As a Catholic one of the most annoying things is to hear what some Catholic politicians has to say on the subject of life or many other moral questions. On both sides of the political divide they almost always induce a cringe for faithful Catholics. The occasion of a Catholic politician saying something totally in conformity with the faith and being able to correctly nuance more difficult questions is a rare event. When it comes to Catholics running for president that rarity becomes nonexistent.
So am I talking about a new brain-numbing dump reply by Nancy Pelos? Nope this time it’s Newt Gingrich.
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.
Another case of nuancing yourself into stupidity. Life at implantation is the ideological position purposely created to confuse people. It is not science, but ideology. There is no special magic that happens when an embryo implants. At fertilization a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. Implantation does not change or add to the human organism already in development.
So has Gingrich flip-flopped on this? No he has been consistently stupid as he said back in 2001 “I have a 100 percent pro-life voting record, but I’ve always drawn a distinction at 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
But dehumanizing the not yet implanted is not dangerous? Plus whenever a politician adds the words “per se” you know they are lying. He did support distruction of embryos for research from fertility clinics. He also said in 2001:
But for many of us, there’s a very, very real distinction between doing something with an unborn child, a fetus that is implanted, and doing something with cells in a fertility clinic that are otherwise going to be destroyed.
So Newt Gingrich’s conversion for the Catholic Church has not affected his stance and just made him more of a hypocrite. He has touted his conversion to the Catholic Faith and produced a movie on Blessed John Paul II’s role in the overthrow of Communism. He just might want to pick up his Catechism.
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Matthew at Creative Minority Report writes: “I don’t see how I could possibly look past this. Newt should remember a candidate isn’t really a nominee until he implants.”