Medical dictionaries redefine "CONCEPTION" to obscure the TRUTH regarding contraceptive technologies

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.

conception (kSn-s&p´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

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

Main Entry: con·cep·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

con·cep·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.]

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]

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?

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.

AMA Votes Against Letting Women Know "The Pill" Is Abortifacient

WASHINGTON, DC, Dec 10, 01 (LSN.ca/CWNews.com) - The American Medical Association last week voted overwhelmingly against a proposal to inform women about the potential for birth control pills to cause the abortion of an embryo by preventing implantation in the uterus.

Cybercast News Service reports that Dr. John C. Nelson, a member of the AMA's executive committee and a self-described conservative, said the Alabama doctor who put forward the proposal before the AMA "believes that in the spirit of enhancing the patient/physician relationship, that information ought to be disclosed to patients to help them make choices." Nelson said, "I couldn't agree more. That's exactly what the AMA is about. It's a cornerstone of American medicine."

However, according to Nelson, the proposal was voted down because "many people from the American Society of Reproductive Medicine... decided that they would testify, and their testimony was that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to suggest" that birth control substances can induce abortions. Walter Weber, senior litigation counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a Virginia-based public interest law firm, reacted to the vote saying, "If [pro-life women] are using a method that can operate after fertilization as well as before fertilization, and they don't know it, they are basically being deceived by lack of information into violating their own consciences."

The Family Research Council (FRC) condemned the attempt to conceal the truth from women. FRC Advisory Board Member John Diggs, MD, said Friday, "The AMA is doing a great disservice to women by refusing to fully inform them of their birth control options. Since informed consent is a basic medical ethic, it should be standard operating procedure to tell women that the birth control pill can cause an abortion. Each woman has the right to know what's good for her health and acceptable to her conscience. If the AMA has suppressed its conscience, it shouldn't draw American women into its own ethical lapses."

FRC noted that the prescribing information for Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a popular oral contraceptive, enumerates three pathways by which the pill works: suppressing ovulation, preventing fertilization, and precluding the implantation of an already fertilized egg. The third one constitutes an abortion. The third function is conspicuously excluded from information made available to patients. "If manufacturers are telling doctors that oral contraceptives can keep a new member of the human family from being nourished, why isn't that information being passed on to patients?", asked Diggs.

Nelson noted that lobbying by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine largely contributed to the AMA's decision.

====================================================

Catholic World News is available via email for personal use only. To subscribe or for further information, contact subs@cwnews.com or visit our Web page at http://www.cwnews.com.

Catholic World News (c) Copyright Domus Enterprises 2001.

The primary mechanism of oral contraceptives is to inhibit ovulation, but this mechanism is not always operative. When breakthrough ovulation occurs, then secondary mechanisms operate to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. These secondary mechanisms may occur either before or after fertilization. Postfertilization effects would be problematic for some patients, who may desire information about this possibility. This article evaluates the available evidence for the postfertilization effects of oral contraceptives and concludes that good evidence exists to support the hypothesis that the effectiveness of oral contraceptives depends to some degree on postfertilization effects. [in other words, early chemical abortions--proud2brc] However, there are insufficient data to quantitate the relative contribution of postfertilization effects. Despite the lack of quantitative data, the principles of informed consent suggest that patients who may object to any postfertilization loss should be made aware of this information so that they can give fully informed consent for the use of oral contraceptives.<

Dr. Octagon said: 'Life begins at conception. "

The sperm cell is alive. The egg prior to fertilization is alive. Life is a cycle. Like all cyclic processes, it can be somewhat arbitrary where they begin and end.

If life begins at conception, then perhaps it ends when the last offspring is conceived.

The joining of sperm and egg is the closest thing we have to an unambiguous event which can be used to distinguish between the period of time during which a given person exists and the time prior to their existence.

Trying to define a time later than the joining of sperm and egg (which was called "conception" when I took biology) is an exercise which probably cannot succeed.

Women are more affected by these issues than men. When women look past the self-serving aspects of this issue ( meaning birth control ) to examine things such as murder of a fetus and obligations for child support, progress will begin to be made.

The various factions are only about nine months apart in their thinking.

Human cloning makes it clear that a single skin cell can be used to create a human being every bit as deserving of protection as the person from whom the skin cell is derived.

If causing the needless death of a skin cell is not murder, then causing the needless death of a fertilized egg is perhaps not murder (religious views aside).

When, then, during the cloning process, does the skin cell become an individual deserving of protection?

I went back to look at the definition of conception in Stedman’s. In our office 1990 version it states that conception is “the act of conceiving or becoming pregnant; fertilization of the oocyte (ovum) by a spermatozoon.” However in their © 2000 version they note: “conception: act of conceiving: the implantation of the blastocyst in the endometrium.”

Why the discrepancy between yours and mine???

I like the facts too.

I wonder if you have fully disclosed the dates of publication of your dictionary, because such a definition simply did not exist within medicine in the early 70's.

You are an insulting pissant trying to obfuscate the truth. You know what comes down the fallopian tube is a zygote, an individual life genetically different from the pserm or oocyte, yet you try to blur that truth. I have no respect for liars like you, liars that try to act condescending having not one inkling of the background of the one(s) they are purposely denegrating. You are the type of fecal floater I've been advised to flush rather than wrestle with.

For those interested in the facts of zygotic life, that which exits the fallopian tube and seeks implantation in the uterine lining is called a zygote then embryo (conception takes place in the fallopian tube, implantation--except in the life threatening case of a tubal pregnancy-- takes place in the uterus, the endometrial lining. After implantation the new individual life is known as a blastocyst and is drawing life support from the woman's body as soon as it can. Approximately eight weeks after conception then implantation (there can be as much as 14 days between the two events) the embryo is redefined as a fetus (Latin for child).

The term conception is used ambiguously, sometimes on purpose, taken to mean the process of fertilization and new expression of zygotic individual life and alternately taken to mean the result of successful implantation in the endometrial lining of the female uterus. Interestingly enough, the zygote actually initiates the seeking for life support following ingestion of uterine fluid ... the zygote literally invades the lining of the uterus. Once attached, life support is occurring for a new individual lifetime begun at union of sperm and egg (oocyte). From his comments, we may surmise Orrin Hatchling would conclude conception is the act of realized implantation; from my point of view, conception is the union of sperm and egg realized to express a new genetic individual life. From the perspective of 'real'patriot71 (I'll reserve on that designation just yet), it doesn't make any difference, as long as there is confusion and it can fan the obfuscatory flames to sustain that confusion. [Can you tell I don't particularly like the anal retentive types that want to create confusion? well I don't like them, anyway. I aslo don't like it when a dolt attacks my educated friends, like toenail or supercat.]

Interesting rant.

You are an insulting pissant . . . I have no respect for liars like you . . .You are the type of fecal floater I've been advised to flush rather than wrestle with.

Cute, and the ad homenem flows like milk and honey, or something like that. You know, if you want some to take you serious, it might help if you stop using logical fallacies to try and prove your point. Now, if you have not already done so, I suggest you wipe the spittle from your screen, and listen carefully to what I am about to say: there is a short time, after the penetration of the egg by the sperm, but before the last meiotic division of the egg, where the egg is merely "fertilized" and not yet a zygote, therefore, a "fertilized egg". Now, soon after this last mieotic division, the genetic material from the sperm and the egg join to form a zygote. Then development does procede in the manner in which you explained in your last post.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

The right of privacy misapplied by the leftist/liberal SCOTUS of 1973 does exist as far as the right to reject becoming pregnant . . .

There is absolutely no truth to this statement whatsoever. The "right of privacy" that was the basis of Roe v. Wade was actually an extension of the "right of privacy" that was first discovered (i.e., made up) by the U.S. Supreme Court in a prior case (I believe it was Griswold v. State of Connecticut) involving a state law against selling contraceptives. There is absolutely no basis in Constitutional law for this "right of privacy," so as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned each state has the right to regulate the production and sale of contraceptives as it sees fit.

Hard science backs you 100% on the following... there is a short time, after the penetration of the egg by the sperm, but before the last meiotic division of the egg, where the egg is merely "fertilized" and not yet a zygote, therefore, a "fertilized egg", the only caveat I would add, the period you refer to is less than hours and certainly not days. The use of some contraceptive products cause the uterine environ to reject the zygote/blastocyst (no longer the fertilized egg), and this well after the genetic expression of a new entity has occurred, thus they do have abortifacient action but the pharmaceutical companies (two of whom I have worked for) would characterize this rejection as 'spontaneous miscarriage' rather than abortion.

Lastly, the act of purposeful cancellation of life support for the newly implanted entity is abortion (and thus it is killing of another human, being a normal human at that stage in the lifetime begun at conception) any time during the 40 weeks of gestation. I will pass on discussing the rejection of life support as caused by withholding life support prior to implantation as the thread is focused on the redefining of conception, and the notion of application particularly to implantation which begins pregnancy.
Abortion 'clinics' practice serial killing, focusing on the most vulnerable and silent class of our fellow human beings. I consider that wrong and will not back away from characterizing it as such. Now, if someone wants to raise the issue of religious perspective regarding the wrongness of abortion, I'll leave that task to others.

********

The right of privacy misapplied by the leftist/liberal SCOTUS of 1973 does exist as far as the right to reject becoming pregnant . . .There is absolutely no truth to this statement whatsoever. Uh, if I restate the obvious, would you address that also? seriously, I wish to posit that the Constitution does protect the right of a woman to choose not to become pregnant (not in wording of 'right to privacy', that was judicial fiat on the part of the SCOTUS) and can be supported, I believe, with fifth and fourteenth amendments. Perhaps I misstated what I intended to address, namely, that a woman has a right, for her life, to NOT get pregnant if she so desires, but that right should in no way be misconstrued to mean she has a right to hire a serial killer to off a second individual human being based on the presence within her body as long as the act that brought that innocent individual to be there is not forced. As one can readily discern, I'm a goat where legaleaze(sp?) is concerned; I refuse to be a sheep for the fiat-laden social engineering of the leftist court, however.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.