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.”
Whoo hoo Bob! Thanks for completing the partial history of the article above.
Bob,
I don’t think the author called anyone a eugenicist in her response. Moreover, I believe the main point she was trying to convey was how the change in the common medical definition of pregnancy seemed to have been prompted by a need to validate the use of the contraception pill rather than by a desire for medical accuracy.
I believe we’d all agree scientific knowledge has grown since the time of Aquinas. Actually, science has proven that we are individuals from the moment of our existence = when our daddy’s sperm fertilized our mommy’s egg. At that point we have our OWN DNA…not our daddy’s, not our mommy’s. OURS. This is when our new life began. Our life is still growing, aging. We aren’t done yet. We are the same person (or human being, for those who twist and split hairs) as when we were first conceived, just a bit taller.
Speaking of Eugenics…that’s exactly what Margaret Sanger was. She started Planned Parenthood, the largest distributor of contraception.
People can ignore all the data showing how harmful contraceptives are to women, relationships, society…that’s a poor choice they make. But if we’re talking about contraceptives which actually kill the baby, that’s never okay no matter what. Women need to wake up.
In the 70’s I heard many stories from old women about how before abortions were legal and before the birth control pill, how if woman did not want the baby that they were carrying and gave birth to, they would give birth to the baby, then suffocate the baby immediately after birth.
Most people who have abortions realize that the fetus is a child; there is no confusion about that fact. The only thing that one cares about is being free from the baby within their womb. This is the truth of the matter regardless of how immoral and selfish it is.
The point of repeating these truths are because, the problem concerning unwanted pregnancies concerns sinful lifestyles more than anything else that must change and this cannot be accomplished through legislating, but only through changed hearts and renewed minds.
I speak of first hand knowledge of this and also the truth of God’s word experienced in my own life. How my heart has been changed and made clean and my mind renewed just as God’s word describes it would be in scripture.
Before God worked on my heart and mind, there was nothing that I would or wanted to hear from anyone concerning the choices that I made for my life in any area of it. The problem was that I was making choices not knowing anything about the ways of God. This is the state that many in the world are in. Not being raised to know whom God or Christ is or what is truly right and wrong in God’s sight.
The only solution is to go fishing for those who will hear and not worry about those who will not. Christians were instructed to go out into the world and tell people about the Kingdom of God to come, and that the dead would rise to life again. This is what Christ instructs us to go out into the world and let people know, and what He said would draw people to Him.
“Someone will ask, “How can the dead be raised to life? What kind of body will they have? You fool! When you plant a seed in the ground, it is does not sprout to life unless it dies…” 1 Corinthians 35,36.
Christ rise from death is also proof of the act that we will rise to life again, all those who belong to Him. This is the message that Christians are to make all aware of.
Why is it that Christians have put Christ’s instructions aside and have begun to follow after their own wisdom in how to serve Him?
How does one choose which sin Christians should speak out against and fight? Isn’t most sin equally an abomination against God? So how does one stop sinning? Isn’t it through a changed heart and renewed mind?
And, how does that happen? Only God can change hearts. But, He gave us the duty of fishing for those who are willing to listen and hear.
What would cause many to be willing to listen to God’s message? Wouldn’t the fact that some of us will rise to live again forever after we die be of interest to many and, the fact they some of us will not rise to live forever again be of interest to many? Well, this is what Christ has instructed Christians to tell about, but so very few obey this. Why is that?
We hear so much about all the other promises of God, but not this one, why? I was a unsuccessful Christian for years not knowing about or understanding the Kingdom of God to come or that God is the only who can cause our hearts and minds to change and not ourselves, and that He most certainly will upon our repentance and our acceptance of His ways being the right way.
The concentration upon abortions, same sex unions etc…, are nothing more than Satan’s distractions for Christians in order to keep God’s real work from being accomplished and Christ’s instruction from being followed. Satan must be very pleased.
I’ve been gone for a week: I highly recommend spending a week in the Maine woods without TV, Internet, or Newspaper. It gives one a completely different perspective on life.
But, I digress.
I’d like to ask what is perhaps a different sort of question…
Question 1: Let’s say that Congress passes the ‘right to life’ amendment, and the states ratify it. Or, alternately, that the several states start banning abortions within their boundaries. Who would be the criminal, and what would be the punishment? Is the woman who HAS the abortion the criminal? Or is it the medical practitioner?
Question 2: It occurs to me that the right question that is rarely asked in the abortion debate is this one: What is the best way to reduce the numbers of abortions on a large scale? It’s my opinion that ‘just say no’ to sex is probably not going to work very well. What is the best way to provide both the knowledge AND the “tools” required to significantly reduce the numbers of unplanned pregnancies?
As I’ve said many times, the focus of BOTH the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” crowds should be to eliminate the DEMAND for abortion services. I think abortion should remain legal for the rare circumstances that do exist. However, the vast majority of abortions do NOT fall into those rare categories. Most are, fundamentally, about birth control, and little else. There are better, cheaper, and less invasive means for that.