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.<

I saved copies of the Federal Register entries on the redefining of fetus (at the pre-implantation stage) which neatly coincided -- almost collided -- with the NIH's withdrawing its guideline language re: "human embryos". Guess we can thank President Bush for forcing the moving finger of Science to hold the knot they're tying with a spanking new Term.

I'll try to remember to lob them in here.

Seems the He/She Inhuman have all things "Non-Person" nailed down tight. Along with the blood and guts of Constitutional Abortion, fleshing out at the microscopic level the ritual deicide ongoing as we chunks of measurably Self-Conscious matter evolve toward our hopeful, ... uh, for want of a better word ... humanitarian Utopia.

I don't think it gets anymore educated or scientific than premeire geneticist Doctor Jérôme Lejeune of Paris ... who, among other triumphs in his MORAL research, discovered Down Syndrome. He's an excellent subject for a study of a moral scientist at work to better mankind without sacricing for a moment his integrity or convictions regarding human dignity.

The "no" to life,
which the use of contraceptives cries out
by its very name

Q: Once fertilization, once conception has occurred, could you tell the Court, anything added after the point? Does Peter or Margaret come into being, so to speak, through additional information?

A: Well, that was a very interesting discovery of modem science. Because for a long time it has been believed that the mother, the feeling of the mother, could do something to the baby. . . . [but] we know now that everything is written inside the first cell.

I have to come back to this concept of conception, because it is a very remarkable fact that in all the languages coming from Latin, we use the same word either to express an idea which comes into our mind, or to a new being coming into life.

We conceive an idea. We conceive a baby. A baby is conceived. Conception applies just as well for defining what will animate matter in a human nature or what will animate your mind within your idea.

And that is, so to speak, an extraordinary description of reality which is at the very beginning the information and the matter, so to speak:

the spirit and the body are so intimately interwoven that we use the same word to say spirit animated by your ideas, or life of a new human being animated by genetic property-conception.

Doctor Jérôme Lejeune, R.I.P.

From Natural Family Planning (by Askel5)

"Sperm + egg = fertilization"

So far, so good.

"Fertilized egg + uterus implantation = conception of human life"

No...... Fertilization and conception are the same thing.

"Fertilized egg + menstruation = try again next month."

There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg." And this is a spontaneous miscarriage.

"A fertilized egg cannot become human unless it is implanted in the womb, period. Active women, even in marriages, probably expel dozens of fertilized eggs throughout their lives as part of the natural processes of their bodies."

There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg." Human beings begin at conception, and are as genetically complete as they'll ever be. Your humanity is established whether you get your nourishment from your mother's uterine wall, or from a #4 at McDonald's.

Don't be so hard on the prez...we know that he gave us a victory on the stem cell issue. After all, those stem cell lines are duplicates of the original source and that means they really aren't what they are--and justifies publically funding research on these fake lines. I understand completely that this isn't subtle encouragment to the private sector.

I wonder if that lab in Mass. that cloned a human being could qualify for federal aid? I can just see the press conference: "We're not going to fund research on new clones--but the ones that have already been cloned..."

If they harvest the clone for its stem cells, then duplicate the line, you will have the same justification that the republicans used the first time. No wonder the Pope said there are dark times ahead.

we know that he gave us a victory on the stem cell issue

What's this "we" business, white man? =)

The current issue of Human Life Review has some excellent articles on the subject. I may post a potpourri of highlights.

At least as disturbing, if not more, are the inroads made toward offing the "living" and scrapping them for parts upon "brain death".

Speaking of definitions, I hadn't realized that food and water now had become a legal term of art known as "ANH" or artificial nutrition and hydration.

I suppose this bit of semantics (and the almighty Economic Burden, of course) is why Sinkspur argues that a feeding tube is an "extraordinary" measure next of kin need not feel morally obligated to take where the dying, comatose or failing are concerned.

God forbid we have the true compassion that is "suffering with". Better our service to mankind take the form of legislation and conditioning necessary to liquidate those who might put the pinch on our pocketbooks or cast a pall on our Quality of Life.

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.