| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sadburger" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2005 10:08:34 PM |
| Object: |
Re: What is conception |
In article <42e6364a.234726343@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
In article <42e6364a.234726343@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:45:38 -0400, Reel Mckoi <c@c.net> wrote:
Conception, the union of sperm and ovum, was first accurately described
by a German scientist in 1827. Thereafter it was appreciated that life
began at conception rather than at “quickening,” as previously believed.
After the Civil War the new American Medical Association sent its
scientists to testify before committees and state legislatures,
informing them that life began at the time of the egg’s fertilization.
In response to this new information, every state in the union during the
1870’s and early 1880’s passed new laws making abortion a felony from
the time of conception. AMA testimony: “We were dealing with nothing
less than human life.”
OK. A total pack of lies. Nothing unexpected.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=conception
In 1913 conception meant , "The act of conceiving in the womb; the
initiation of an embryonic animal life." This is weeks after
fertilization which is the union of sperm and ovum. You really ought
to check out the facts before you repeat the standard Pro-Life lies.
Oh, you've given us a few doozies yourself, especially when you try to
pretend solve in-depth historical and scientific questions with a
*dictionary*! [1]
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/26680e15f0a5978e?hl=en&
Notice how Paul ducked out of the conversation.
Did they even *know* about embryonic implantation in 1913? This 1913
dictionary doesn't have relevant senses for "implant", "implantation", or
"zygote", and the definition for "fertilization" is "The act of
fecundating or impregnating animal or vegetable germs". Unless these terms
were going under different names, I'm inclined to believe they thought the
embryo *was* the first stage of human development, occuring immediately
after fertilization. Indeed, this is their definition of "embryo":
Em"bry*o (?), n.; pl. Embryos (#). [F. embryon, Gr. , perh. fr. in
(akin to L. E. in) + to be full of, swell with; perh. akin to E.
brew.] (Biol.) The first rudiments of an organism, whether animal
or plant; as: (a) The young of an animal in the womb, or more
specifically, before its parts are developed and it becomes a fetus
(see Fetus). (b) The germ of the plant, which is inclosed in the
seed and which is developed by germination. In embryo, in an
incipient or undeveloped state; in conception, but not yet
executed. The company little suspected what a noble work I had then
in embryo." Swift.
It seems as if they believed the embryo was the direct result of
fertilization, and when they said life begins at conception, it meant the
same thing as fertilization. Perhaps someone can direct us towards a more
authoritative source?
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: What is conception |
07 Aug 2005 07:35:38 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 03:08:34 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
In article <42e6364a.234726343@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
In article <42e6364a.234726343@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:45:38 -0400, Reel Mckoi <c@c.net> wrote:
Conception, the union of sperm and ovum, was first accurately described
by a German scientist in 1827. Thereafter it was appreciated that life
began at conception rather than at “quickening,” as previously believed.
After the Civil War the new American Medical Association sent its
scientists to testify before committees and state legislatures,
informing them that life began at the time of the egg’s fertilization.
In response to this new information, every state in the union during the
1870’s and early 1880’s passed new laws making abortion a felony from
the time of conception. AMA testimony: “We were dealing with nothing
less than human life.”
OK. A total pack of lies. Nothing unexpected.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=conception
In 1913 conception meant , "The act of conceiving in the womb; the
initiation of an embryonic animal life." ....
Did they even *know* about embryonic implantation in 1913?....
Of course, which is beside the point. The word "conception" prior to
modern times, meant the implantation of the embryo in the womb, the
initiation of pregnancy. Because of constant mis-usage by Pro-Lifers,
the word "conception" now also means fertilzation.
The laws that were passed made abortion a felony unless done by an AMA
certified doctor. The originaql anti-abortion movement was simply a
power grab by the AMA to deny the very lucrative abortion business to
anyone else. The laws were writen to protect women from
non-AMA-certified practitioners.
I looked all of this up years ago when I first tried to verify the
statements of Pro-Lifers. They lied then, and you are still repeating
the same lies long after they have been proven to be lies. Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Re: What is conception |
07 Aug 2005 04:14:56 PM |
|
|
In article <42f5fa02.633910531@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
Of course, which is beside the point. The word "conception" prior to
modern times, meant the implantation of the embryo in the womb, the
initiation of pregnancy. Because of constant mis-usage by Pro-Lifers,
the word "conception" now also means fertilzation.
Can you give a cite? Again, the sense of "implantation" referring to
pregnancy wan't in that dictionary, and neither was "zygote", so I reached
the conclusion that they didn't know about implantation.
All of this is beside the point as well. Even if they did mean
"conception" as "implantation", all surgical abortions would- by their
criteria- involve the killing of a human being.
I looked all of this up years ago when I first tried to verify the
statements of Pro-Lifers. They lied then, and you are still repeating
the same lies long after they have been proven to be lies. Why?
What lies am I repeating? Did I even state anything as fact? I was asking
a very innocent question.
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: What is conception |
07 Aug 2005 06:10:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:14:56 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
In article <42f5fa02.633910531@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
Of course, which is beside the point. The word "conception" prior to
modern times, meant the implantation of the embryo in the womb, the
initiation of pregnancy. Because of constant mis-usage by Pro-Lifers,
the word "conception" now also means fertilzation.
Can you give a cite? Again, the sense of "implantation" referring to
pregnancy wan't in that dictionary, and neither was "zygote", so I reached
the conclusion that they didn't know about implantation.
So you're an idiot. We know that.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=impregnate
1. To make pregnant; to cause to conceive
2. (Biol.) To come into contact with (an ovum or egg) so as to cause
impregnation; to fertilize;
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=conception
1. The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic
animal life.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conception&x=24&y=12
1 a (1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization
or implantation or both(
And just for those who are unclear on the concept -- without
implantation there is no pregnancy.
All of this is beside the point as well. Even if they did mean
"conception" as "implantation", all surgical abortions would- by their
criteria- involve the killing of a human being.
No it wouldn't -- a human being, then as now, is that which is born,
human, and alive.
I looked all of this up years ago when I first tried to verify the
statements of Pro-Lifers. They lied then, and you are still repeating
the same lies long after they have been proven to be lies. Why?
What lies am I repeating? Did I even state anything as fact? I was asking
a very innocent question.
"involve the killing of a human being."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sadburger" |
|
| Title: Re: What is conception |
08 Aug 2005 02:07:41 AM |
|
|
In article <42f691de.672786625@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:14:56 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
In article <42f5fa02.633910531@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
Of course, which is beside the point. The word "conception" prior to
modern times, meant the implantation of the embryo in the womb, the
initiation of pregnancy. Because of constant mis-usage by Pro-Lifers,
the word "conception" now also means fertilzation.
Can you give a cite? Again, the sense of "implantation" referring to
pregnancy wan't in that dictionary, and neither was "zygote", so I reached
the conclusion that they didn't know about implantation.
So you're an idiot. We know that.
I'm an idiot because I ask questions from a person who says he's
researched the matter? I wanted to know was whether people thought
pregnancy begins at fertilization in 1913, and all I get are insults and
lies :(
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=impregnate
1. To make pregnant; to cause to conceive
2. (Biol.) To come into contact with (an ovum or egg) so as to cause
impregnation; to fertilize;
It seems there they're equating impregnation with fertilization, which
would contradict your contention.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=conception
1. The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic
animal life.
How does this show that people in 1913 thought conception wasn't the same
as fertilization? And why aren't there relevant definitions for "zygote,"
"implantation" and "fertilization" if they didn't?
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conception&x=24&y=12
1 a (1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization
or implantation or both(
This is from a contemporary dictionary, and so is obviously irrelevant to
our discussion.
And just for those who are unclear on the concept -- without
implantation there is no pregnancy.
All of this is beside the point as well. Even if they did mean
"conception" as "implantation", all surgical abortions would- by their
criteria- involve the killing of a human being.
No it wouldn't -- a human being, then as now, is that which is born,
human, and alive.
Not according to the AMA in 1870.
I looked all of this up years ago when I first tried to verify the
statements of Pro-Lifers. They lied then, and you are still repeating
the same lies long after they have been proven to be lies. Why?
What lies am I repeating? Did I even state anything as fact? I was asking
a very innocent question.
"involve the killing of a human being."
Ah, you prophetically called out my lie! (My "lie" was in the post that
quoted your post accusing me of lying.) In any case, let's stick to the
matter at hand...
This isn't about whether I think abortion is the killing of a human
being, or you don't, this is about what the AMA said. If they said human
life begins at conception, then that means- at least to them- all surgical
abortions involve the killing of a human being. (Uh oh, I'm hitting Paul
with some some modal logic... who wants to bet he'll just accuse me of
lying again?)
--
email------ - - . i'd like least be an inuit cuz
. everything is cold and ***** and
web-------- - - . everything's made of snow and *****
home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow . when you're an eskimo and *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: What is conception |
08 Aug 2005 07:29:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 07:07:41 GMT, (Sadburger)
wrote:
.....
All of this is beside the point as well. Even if they did mean
"conception" as "implantation", all surgical abortions would- by their
criteria- involve the killing of a human being.
No it wouldn't -- a human being, then as now, is that which is born,
human, and alive.
Not according to the AMA in 1870.
This is a lie.
....
This isn't about whether I think abortion is the killing of a human
being, or you don't, this is about what the AMA said. If they said human
life begins at conception, then that means- at least to them- all surgical
abortions involve the killing of a human being.....
All you have shown here is that you are terminally stupid. Doctors
have not been knowingly killing millions of human beings yearly for
over a century.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
