of freezing hundreds of thousands of embryonic humans in liquid nitrogen, treating them as property and not as persons.
One of the many impressive qualities of Mr. Gingrich is that he brings his Ph.D. in history to the table when he debates and puts forth a vision of this nation’s future. It is specifically to the latter point made that he must turn his attention, that of treating pre-implantation embryonic humans as mere property (especially to avoid the difficult questions that acknowledging their humanity presents).
We have been down this road before.
Because our Founders failed to root out slavery from the outset, the nation was riven for over eighty years by the Faustian bargain made in the beginning. The malevolence came to its full-flower with the Dred Scott decision, which entirely stripped African Americans of their personhood identity. What to do with freed slaves was a burning issue in its day. How would they, or could they integrate into the broader society as free persons?
We suffered that evil as a people for as long as that evil was sufferable. In the end, the civil war that everyone feared came anyway, and it laid waste the nation, North and South, with over 600,000 men dead, and millions grievously wounded.
The same is happening today, with the exception that the civil war we are in has been, with rare exception, a bloodless war. However, it has poisoned our body politic, and brought this nation to its knees politically. The one who would be President of the United States cannot seek refuge from the political storm by engaging in deft verbal engineering. It didn’t work with slavery and personhood, and it won’t work here either.
Mr. Gingrich has given voice to a very consequential idea, that a broad spectrum of difficult questions might have to be answered if we deal in the truth of science, and in the truth of human anthropology witnessed to, not only by the Declaration of Independence, but by his newly-adopted Catholic faith. It will mean dealing with the rampant narcissism and hedonism that have swamped the nation he would lead.
So consequential is this idea, that it has profound implications for conscience protections for healthcare professionals as well as the rights of the Catholic Church and its related agencies to refuse mandatory coverage of contraception, most of which is abortifacient in nature, though not under Mr. Gingrich’s nomenclatural accommodation.
It would mean declaring that sex and reproduction have consequences, and that embryonic human beings have moral claims on us as individuals, and as a nation. Such moral claims would mean people reassessing their recreational use of sex, and their utilitarian use of in vitro fertilization.
These are serious problems in the life of this nation, and as the Speaker knows all too well from our experience of slavery, we won’t solve them by attempting to define the victims away.
VERY well put. It’s disappointing – Gingrich is usually much more astute than that. I pray he accepts your challenge to a discussion!
A couple all dressed up and on their way down the aisle of the church are not married yet; yet for all intents and purposes, people treat them as such.\
The egg and sperm are joined. The new baby has already begun to divide, has it not? I am not really clear on that point. I think divisions must already be taking place. Surely the egg does not have to wait for implantation to be dividing. The sperm triggered this division.
Dr., perhaps you can clear this up for the sake of this discussion.
Patricia in St. Louis, MO
Glad to, Patricia.
Once fertilized, it is no longer an egg. Our sloppy language of “fertilized eggs” masks the nature of the new human being. At the moment of fertilization the egg ceases being an egg and becomes an embryo in the single-celled (zygotic) stage. Divisions rapidly ensue.
The egg is typically fertilized high up in the Fallopian tubes and takes anywhere from 6-12 days to traverse to the uterus where it implants.
For a great series of small video clips, click here for the Endowment for Human Development.
Click on each thumbnail photo for a brief tutorial and animation. This starts at fertilization and goes to delivery.
I like Gingrich. I think he needs a break here. After all he is newly Catholic. He is by far , in my opinion, better than any Candidate. And any Candidate is way better than Obama. I believe Newt just needs to read up or meditate on Catholic teaching for a while. Look were he came from and look where he is now. He and his wife Calista produced and made a wonderful movie, 9 Days that Changed the World. He filled out the National Right to Life Form just today. He answered yes to every question.
http://www.newt.org/news/gingrich-fills-out-national-right-life-committee-candidate-questionnaire
If a president gets in that is as much pro-life as he is, it will be the most pro-life president the United States ever had, since Roe v. Wade, I understand your point Gerard but I would give Newt a break.
Here is a link to a statement where he said, just a few weeks ago Personhood begins at conception.
Excellent examination. Here are my comments on the situation.
http://jakubczykonlife.blogspot.com/
Well said, Doctor. Keep up your good work.
What makes this author believe that Newt is wise? And is any different in his narcissism and hedonism that any others in this culture? Consider these facts: this issue has been around and debated long before Newt became a Catholic thus he obviously knows the Church position on Life as did Sen. Kennedy. It seems he has “in conscience” chosen to pick and choose for political reasons. It’s been said that he is not and never has been a conservative. Many of his statements past and present prove the case.
His own personal and political life speak volumes re narcissism and hedonism.
Just because he is now Catholic doesn’t mean he is totally changed on everything. Consider Pelosi and Kennedy. Sadly, being Catholic doesn’t necessary mean one is cognizant of or obedient to the Magisterial teachings of the Church.
Excellent analysis. It looks like he may have misspoken or misunderstood the science of what he said at the time. Here is a clarification from Newt Gingrich – http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=23718
[…] Which prompted this reply from me: Click Here. […]
Thank you Teresa. If anyone stands a chance in defeating Obama, I believe Gingrich is the one. All the other candidates are better than what we have now. Our country must move foward to a prolife stance and I believe Gingrich will accomplish this.
Sam, there is a difference between Kennedy, Pelosi and Gingrich. The former are cradle Catholics, and Gingrich is newly Catholic. One does not become Catholic, from Protestantism, in todays world, without the movement of the Holy Spirit. Newly Baptised converted Catholics are usually more on fire for the Truth than luke warm, cradle Catholics. I’m sure St. Augustine, St Francis of Assisi, and St Anthony all lived the same hedonistic life that Gingrich once lived.
As I thought, Gingrich was somehow confused in what he said on ABC News. Calista, Gingrich’s wife must have jumped out of her skin when she heard Newt say the word “implantation”. Though I would agree Sam, that, for as long as the debate of “when does life begin” has been around one would think Gingrich would have it figured out by now. I agree with Teresa, Gingrich must have been tired or somehow confused.
Dawn said in a comment a few ones before this one of mine:
If a president gets in that is as much pro-life as he is, it will be the most pro-life president the United States ever had, since Roe v. Wade, I understand your point Gerard but I would give Newt a break.
Here is a link to a statement where he said, just a few weeks ago Personhood begins at conception.
And I went to this website. It is a stunning statement on the law he proposes to cut through the horror of abortion….that life begins at conception. When I heard this video, I pictured Giingrich as one of our Founding Fathers, astute and decisive and not waivering…….I hope he continues to run as a Presidential candidate.
Patricia in St. Louis, MO
Patricia,
I want Newt to take a stand and tell us if he acceppts the definition of conception as uniting of egg and sperm, or if he has bought into the definition of conception as being the completion of implantation.
To say that he believes life begins at conception does not mean anything unless we understand which definition of conception he’s using.
I think Newt Gingrich took that stand when he made this statement just two days ago, 12/3/2011 :
“As I have also made clear in several of my public pronouncements throughout this campaign, I oppose federal funding of any research that destroys a human embryo because we are also dealing here with human life.”
http://www.newt.org/news/gingrich-statement-regarding-his-belief-sanctity-all-human-life
Human embryos involved in research were never implanted, since they were created through IVF and Newt is vowing to protect them, and considers them human life.
Gingrich is way too smart to have inadvertently missed this very essential fact of life. Thank you for jumping on this.