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

Online Medical Dictionaries | 12/12/01 | Dr. Brian Kopp

[Brian 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&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

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: 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

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

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.]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 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 ® 1.6, © 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.

AMA VOTES AGAINST LETTING WOMEN KNOW "THE PILL" IS ABORTIFACIENT

Culture/Society
Source: CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS
Published: Dec 10, 01 Author: CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS
Posted on 12/11/01 12:17 AM Eastern by proud2bRC

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.

---

Archives of Family Medicine, Vol. 9 No. 2, February 2000, "Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent," Walter L. Larimore, MD; Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH

ABSTRACT:

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.<

[MHGinTN]

If it will help your search, Aristophanes, the doctors were working with/for Searle Labs; Searle brought the first contraceptive pill (as a birth control pill) to market in the U.S. I believe Ortho Pharmaceuticals was next with Ovicon,

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Did Searle market Enovid? On June 23, 1960, Enovid became the first oral contraceptive approved for sale in the USA, following several years of development and trials on third world women.

Aristophanes, if you can find this reference it would aid my research on this subject considerably. Thanks.

[JMJ333]

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

Life has been devalued to the point where the science/atheist crowd feels comfortable farming us out life crops. And we're surrounded by the pro-death crowd who are continually crying for blood and violence against the innocent and defensless. Gives me chills. Please flag me when you post your articles.

[MHGinTN]

You have the name and co. correct; I can't swear to the intro date since I unwisely trashed all my textbooks Searle provided when I was trained by them.

[realpatriot71]

the only caveat I would add, the period you refer to is less than hours and certainly not days

I never said this period was anymore than it was. I was merely pointing out that there is, in fact, a period of time where there is a "fertilized egg" before there is a zygote. This was neither an argument for nor against abortion, only a statemnt of fact, to correct a statement made in error.

All that name calling for nothing . . . in the end I was right.

[MHGinTN]

kisses, kisses

[realpatriot71]

:-)

[MHGinTN]

I jumped on you because of your condescension towards toenail, thus I over reacted. I apologize for calling you a fecal floater ... that's all.

[realpatriot71]

Apology accepted.

:-)

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I apologize for calling you a fecal floater ... that's all.

Just about the time I want to call a fellow Freeper a fecal floater I usually try to simply post:

"Thank you for sharing your personal opinion. May God Bless you abundantly."

if they really deserve the title "fecal floater" I try:

"Thank you for sharing your personal opinion. May God Bless you abundantly, illuminate your darkened intellect, and have mercy on your soul."

I think that sums it up...kinds says, "bug off you fecal floater, you are an idiot, on the straight road to Hell, here's your tin foil hat..." in a kinder, gentler, more charitable way.

I'd like to see Christian apologists here adopt this phrase, "Thank you for sharing your own personal opinion. May God Bless you abundantly, illuminate your darkened intellect, and have mercy on your soul," substituting it for "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."

Keep repeating "Thank you for sharing your own personal opinion. May God Bless you abundantly, illuminate your darkened intellect, and have mercy on your soul," until the idiot gets the point that further correspondence is fruitless, and their views are not welcome by you on that particular thread.

Just my own personal opinion...its probably not wise to give my personal opinions too much further thought...

[MHGinTN]

Whew, I'll have to write that down, RC, my memory isn't what it use to be, what with the clone wars and all.

[Uncle Sham]

"3: the event that occured at the beginning of something; "

Nothing wrong with this definition.

[supercat]

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.

In what way is implantation less unambiguous?

[Brad’s Gramma]

Sheesh! I sure did like it back in the GOOD ole days, when a baby was a baby was a baby!!!!!!

[Dr. Octagon]

"Illuminate your darkened intellect, and have mercy on your soul!"

That is a classic line. I will be employing it left and right.

[Dr. Octagon]

Because conception, the forming of unique human DNA, happens before it. That's what renders it ambiguous. My DNA, the unique package that determines every physical trait I have, came into existence at conception. Not before, not after. Anything else is a viability test, and there begins the slippery slope.

[Dr. Octagon]

A baby is still a baby. It's just that feminists, secular humanists, moral relativists et al lie about that fact. God and science know that life begins at conception, when the mother and father join to produce new life, with unique DNA. Those who try to work in a 24 hour, 48-72 hour, or 9 month window, are 100% wrong. Logically and morally.

[Dr. Octagon]

Well said. Conception starts al the other processes.

[Dr. Octagon]

It's supposed to be thunder.

As in "Well, I come from the land down under!"

"Do you hear, do you hear the thunder?"

---Men At Work, 1982

[Dr. Octagon]

Well said.