Pregnancy

[Sojourner]

[quote name='StColette' post='1905518' date='Jun 29 2009, 03:29 PM']Right, which is why I'm having difficulty saying that pregnancy begins at implantation rather than conception. I mean both my kiddos implanted, but before they did was I not pregnant? I associate conception with life and life with pregnancy. I mean if we say that a pregnancy does not begin until implantation aren't we treading on dangerous ground or a slippery slope. Lots of pro-abortion folks use the "pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation" thing to say that the morning after pill is permissible and not terminating a pregnancy. If it's not terminating a pregnancy then what is it terminating? I guess I just can't separate pregnancy with life and life with conception.[/quote]
Two things. Although I know nothing of your personal cycle/charting, it is very possible that you had other embryos that did not implant, for one reason or another, and passed out with menstruation. Was that a pregnancy? The only reason you know of the fertilization is because of the implantation.

That's not to say that a fertilized embryo is not alive. An embryo should be afforded every opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. This is, I believe, being "open to life." I think of it like the womb is a garden. I should do everything I can to make it ready and hospitable to life that might come along, but until that life actually implants and starts growing I am not considered pregnant. Using drugs like RU-486 violates the call to be open to life because it makes the womb inhospitable to life. It's like throwing down Round-Up instead of Miracle-Gro.

Not a perfect analogy, but still.

[StColette]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1905537' date='Jun 29 2009, 05:46 PM']Two things. Although I know nothing of your personal cycle/charting, it is very possible that you had other embryos that did not implant, for one reason or another, and passed out with menstruation. Was that a pregnancy? The only reason you know of the fertilization is because of the implantation.

That's not to say that a fertilized embryo is not alive. An embryo should be afforded every opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. This is, I believe, being "open to life." I think of it like the womb is a garden. I should do everything I can to make it ready and hospitable to life that might come along, but until that life actually implants and starts growing I am not considered pregnant. Using drugs like RU-486 violates the call to be open to life because it makes the womb inhospitable to life. It's like throwing down Round-Up instead of Miracle-Gro.

Not a perfect analogy, but still.[/quote]

I understand that the only reason I know that fertilization has taken place is because of implantation, but if there were embryos that did not implant and I didn't know about them and they passed out with menstruation I would still consider it a miscarriage. A miscarriage is the loss of a child (either fetus or embryo) which we know that child is alive at conception, so if the embryo did not implant I would consider it a miscarriage because it's still the loss of a child just one that did not implant.

I mean if we could somehow have knowledge of the exact moment that a child was conceived, like a woman would know instantly, would that then change the definition of when pregnancy begins?

Does the medical community determine someone is pregnant just because after implantation we are able to know for sure that a child has been conceived and a chemical process is taking place? If we were able to know that a child was conceived by some sign would that change the definition?

I understand why the definition is the way it is, I'm not arguing that. My point is who or what decides that implantation was the point at which a pregnancy begins. I mean before we had the knowledge about implantation or knowledge about pregnancy symptoms was the definition of when a pregnancy started different? If we define pregnancy, relative to the woman, and there is a remote chemical change that takes place at conception in the woman's body that we do not know about (it's possible lol) and we discover it would that change the definition?

Micah and I have been discussing this topic at length. Micah says it would depend upon what you wanted "pregnancy" to mean

[quote]again, it would depend on what you wanted "pregnancy" to mean...is pregnancy the state of having conceived a life one is still bearing (therefore the definition being relative to the child conceived) or is it the hormonal and biological state of a pregnant woman's body (the hormonal state beginning at implantation, and therefore being relative to the woman)[/quote]

The medical community seems to approach it from it being relative to the woman, while I am trying to approach it being relative to the life conceived.

[scardella]

I would tend to think that pregnancy being defined as beginning with implantation speaks to the physical bond created between mother and child when the child is implanted. That bond continues until labor. In that bond, they share bodily fluids, hormones, etc. Before implantation, however, that bond does not yet exist.

That line of thought was what prompted the thread in the first place.

[StColette]

[quote name='scardella' post='1906423' date='Jun 30 2009, 04:51 PM']I would tend to think that pregnancy being defined as beginning with implantation speaks to the physical bond created between mother and child when the child is implanted. That bond continues until labor. In that bond, they share bodily fluids, hormones, etc. Before implantation, however, that bond does not yet exist.

That line of thought was what prompted the thread in the first place.[/quote]


I understand this line of thinking, and it's very in line with the definition of pregnancy that we have today. But my main question is why do we say that pregnancy begins at implantation? What makes us decide that once that physical bond of implantation occurs then that is when pregnancy starts? I think that's the root of my probing at this topic, why have we (medical community or whatever) decided that it is at implantation that pregnancy begins, rather than at conception? Why does a physical bond established at implantation mean you're pregnant?

[philothea]

[quote name='StColette' post='1906430' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:02 PM'](snip)
Why does a physical bond established at implantation mean you're pregnant?[/quote]

Because that's what the word means.

It doesn't in any way add or detract from the conceived child being alive.

[StColette]

[quote name='philothea' post='1906435' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:08 PM']Because that's what the word means.

It doesn't in any way add or detract from the conceived child being alive.[/quote]

But who decided upon that definition? That's my point.

And I didn't say it detracts from the conceived child being alive nor was it implied. My question is why is pregnancy defined by implantation rather than conception. The definition of pregnancy that we have today was not the definition some time ago. So the definition itself could be open to change.

Just opened the Dictionary at my desk. The definition they gave for pregnancy is

1. The condition of a woman or female mammal from conception until birth; the condition of being pregnant.

[philothea]

[quote name='StColette' post='1906449' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:15 PM']But who decided upon that definition? That's my point.

And I didn't say it detracts from the conceived child being alive nor was it implied. My question is why is pregnancy defined by implantation rather than conception. The definition of pregnancy that we have today was not the definition some time ago. So the definition itself could be open to change.

Just opened the Dictionary at my desk. The definition they gave for pregnancy is

1. The condition of a woman or female mammal from conception until birth; the condition of being pregnant.[/quote]
For words that old there was never a formal assignment of the definition. The meaning was determined by common use. From what I can tell it comes from a combination of "before" and "birth" ([i]prae[/i] + [i]gnasci[/i]).

We who speak English could, through changed usage, redefine the world to mean fertilization but I think that would be hard to do, because it's a useful, unique word. We need a word which means that a woman is biologically supporting a child within her.

It is terrible that marketers of abortion pills abuse people's confusion about conception, implantation, and pregnancy, but I don't think that our trying to misuse words is going to help.

[scardella]

BTW, the various applicable dictionary definitions are these:

Pregnant
- having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.
- Carrying developing offspring within the body.
- Being with young, as a female; having conceived; great with young; breeding; teeming; gravid; preparing to bring forth.
- containing unborn young within the body : GESTATING
- Carrying developing offspring within the body.

[scardella]

Honestly, I think that the term doesn't carry enough precision to be argued absolutely one way or the other. I think it could possibly be a legal issue in the future, if abortion is outlawed and abortion is defined legally as the termination of a pregnancy rather than the deliberate killing of an unborn person. At that point, a definition of pregnancy in a legal sense would have very strong consequences.

[heavenseeker]

thats tough. im going to go with conception because that is when life begins. i can sorta see where someone would argue that it happens at implantation though. because if the egg gets fertilized but never implants you would never know, and therefore never be aware of being pregnant. eve nwith that thought though i am going to stick to conception.
good question

[elizabeth09]

At conception. I have meet someone that they belive life starts at 6 months into the pregnancy. I really wanted to talk with her, but we have to do something else.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='elizabeth09' post='1909853' date='Jul 3 2009, 09:04 PM']At conception. I have meet someone that they belive life starts at 6 months into the pregnancy. I really wanted to talk with her, but we have to do something else.[/quote]
We're talking about when pregnancy starts, beginning with the assumption that life has began at conception regardless.

[elizabeth09]

I agree with that.

[Angel*Star]

Pregnancy begins at conception. If it does not, why stop something? If I miscarry and not know it, does that make him/her any less in the eyes of God? I think not.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Angel*Star

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Angel*Star' post='1910175' date='Jul 4 2009, 12:12 AM']Life begins at conception. If it does not, why stop something? If I miscarry and not know it, does that make him/her any less in the eyes of God? I think not.[/quote]
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1909856' date='Jul 3 2009, 09:05 PM']We're talking about when pregnancy starts, beginning with the assumption that life has began at conception regardless.[/quote]