Full disclosure: I have very little respect for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as a political or moral leader. Well, that’s not quite right. Actually, I have none.
Small case in point: Gingrich has claimed that human life only begins at “implantation,” and yet for some reason opposes embryonic stem cell research. From the ABC story:
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.
But you can’t just change the science to avoid the “difficult questions.” In fact, leaders are supposed to lead on difficult questions. That’s why they are called leaders.
Gingrich is wrong coming and going. First, let’s look at the accurate science from an embryology textbook. From my book, Consumer’s Guide to a Brave New World (citations omitted:)
If we want to learn the unvarnished scientific truth about whether an early embryo—wherever situated—is really a form of human life, we need only turn to apolitical medical and embryology textbooks. For example, the authors of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th Ed.) assert: “Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte is fertilized by a sperm…” The fertilized egg is known as a zygote, which “is the beginning of a new human being…” More to the point, the authors write: “Human development begins at fertilization” with the joining of egg and sperm, which “form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized…cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
But Gingrich doesn’t “believe” that. Yet, he still tells Tapper that he opposes embryonic stem cell research:
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.
True, but that makes no sense–none–if “life” doesn’t begin until implantation, since ESCR begins with the destruction of a non implanted embryo. One can say that life does not matter morally until implantation. But that is not the same thing as saying that it doesn’t “begin” until then.
We can’t have a rational ethical and moral discourse unless we get our definitions correct. Moreover, moral assertions have to be based on something other than political expediency. Newt, the teacher, gets an F in both science and ethics. First, he calls human life, non life, and secondly, he doesn’t explain why opposes the destruction of–from his definition, non life–or how destroying it constitutes dehumanizing instrumental use.
December 3rd, 2011 | 7:02 pm
This is also odd considering that, from what I’ve read, Gingrich is a convert to the Catholic Church, which asserts that life begins at conception.
December 3rd, 2011 | 9:52 pm
And, am I the one mistaken, but was that a rather embarrassing flub on getting “embryonic” stem cells from placental blood? Surely they would be differentiated by then, not pluripotent? I know that’s a small thing, but still… He sounds ignorant.
Don Nelson Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 1:09 am
@Lydia, I thought the same. Either he’s ignorant on this a little/lot or he speaks on so many issues that he blew it, like Obama talking about the 57 states of America. I think he’s showing some ignorance.
December 3rd, 2011 | 10:48 pm
There’s another consideration in the argument that life begins before implantation. And that is that it is not the zygote, or “fertilized egg”, or one-cell entity which implants. In actual fact, in the 7-10 or so days between conception and implantation, the new person is developing continuously, through cell division. The one cell becomes two, becomes 4, becomes 8, etc., with cell division happening, so I’ve read, on the average every 16 hours.
Thus it is a developing human embryo, which started life several days prior, near the open end of the fallopian tube, which finally arrives in the uterus and implants in the endometrial lining.
Newt is right about one thing–recognizing the truth about the beginning of life will cause lots of problems. But they are problems which must be faced, and which this culture is tardy in facing. One such problem is the third mode of action of the Pill–that of changing the endometrial lining, making it inadequate to sustain life, thus working some of the time as an abortion agent rather than a contraceptive.
December 3rd, 2011 | 11:03 pm
So? What other option do you have? Vote for Obama?
December 3rd, 2011 | 11:12 pm
Lydia is right, you can’t get totipotent cells from a placenta (unless theoretically it is induced). You can likely get pluripotent and multipotent cells from a placenta, which are more useful, and hence should receive more funding over embryonic research. By now too many have placed their bets on embryonic (totipotent) and are losing, and they are not going to concede a loss. But I do not think Newt will be embarrassed. As long as a politician extols stems cells and “Science”, the media will admire them. One could say we needs to euthanise 3 year old Down’s Syndrome boys to get their stem cells to SAVE LIVES and CURE ALZHEIMER’S and many would believe it.
Are there any presidential politicians who are not ignorant of the issue?
Lydia Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
@TXW, and even–can you “get” pluripotent cells from placenta only by reprogramming them, just as you would with adult cells? Are there even any naturally occurring pluripotent cells in placental blood? I had thought not but haven’t researched it.
TXW Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
@Lydia, No, you do not have to necessarily “reprogram” placental cells (i.e., cord blood) for pluripotency. The placental is an excellent source of pluripotent cells, and they seem to work better in some cases than bone marrow transplants, which have been used since the 1950′s for pluripotent stem cells, in the treatment of blood disorders.
December 4th, 2011 | 1:30 am
Newt should know better. If he’s going to say he’s a Catholic convert and speak like he’s some sort of human encyclopedia, he should know better than to say that human life begins at implantation.
Is SHS on the Romney train with the good story about Romney and the negative one about Newt? Both are true stories. Just wondering. Either way pro-lifers win.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 10:18 am
SHS doesn’t endorse. SHS calls them as SHS sees them.
Don Nelson Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 11:34 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Newt is calling it a different way today http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/05/gingrich-restates-pro-life-views-says-life-begins-at-conception/
December 4th, 2011 | 2:54 am
When does human life begin? This depends, obviously, on what one means by “human life”. We all know that the zygote is alive – in precisely the same sense that the sperm and egg cells which formed it are alive. The zygote, however, usually has a full complement of human DNA and is hence, in most cases, at least theoretically capable of developing into a thinking, feeling being (the sort of creature to whom we traditionally ascribe “human rights”). In the purely biological sense, it is incontrovertible that “human life” either begins (or is already in existence at) conception.
The biological facts, at least in that respect, are clear. But that is where the clarity ends. Those who ask when “human life” begins (especially in the context of the abortion debate) are not asking this utterly trivial scientific question (which any child is capable of answering correctly). Rather, theirs is a query about what counts as ethically relevant “humanity”. When may an organism with human DNA be considered a member of the human community? This is not an issue which may be resolved by referring to embryology textbooks – unless of course we have already determined beforehand that certain biological traits are either sufficient or necessary to make determinations of this sort.
Consider the alternative question: When does human life end? Most of us would be quite willing to accept that a man may be said to be “dead” when his brain activity irreversibly ceases. His heart may still be beating, his body cells may still be metabolically active – but we accept that the human person is, from an ethical and legal perspective, no longer in existence. If human life ceases when a certain kind of neural activity ends, does it not make sense to say that it begins when this activity commences? Once again we must realise that we are using the term “human life” not in the strict biological sense but rather to refer to an individual’s membership in the human community or participation in the human condition.
Or think about identical twins. Most monozygotic twins result from a blastocyst splitting a few days after conception. Does one “human person” split into two? When two blastocysts fuse to form a human chimera, does this result in the tragic extinction of one human life or simply in the eventual development of one “person” with two different cell lines?
A major problem here is that many of us confuse purely biological categories with metaphysical ones. An embryo with a full complement of human DNA is, biologically, a member of Homo sapiens so some feel that we ought to apply all our ethical ideas about the treatment of humans to it. This is, of course, nonsense. When the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”, they did not mean every organism containing human DNA and it is difficult to argue that they ought to have. Genetic humanity may be legally relevant but it is not, in and of itself, of ethically significance, though the traits traditionally possessed by genetic humans are. Admittedly, the human embryo is, because of what it is capable of becoming, a profoundly significant organism – and it has, by virtue of this potential, an ethical status not possessed by liver cells, chicken eggs or rocks. But we do not (and ought not to) ascribe the same moral status to it as we do to a 24 week old fetus, a newborn infant, or a human adult.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 10:17 am
No, the zygote is not alive in the same sense as the sperm and oocyte. It is alive as in the sense of a full and complete individual organism, not the part of an organism. Basic embryology. Gametes are not organisms. Zygotes are.
David Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:20 am
@Wesley J. Smith, it is incorrect to state “gametes are not organisms”. Some gametes are organisms. It’s called parthenogensis in animals and apomixis in plants – and it’s way cool when it happens in Nature. Even eutherians have been documented to produce parthenotes.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v11/n2/abs/ng1095-164.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/suppl.1/11911.long
Therefore, you need to re-think your definitions as they are not hard-and-fast.
I’m reminded of Robert George, the lawyer who amusingly tried to play biologist on the President’s Council of Bioethics. He wrote that “The difference between human gametes and a human being is a difference in kind, not a difference in stage of development.” Apparently George was never taught in law school that in biology there is no such formal thing as a “kind”. “Kind” is not a recognized taxonomic classification. Hilarious. No wonder scientists tune him out.
If you lawyers want to change biology so much, why haven’t you gone into science?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:21 am
We were clearly talking human. Stop being such a parser. A sperm and an ovum are cells. A human zygote is an organism. If you disagree, write an embryology textbook and see if it gets published. And a human gamete and a human zygote ARE different in KIND and not degree. That is a distinction often made in philosophical discussions. No wonder “scientists” make such a botch of ethical discourse, particularly those who call science a philosophy.
By the way, one way to thwart moral discourse is to prevent any term from being defined or any common frame of reference reached. I note many pro ESCR/Cloning politicized “scientists” engage that tactic.
TXW Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
@David, Wesley’s normal definitions of gametes still stand even with chimerism:
“However, chimeras of parthenogenetic cells coupled with biparentally derived embryonic tissues have generated apparently normal offspring, and the parthenogenetic origin of several tissues has been confirmed in such chimeric animals”. The gamete no longer exists when these experiments are performed (in vitro), hence the KIND has changed (KIND as a philosophical term, not a simple biotaxonomic term). Gametes are not organisms, and the articles cited corroborate that. It wasn’t gametes that grew, but a coupling/tinkering of gametes into something else. But of course “gamete” could be conveniently redefined. Perhaps in Philip K. Dick or Ursula LeGuin novel we can have humans with natural apomixis or parthenogenesis, but the method of genesis doesn’t change the status of personhood. Natural law on different planets would still determine who is a person. Except on David’s planet.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
“No, the zygote is not alive in the same sense as the sperm and oocyte. It is alive as in the sense of a full and complete individual organism, not the part of an organism.”
You misunderstand me. A zygote may be “a full and complete individual organism”, but its “life” is precisely the same sort of property that a spermatozoon, egg cell, or amoeba possesses (unless you happen to believe that it is imbued with an immaterial “soul”). A new single-celled organism emerges during the fertilisation process but there is no injection of new “life”, apart from in the metaphorical sense. All metabolically active cells are “alive” and this activity is passed from parent to daughter cells and from gametes to embryos in a biochemical torch relay stretching back billions of years.
Contrast this with the rather different sense in which an adult human is “alive”. A man may still be considered living even if most of his body’s cells are dead. He may be declared “dead” even while his heart still beats. We may speak of him having (or not having) “a life” in a way that we simply can not about zygotes – and we can at least conceive of him living beyond his death in an imaginary afterlife. Ethically significant “human life” has a biological substrate but it is not synonymous with “metabolic activity in human cells”.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
I disagree. A sperm or any cell is what it shall always be, a type of cell. On contrast, the zygote already possesses all the peoperties to develop into the mature organism. Indeedn we are both the same organisms we were when we existed as a single celled entity. Souls are unnecessary. Rrspectfully, your assertion seems absurdly reductionistic. I am speaking biologically. Afterlives are irrelevant.
pentamom Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
@Raven Chukwu, Yes, it is the same kind of “life” that an amoeba possesses (not a spermatozoon or ovum, as Wesley explains.)
But it is that kind of “life” within the human species, not the amoeba species. And individual members of the human species should be granted human rights, without distinction. To do otherwise is to open the door to — in fact actually to have already walked through the door of — declaring some humans less human than others.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 10:24 am
@pentamom, Amoebae and sperm cells are different kinds of entities but they are “alive” in exactly the same way (i.e. they are metabolically active cells). The “life” of a single-celled organism is not a different substance from the life of a single cell within a multicellular organism. There is no substance to life at all.
Individual members of the human species should be granted human rights but only if those specific rights are appropriate to their stage of development. A five year old may not exercise a right to personal liberty by refusing to live with his or her parents. An eight year old’s desire to join a Satanist cult is not protected by any rights to religious expression. Children do not have a right to freely choose sexual partners, drink alcohol, or vote. We discriminate all the time because we intuitively recognise that each “human right” applies only to those who possess certain qualities or traits which enable them to exercise it meaningfully. We label rights “universal” not because we expect each member of the species to exercise them without hindrance at each stage of their lives but because we ascribe these rights and liberties without reference to irrelevant traits such as gender, race or religious affiliation. The rights ascribed to a child are less extensive than the rights ascribed to a mentally competent adult – but all children have equal rights regardless of gender or race.
A human embryo is at a stage of development at which it is meaningless to speak of its having a right to life. This applies to all embryos regardless of their (or their parents’) race or religion. It would have applied to me when I was in utero. Just as I had no right to vote when I was sixteen, and no right to choose a religion of my own when I was six, I had no right to life when I was a day-old embryo. Psychologically there was no “I” to speak of at the time. There was no one to take a life from.
Let’s be clear here: I’m not saying that we should necessarily encourage or be comfortable with the instrumental use or casual treatment of fetal and embryonic humans. Far from it. My point is that these scruples ought to be based not on the supposed “moral worth” of embryos but on the wider societal consequences of the actions taken.
Charles Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
@Raven Chukwu, Centuries ago the Church refused to consider what science said and held dear to teachings to retain some power and influence over people’s spiritual and social lives. And those that claim to be heirs of the movement that challenged the Church now claim for itself the power and influence over human life by refusing to consider what science says. Full circle indeed.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
@Dear Charles,
What does “science” say?
Science tells me that though the human zygote has the same sort of DNA found in both of us, it possesses no neural tissue, has never had a single thought and is incapable of experiencing anything at all.
I consider the latter facts of greater ethical relevance than the former. Care to tell me why you disagree?
TXW Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
@Raven Chukwu, When you are sleeping are you incapable of experiencing anything at all, or are dreams experiences, and how does Science decide? Why is neural tissue the distinction of relevance, of all the types of tissue? I think lymph tissue has greater relevance, but does Science tell me why I should think so? Do newborns have “thoughts”? How does Science measure a “thought”?
Raven: “A new single-celled organism emerges during the fertilisation process but there is no injection of new “life”, apart from in the metaphorical sense.”
And yes, some thought quite metaphorically, Jews were multiple celled organisms that emerged and will never be injected with “life”. Or, more specifically, as Raven used the term, “ethically significant” life. Lots of people have decided over the centuries, in a torch relay of sorts, who is ethically significant and who is not. This time around it is a human that happens to exist unattached to the uterus, she is not in the right place to be ethically significant. Attachment (not presence of neural tissue, not thoughts, not experience) magically equals significance. It is a location, perhaps the silliest of all criteria for killing.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 4:32 am
@TXW,
There is no way to avoid decisions about “ethical significance”. You feel that it is important to determine what sort of DNA an organism’s cells carry (i.e. which species it belongs to) while I feel that we ought to find out if the organism is capable of having experiences (regardless of its species membership). In both cases, decisions are made about moral status and the grounds for ethical consideration. The difference lies in the criteria utilised.
Why is neural tissue relevant? Refer to my earlier comments about brain death. If an adult’s lymphatic system shuts down permanently he is not necessarily dead. If the same fate befalls his nervous system, he is.
Do newborns have conscious experiences? Probably. They are certainly neurologically equipped to have them – which is more than one can say for the embryo. Regardless, our protection of infants (or fetuses or rainforests) is not based solely on their moral status. We all are enmeshed in a wider network of societal obligations and relationships and must give thought to wider consequences of encouraging or discouraging certain courses of action.
Why is it important to consider conscious experience in the first place? Because conscious beings are the only ones capable of experiencing benefits and harms. None of history’s great atrocities would have been carried out if this principle had been adhered to. Racist or genocidal murderers may convince themselves that their victims are of a different “kind” and hence unworthy of consideration – but no Nazi would have doubted a Jew’s ability to experience suffering.
December 4th, 2011 | 7:13 am
No, voting for Obama is not an option. Any question we have about consistency or pro-life sincerity with any of the Republican candidates can’t compare with Obama’s headlong and determined anti-life stance.
To say nothing of Obama’s toxic policies on economics, foreign policy, etc etc.
The article and the comments are to extend the dialog on these issues and, if you will, better prepare the candidates for the final showdown and for governing in a principled and consistent manner.
December 4th, 2011 | 10:27 am
1. There is an explanation for this. Newt Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism in recent years – after some 60 years he’s apparently discovered it – is simply taking an old position of the Catholic church. He actually was a historian, so he takes the historic approach, naturally. The Catholic church formally accepts the fact of evolution, so we know things changing over time is not a problem within Catholicism. Centuries ago, the Catholic church – always the scientific virtuoso (just ask Galileo) – claimed human life began at the quickening. This was later changed to endometriosis. This has subsequently been changed to conception. Newt is relatively new to Catholicism; we can’t expect a former lobbyist to be an expert on all things, can we?
On second thought, Newt is probably just opening up a way to accept ESC research, to set himself up in opposition to other candidates in an effort to attract independents (not moderates, though, as moderates are usually too bright for his nonsense)
2. I’m glad the scientific experts of this blog, who seem to think the religious belief of intelligent design can be investigated by science, have given Newt an “F”. I’ve never seen scientific errors on this blog.
3. No significant number of voters care about ESC research this presidential election. It’s essentially a non-issue.
I’m really going to miss this election once these intellectual misfits fade away. I’m loving every minute of it, as I knew I would.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Given that you once called science a philosophy, David, you have no business looking down your nose on anyone.
David Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:22 am
@Wesley J. Smith, I take no orders from you, Smith. I will do as I please.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Actually, you don’t. Not here. You will stay within the parameters I have established, or you will not be posted. Which you generally do. But you don’t do as you please. You do as I please.
December 4th, 2011 | 10:55 am
[...] Continue… 0 [...]
December 4th, 2011 | 12:59 pm
I see your point, Wesley, and I am not expressing support for Gingrich, however, I think I can kind of see where he is coming from, though he did not express it well. I believe that life begins at conception. However, I believe that my responsibility to that life begins after it has implanted and after I become aware of it. (Or, I suppose, have a strong suspicion of it.) Ie, what I mean is that if I were raped or for whatever other reason needed an emergency method to prevent pregnancy, I would use the morning after pill. I realize that it’s possible that using this method could prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo, but my purpose in taking it would be to prevent ovulation altogether. IMO, it is not my responsibility to make my womb a hospital environment for the implantation of an embryo. The fact that it’s fertilized and that it could implant is not, IMO, reason enough to risk a nine month pregnancy. In contrast, if something happened and I later realized that I was pregnant, I would not have an abortion, because I would be aware of the new life growing inside of me. I may not like it, but I wouldn’t kill it.
Similarly, those who do embryonic stem cell research know full well that they are messing with an individual human organism, yet they do it anyway because they do not value that life.
So, IMO, the big flaw in Newt’s argument is his assertion that life begins at implantation. It would have been more accurate for him to say that moral responsibility to the zygote begins after implantation.
December 4th, 2011 | 4:02 pm
As an expert in nothing, I give my thoughts. Gingrich is purposefully obscuring through explaining. Does life begin at conception, ie. are unimplanted embryos alive with human life? NO, says Gingrich. Does the label “embryo” apply to the organism before and after implantion? Yes, says the dictionary. If Gingrich has “never been for embryonic stem cell research per se,” then I think the key to understanding Gingrich’s statement is his use of “per se.” He is not for ESC reasearch, intrinsically (per se)—at any time that the word embrionic applies, for that would mean he is always for it. He is clearly not for it after implantation. Rather, he is only for it sometimes: before implantation. At that time the word ‘embryo’ applies, but life is not yet realized. Never mind his confusion about how and when ESC research is done; that may just be smoke. His governing principle is that ESC is good “if you can get it [stem cells] in ways that do not involve the loss of a life.” He has already defined life out of unimplanted embryos. I don’t know if we, the non-experts, generally know either Latin or science well enough to smell a rat.
December 4th, 2011 | 7:43 pm
Wesley Smith, your post is an excellent example of why I can not trust Newt: he can’t shut up. He seems compelled to discourse on everything even when he has not bothered to think it through. What some see as strength is in fact a serious fault.
December 5th, 2011 | 11:33 am
Newt has come out and stated he believes life begins at conception. He says he’s said it repeatedly. But then why say it begins at implantation, successful implantation. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/05/gingrich-restates-pro-life-views-says-life-begins-at-conception/ The campaign is long. That probably explains Obama’s 57 states of America.
This shows why special interest groups are so important. They keep the discussion on track and the candidates accountable for their wayward comments.
December 5th, 2011 | 2:57 pm
Speaking directly about human beings and not about species that may reproduce asexually, the human blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus is not merely “alive” but also a human being. Plenty of people, including the very patient and eloquent Robert George, have explained this, even if there are those [ahem] who fail to grasp the point.
December 5th, 2011 | 9:28 pm
I can’t really say that I understand much of this science topic but I would like to complement Don Nelson for indirectly trying to defend this Gin rich while not offending my friend Wesley cause we so called christians certainly don’t want to eloin possible future political al lies who could help the unborn aliens!
Just sinner vic’s Canadian 2 cents worth! :)
Peace
January 24th, 2012 | 2:26 pm
[...] don’t know how I missed this interview last December, but Wesley Smith highlighted it today at First Things. In an interview with Jake Tapper of ABC News, Speaker [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact