Posted on 08/05/2006 1:09:41 PM PDT by fightnight
Around the nation, news reports concerning Plan B feature claims from abortion advocates that the "medically accepted definition" of pregnancy begins with implantation of a fertilized egg (which is what they claim conception means). These claims are made with an air of certainty and credibility by these advocates, and are often presented as uncontested facts in the news stories. (See QUOTES OF INTEREST below.)
Plan B advocates go so far as to claim that the “anti-choice” movement is trying to change the "long standing" definitions of pregnancy and conception in an attempt to ban birth control and emergency contraception.
Often they cite prominent physicians, medical text books, and medical organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to bolster their claims. They almost always forget to mention that many OB/GYNs disagree with their views. [1]
Reporters tend to take these claims at face value when reporting on the subject. The claims of the pro-life side of this debate are not reported in the same light of credibility. This is somewhat understandable, after all, who appears to be more credible to the average reporter -- the local pro-life leader or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)? Abortion advocates play heavily on the credibility of these sources and on the trust of the reporters.
Admittedly, these advocates have enjoyed a strong wave of publicity on TV, in print, and on the internet.
Despite the air of having won the debate on this issue, these claims have a fatal flaw -- most medical dictionaries back up the claims of the Plan B opponents. (See DEFINITIONS below). Medical dictionaries have a prominent role in this debate since they are relatively free of bias -- something which cannot be easily said about teaching texts and encyclopedias cited by these advocates.
Medical dictionaries such as Stedman's (28th edition) and Mosby's (7th edition), two of the most popular medical dictionaries, define conception as fertilization and not implantation.[2] These widely respected medical resources are the same dictionaries technical writers use when writing medical texts and references.
These dictionaries help disprove that the "longstanding, medically accepted" definition of conception is the moment of implantation.
Stedman's and Mosby's aren't the only medical texts which define conception as the meeting of sperm and egg (fertilization). A quick stop the medical section of a local bookstore reveals that a majority of medical dictionaries recognize fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy. (See FIGURE 1 DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTION below for a representative sample.)
Health guides from from Harvard Medical School, the American Medical Association, the American college of Physicians, and Baaron's also share this same singular definition of conception. And contrary to the claims of the Plan B advocates, these are not religious institutions or right wing extremists.
That doesn't mean there aren't any dictionaries to support their view – there are a small number of them, including the dictionaries of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI). Some dictionaries give both definitions, often with an emphasis on fetilization and with a lesser emphasis of implantation.
Furthermore, the idea that their claims represent the “longstanding definition” of conception is not historically correct. The 1913 edition of the Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary defines conception as “the act of becoming pregnant; fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon” [3] In fact, until the ACOG irresponsibly changed their definition of conception in 1965, there wasn’t even a serious debate on the subject – conception meant fertilization.
All of the medical texts reviewed for this article list either conception or the end of conception (but prior to implantation) as the starting point of pregnancy. A majority of these texts define conception as the moment of fertilization. It's important to note that implantation occurs 5 days after fertilization, and that definitions which use "after conception" (post fertilization) as the beginning of pregnancy do not imply implantation.
The propaganda campaign waged by Plan B advocates has resulted in a denial of accurate medical information for women. It has also resulted in legal and political problems for pharmacists who do not want to distribute drugs which have the intended effect of causing an intentional abortion.
In conclusion, a majority of medical dictionaries contradict the claims of the abortion rights advocates and many medical organizations. They also prove that Plan B is capable of aborting an established but not yet implanted pregnancy. [4] In light of this, the FDA should immediately halt any discussions concerning over the counter availability of Plan B – abortifacient drugs should not be sold over the counter.
FIGURE 1 DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTION
Yes, we get it. Contraceptives are, somehow, just not popular with a group called "No Room for Contraception" (if it is a whole group, rather than just the one person who posts here).
?????
No comments on the article? Just a general attack on the group?
So, as far as I can see, the argument is that the forms of contraception that prevent implantation of already-fertilized ova should be illegal, because this is displeasing to God, while barrier methods that prevent fertilization occuring in the first place are OK?
What about all the fertilized ova that fail to implant naturally anyway? Is that simply seen as God's will? I'm not being sarky on this, I'm just interested in Christian philosophy on this latter point.
No comments on the article?
Checking my old Stedman's (1976), the definition of conception is: "Implantation of the blastocyst."
And you might consider the recent research, which shows that Plan B doesn't have a negative effect on implantation.
I think you need to check the version of Stedman's referenced in the article (28th printed edition), not the 1976 version.
And the research only shows that it doesn't prevent implantation in *animals*. That has yet to be proven in humans. Until such a time, it has to treated that it does prevent implantation.
Not valid? If there is a dispute over a word, what does one use? A dictionary..
>>What about all the fertilized ova that fail to implant naturally anyway? Is that simply seen as God's will? I'm not being sarky on this, I'm just interested in Christian philosophy on this latter point.
I suspect that would be called a miscarriage (unintentional abortion).. As to the question of God, I'm not sure...
Only for a quick, down-and-dirty answer. To come up with a precise, real answer, you have to hit the medical journals - just like, if I were to cite Black's Law Dictionary, and only Black's without researching the caselaw, I would be laughed out of court.
Dictionaries are starting-points, not end-points.
An accident of nature is simply that. There is no moral agency in it. An ovum failing to implant due to natural accidents is nothing but a failure to implant.
It would be quite a stretch to call it the will of God. Due to sin, the universe is filled with imperfection and one of the imperfections is accidents.
Being as this is from the "no room for contraception" website, I'd have to say they're right, wouldn't you?
Thank you for the reply! Perhaps miscarriage would be the right term, though of course to the woman it would simply seem like a normal period and she'd have no idea that fertilization had even occured.
And the research only shows that it doesn't prevent implantation in *animals*. That has yet to be proven in humans. Until such a time, it has to treated that it does prevent implantation.
According to this:
'When summarized, available data from studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effects of both levonorgestrel and mifepristone, when used in single low doses for emergency contraception, involve either blockade or delay of ovulation, due to either prevention or delay of the LH surge, rather than to inhibition of implantation."
You forgot to mention this part of it..
", the knowledge of the mechanism of action of mifepristone and levonorgestrel in humans, when used for contraceptive purposes and especially for emergency contraception, remains incomplete"
>>Only for a quick, down-and-dirty answer. To come up with a precise, real answer, you have to hit the medical journals - just like, if I were to cite Black's Law Dictionary, and only Black's without researching the caselaw, I would be laughed out of court.
Medical journals print opinions that are all over the map (such as the journal that featured an article that unborn babies don't feel pain -- and it was discovered that one of the authors was involved in the abortion industry...)
Dictionaries are definitive and help solve things. Application of such words do require additional material, such as case history etc (law). But the definitions are very clear...
>>Dictionaries are starting-points, not end-points.
Maybe in law, where absolutes are absent and laws change, precidents have impact, etc, but on medical terms, it seems to be clear that a dictionary can provide definitions minus the bias present in medical journals.
Yup, it's incomplete. But the available data says, as I quoted, that the effect isn't from blocking implantation. So?
it seems to be clear that a dictionary can provide definitions minus the bias present in medical journals.
Then why does my Stedman's say one thing, and your edition another? Why do the dictionaries vary at all? I notice that many of the sources in your table are not for physicians. Stedmans and Tabers, Ok. Mosby's looks to be aimed at nurses and ancillary healthcare workers. Most of the others are for the public.
Do you really think that dictionary editors don't have a bias too? In fact, they may be more dangerous because the bias in an individual journal article can be detected., while a dictionary is much harder to detect.
In my former life before law school, I was a chemistry student. I can tell you it would be irresponsible to hit a dictionary, but not the chemistry journals.
Sure they do, which is why one must use several dictionaries to come up with a consensus or at least a definition representing a majority of dictionaries.
I do agree that you can't learn medicine by reading a dictionary, but you can find out the meanings of words by using one. Journals may explain how things happen, current theory, etc, but they cannot really define words, and quiet often, only lead to confusion by having competing theories full of bias (on all sides).
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.