Definition of pregnancy: a history
Civil Religion reader Spyguy asks an excellent question located on the comment board under Abortion: Dehumanizing the Vulnerable:
“From a biological standpoint, there is a reason the AP uses that terminology. Not that they are right or wrong, but an explanation should be done. For there to be a pregnancy, TWO things are required (and, in full disclosure, I have no medical background). One, fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Second, the fertilized egg (using AP’s wording) needs to be implanted in the uterine wall to effect development. Then, and only then, does pregnancy happen. AP’s point is that the Colorado law would define a person at the first point, not the second. As you likely realize, the point of this law is to ban emergency contraception, which stops the second point, stopping pregnancy. That is why emergency contraception is referred to (incorrectly, by my opinion) as causing an abortion. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks. “
So glad you asked, Spyguy.
In my youth, fertilization and conception meant the same thing, the beginning of pregnancy. Implantation came later. Ah, then entered the birth control pill in the mid-sixties:
When the birth control pill came along — and when it was realized that high doses of the pill inhibit implantation, thus killing the new human — family planning lobbying efforts went into high gear, the goal being to change the definition of pregnancy.
The lobbyists knew the public doesn’t much like the word abortion, and they were quite willing to say so. “Change the definition of pregnancy,” went the cry, “and we won’t have to use the word abortion.”
The No Room for Contraception website has an excellent history of this Brave New World success story:
“Up until the mid sixties, the question of the beginning of pregnancy wasn’t a subject of serious debate. It was well accepted, based upon sound science, that, that conception occurred at fertilization (that is, the union of sperm and egg).
It was also accepted that anything which prevented implantation in fact caused an abortion, as recognized by the US Government and described in a 1963 public health service leaflet:
‘All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote [newly created human] at any time between the instant of fertilization [union of sperm and egg] and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion [1] …..’
For the rest of the article, go to this link. Read and remember.
Sherry Tyree, 66, a graduate of John Burroughs School and Washington University, is a founding member (1984) and Vice President of Women for Faith & Family, a national Catholic women's organization that supports and defends traditional church teachings. Sherry is married to Dr. Donald A. Tyree, professor emeritus, School of Business, St. Louis University. 
Prior to your childhood, many legal scholars and philosophers believed that life began at the quickening, meaning the point at which the fetus began to stir in the womb. This definition can be traced as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas, hardly a slouch in the realm of moral philosophy. Unlike Aquinas, neither of your blog posts have advanced any coherent explanation as to why you believe life begins at the instant of conception, and hardly provides any discussion of the impact of such a law.
Of note is that the Colorado initiative is designed to define “person,” not “human being.” Legally, a corporation is a person. Does treating a corporation this way “dehumanize” natural persons? Or, conversely, does placing a human being at any state in the same class as a corporation humanize what is not human?
Simply put, referring to people who might disagree with you as eugenicists in a “Brave New World” does not answer any questions, and is hardly positing “civil religion.”