Replies

Even the most common IUD’s are generally not regarded as abortifacients by the medical community.

IUDs are purely abortifacient.

The medical community has conveniently re-defined conception from the traditional "fertilization of an egg by a sperm" to "implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall."

Therefore, they (think they can) say with a straight face that the Pill and the IUD and morning after pills are not "abortifacient" because by their definition "conception" has not yet occurred.

Medical dictionaries redefine "CONCEPTION" to obscure the TRUTH regarding contraceptive technologies
by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

The redifining of "conception" by medicine in new medical dictionaries: Verbal engineering always preceeds social (and medical)engineering

There are several major print medical dictionaries, and several online versions. Apparently, under pressure from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), many of them have changed the defintion of "conception" in the last few years, proving once again that verbal engineering always preceeds social (and medical) engineering.

Here is Tabor's Medical Dictionary's entry:

conception (kSn-s&pÂ´shTn)
1. The mental process of forming an idea. 2. The onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall. SEE: contraception; fertilization; implantation.
Copyright 2001 by F. A. Davis Company

Here is the entry from "On-line Medical Dictionary":

conception
The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst, the formation of a viable zygote. Origin: L. Conceptio

However, Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary sits on the fence:

Main Entry: conÂ·cepÂ·tion
Pronunciation: k&n-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both b : EMBRYO, : FETUS 2 a : the capacity, function, or process of forming or understanding ideas or abstractions or their symbols b : a general idea

Yet the good old "The American HeritageÂ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition," Copyright Â© 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, is much more straightforward:

conÂ·cepÂ·tion (kn-spshn)
n.
Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote. The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions. Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought. See Synonyms at idea. Archaic. A beginning; a start. [Middle English concepcioun, from Old French conception, from Latin concepti, conceptin-, from conceptus. See concept.]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Â© 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc., does not mince words either:

conception \Con*cep"tion\, n. [F. conception, L. conceptio, fr. concipere to conceive. See Conceive.] 1. The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life.[remaider of definitions deleted]

WordNet Â® 1.6, Â© 1997 Princeton University puts it succinctly:

conception n 1: an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances [syn: concept, construct] [ant: misconception] 2: the act of becoming pregnant; fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon 3: the event that occured at the beginning of something; "from its creation the plan was doomed to failure" [syn: creation] 4: the creation of something in the mind [syn: invention, innovation, excogitation, design]

I wonder how these medical dictionaries define a tubal pregnancy, if "conception" does not occur till after implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall?

I wonder why the "medical" definition of "conception" has been quietly changed?

No need to wonder, really. All the latest contraceptive technologies target the baby at its most vulnerable point, i.e., before implantation but after conception (as traditionally defined.)

If "conception" is not redefined, medicine must admit that these new technologies are indeed abortifacient. Then comes the whole problem of informed consent, conscience clauses, and a refocus of pro-life activity exactly where medicine does NOT want it: At that distinct line between conception and implantation, a line already crossed by hormonal contraception, the morning after pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, IUD's, cloning, stem cell research, and many other emerging technologies.

Here lies the future of the pro-life battle, or its failure, if none show up to do battle.

Doc,

I have been away from FR for a couple of weeks, but have been following the contraception issue closely. Advocates for Obama’s position keep claiming that this is not an issue of religious freedom but either one of women’s health or employment equality. I disregard the women’s health angle as a Catholic, but accept that it will have some traction politically. However, advocates for the Church should be attacking the employment aspect because the Church is in the healthcare and education businesses strictly for ministry (i.e. religious) purposes, and never to make money. A Catholic hospital is a means to help those in need. Period. I have not seen this point discussed enough on TV, radio and in the papers, and I was wondering if people were getting to it here on FR.

Thanks,
P9