Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Medical dictionaries redefine "CONCEPTION" to obscure the TRUTH regarding contraceptive technologies
Online Medical Dictionaries | 12/12/01 | Dr. Brian Kopp

Posted on 12/11/2001 8:57:01 PM PST by 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.<


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortionlist; catholiclist; christianlist; michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last
To: Dr. Octagon; proud2bRC
Over in Student Health yesterday I saw a little poster with a picture of a broken condom with this caption: "Right about now you should be interested in emergency contraception."
81 posted on 12/13/2001 4:43:14 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fourteenth Amendment (Section 1 only)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you say that someone has a right "not to become pregnant" under one of these two amendments, but I'm willing to listen to your rationale.

82 posted on 12/13/2001 5:23:00 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Octagon
A woman has a right, for her life, to NOT get pregnant if she so desires, but that right should not 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. Abortionists are serial killers and considered, generally within the medical profession, to be the dreck of the field, the ones unable to successfully matriculate into healing, so they kill for a living.
83 posted on 12/13/2001 5:23:07 AM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Now abortion is not murder, because they changed the definition....NOT!!!
84 posted on 12/13/2001 5:24:30 AM PST by wwjdn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant.

If you're not pregnant, you can't have an abortion.

Therefore, to have an abortion, you must be pregnant. And if you're pregnant, than it must be a baby.

And therefore, if you have an abortion, you are murdering a baby.

Deal with it.

85 posted on 12/13/2001 5:31:29 AM PST by Weatherman123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Very true. Abortionist violate not only "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but "Above all else, do no harm" as well. And thus, the lot of them ought to be deprived of their medical licenses, locked up, and insulted just for good measure.
86 posted on 12/13/2001 6:03:09 AM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Paid for by the student fees of pro-life students, much as over 100 million of your tax dollars go to planned parenthood....
87 posted on 12/13/2001 6:04:52 AM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
They made it up: Griswold, Roe, Doe, Danforth, Webster, Casey, Carhart. That's what a liberal USSC does: makes stuff up.
88 posted on 12/13/2001 6:07:05 AM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC; MHGinTN
A changed definition here, a changed definition there...in a few years time everyone will be properly conditioned and it won't be an issue any longer "'cause the experts said so".
89 posted on 12/13/2001 6:59:54 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
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.

Of course it is lost on most Christians today that until 1930, ALL of JUDEO-CHRISTIAN morality, including orthodox judaism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and Protestantism, taught that contraception was inherently evil, without a single exception. The Comstock laws, overturned in the SCOTUS decision of Griswold Vs Connecticut, which formed the philosophical underpinnings of R v W, were written in the 1800's by protestant legislators, NOT Catholics. (The only debate is whether the protestant capitulation to the contraception agenda, from 1930 to 1960, was "wisdom" or heresy/apostacy.)

90 posted on 12/13/2001 7:03:56 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
At present, the decision to get pregnant is primarily the woman's to make. The changing of definitions has occurred gradually, with sources like Taber's actually giving an ambigous dual definition for conception, pointing to both union of gametes as conception and the act of a woman conceiving, becoming pregnant upon implantation, as conceiving.

I do believe the Constitution may be seen to support a woman's right to refuse getting pregnant, but the extension of that to a right to hire a serial killer to kill off the new individual in her womb is not supportable by the Constitution. The 1973 socialist/activist court carved out a powerful position for themselves not designed into the separation of powers and has maintained that power position through leftist liberal 'interpretation' of the courts own decisions, not the Constitution.

Don't believe the lying pukes who would tell you that the Constitution is vague. It is the shifting court, politicized by the party power attainable via control over seats on the benches, that creates the impression of vagueness, purposely!

"A woman's right to choose" is the mantra of serial killing supporters. Were they to apply the mantra with a completed sentence--such as a woman's right to choose to not get pregnant--even I would support the notion, but if completed with the current femi-facist agenda that reigns supreme--a woman's right to choose a serial killer--I must war against such inhuman nonsense ... there is no right for serial killing of innocent individuals that can be found in our founding documents; they state clearly to the contrary.

Abortion is worse than slavery, in that the specious mantra supports a killing slaughter, whereas the mantra of allow slavery but don't expand the institution deigned the slave at leasat 2/3 an individual human being. Both mantras are non-supportable by the basic tenets of our Constitution, but one has resulted in the killing of 45,000,000 human lives over a period of less than 30 years! In the name of a woman's right to choose!???

91 posted on 12/13/2001 8:16:32 AM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
"The right of privacy misapplied by the leftist/liberal SCOTUS of 1973 does exist as far as the right to reject becoming pregnant, but to extend that notion to a right for serial slaughter of new individual human beings found alive and in their normal HUMAN condition for their age is, well, un-Constitutional. It also stinks of socialist societal engineering and political teratogenicity in the judiciary too fully influenced by the democrat leftists. If anyone doubts the vital importance of whom controls the White House and Senate, consider the left-leaning judges democrats desire infesting the federal court system!"

Dittoes, my FRiend, dittoes...MUD

92 posted on 12/13/2001 8:20:15 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." We cannot declare that a woman must become pregnant (her body is her most private of property), as if it is in the public interest that she be so forced. Thi9s phrasing may also be applied to justly compensate the woman for the use of her body to bring the preborn citizen into the world alive, once we A) define the implanted life a person, and B) define it as in the public's interest to disallow serial killing of the preborn citizenry.

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." To force a woman to become pregnant would be tantamount to depriving her of her liberty, and no such law to allow that in process exists, as far as I am aware.

I have seldom dealt with the legaleaze of the abortion issue, so my goat status is glaring, but I shall get back to you on this this evening, AC; I'll be lurking about to hear Luis Gonzalez on FreepRadio, the Banana Republican show.

93 posted on 12/13/2001 8:26:08 AM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Octagon
Well yes, but I seldom "thunder".
94 posted on 12/13/2001 3:27:16 PM PST by Blunderfromdownunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Weatherman123
This bears repeating: If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant.

If you're not pregnant, you can't have an abortion.

Therefore, to have an abortion, you must be pregnant. And if you're pregnant, than it must be a baby.

And therefore, if you have an abortion, you are murdering a baby.

Deal with it.

I NEED to save this one...thanks so much for showing the simplicity of the truth. Even though there's still those who won't quite "get it".

95 posted on 12/13/2001 4:22:35 PM PST by Brad’s Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Octagon
Because conception, the forming of unique human DNA, happens before it. That's what renders it ambiguous.

In this context, for something to be ambiguous means that it's difficult or impossible to tell if it's happened. Implantation is not ambiguous; either it has happened or it hasn't.

96 posted on 12/13/2001 8:59:29 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Same thing was done with homosexuality which used to be considered part of ABNORMAL Psychology.
It's politics over science.
97 posted on 12/13/2001 9:04:44 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat; proud2bRC
Conception--joining of sperm and egg, resulting in combined DNA---happens, or not. Perceptibility does not adversely affect the existence of a particular action, circumstance, or result.

Implantation is ambiguous not because of doubt regarding it's advent, but rather because it is the second stage. It comes after the above-described joining---conception---at which the blueprint for a human's entire development is established. Prenatal development, and postnatal development.

The establishment of DNA here noted does not exist prior to conception, nor does it change after.

Anything else is a viability argument.

98 posted on 12/13/2001 9:27:45 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
It should still be so considered. Law of nature.
99 posted on 12/13/2001 9:29:03 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Absolutely correct. Abort means "end". Ask the pro-aborts: "End what?"
100 posted on 12/13/2001 9:31:29 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson