Pregnancy Begins at Conception - not Implantation. ACOG is wrong.

Thanks to Con for an informative, civil and I'm hoping all will agree for a productive exchange. I had hoped that my arguments would be strong enough that Con would have actually conceded before now. I feel that the evidence is that strong. Our rules say that there are to be no new arguments presented in this - the final round. So, I will do my best to respond to the arguments presented by Con without presenting any new ones myself. In response to Con's argument; "If we define pregnant as "having or containing an unborn child within the body, then someone who has swallowed a developing embryo would be considered pregnant..." I have to ask. Is pregnancy something we define or is pregnancy something we can observe? The likelihood that a person could swallow a living human embryo and have it continue to live, grow and develop while in that person's stomach is extremely impossible. The argument itself borders on being an appeal to absurdity or ridicule [1]. "The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." That said, let's go ahead and consider Con's argument as an academic exercise. Suppose someone did 'swallow an embryo' and it continued to live, grow and develop in that person's stomach. I ask our readers and voters why that person would not be or should not be considered to be pregnant? By the very definition that Con himself provided and in my opinion, they would be. However hard it is to imagine, they would be 'pregnant' for as long as that physical relationship would last. Con also argue that ;"If you were to graft an entire child onto the inside of your stomach, you would not actually be"considered pregnant..." Again, Con's argument borders on the point of absurdity and I disagree with his conclusions. A person in that relationship certainly would be considered to be 'pregnant' and or 'impregnated' by that procedure. Whether it be located in the stomach, the intestines or a person's nose as Con has also suggested... the term 'pregnant' would still apply. The definition that Con provided himself really is that broad. To Con's argument; "If an egg was fertilized in a dish and then terminated there, no pregnancy would be said to occur..." I agree. To Con's argument; "The same goes for the majority of fertilized eggs within the uterus that never end up implanting at all"I can't agree. Because, a pregnancy that starts and fails - no matter how long or short that time period takes place - is still a pregnancy. So, I reject Con's arguments about the downside in recognizing those pregnancies. As I said before - pregnancies and the conditions of pregnancy is something that takes place and can be observed. It's not something that exists only as we define it. Pregnancies are based on biological facts. They are not just semantics creations for the sake of convenience. The argument that we should narrowly define pregnancy as we see fit - in order to avoid any negative consequences is also an argument that borders on being fallacious. It is an appeal to fear [2]. As for my arguments about IVF, Con said he acknowledges "the fact that Pro says pregnancies In Vitro do begin at implantation, but why does he stop there? Why wouldn't such a pregnancy begin the moment it entered the uterus?"I'm not sure that I fully understand what Con means by that question, but why not? If the woman is "with child" she is with child. The pregnancy may or may not last and only time will tell if it will. But, for as long as it does last; if a woman is carrying her young inside her body... even according to the definition that Con himself provided earlier, she is pregnant. Where Con quotes ACOG's claim that "Women's very lives would be jeopardized if physicians were prohibited from terminating life-threatening ectopic and molar pregnancies.." That may or may not be so. However, it has little to do with this debate. There is no attempt to prohibit the termination of such life threatening pregnancies - in this debate. Con's citing of ACOG's statement continued with; "They (ACOG) states that pregnancies begin at implantation, and then go on to say that ectopic pregnancies could not be terminated without such a definition. The implication being that ectopic pregnancies can not be considered pregnancies at all." Yes, we already know what ACOG's claims and statement's are. Those are the claims that are being challenged. The more we examine them, the more it becomes clear - that ACOG's interest in defining pregnancy is NOT a strict adherence to the biological facts but an attempt to establish an arbitrarily decided social / political point that best suits their own social /political agenda.That to me is unacceptable. Pregnancy is an actual and factual physical relationship. It is not a political football that is amenable to the political whims of a majority vote. I encourage our voters to read Con's arguments closely and to see where Con (and ACOG) is trying to have it both ways. They both agree that "all pregnancies begin with a fertilized egg" in one breath and then refuse to define pregnancy that way in the next. Con is in some ways correct when he argues that a pregnancy can also be said to have began with a sperm cell and with an un-fertilized egg. Because, without them the pregnancy could not have occurred. However, the woman's physical and biological state of actually being pregnant is what is being debated here and that point begins the moment she begins to carry her young in her body. Not the moment that her young (some 8 days later) finally implants into her uterus. Like we discussed earlier, some (ovoviviparous) animals carry their entire pregnancies to term with implantation never taking place. Their pregnancies are said to begin at fertilization / conception. It is illogical then to suggest that a human pregnancy does not begin until any point beyond the same.I am short on time and I must close. I hope I have made my case well enough to carry this debate. I haven't enough characters to respond to all of Con's remaining arguments. Hopefully, I have responded to all of the most pertinent ones. I do want to respond to Con's claim about fish. Where Con says "As far as fish go, I do acknowledge that most use external fertilization. However, since no pregnancy occurs, no conception occurs." I encourage Con to do more research on the subject. There are numerous links on how fish spawn, when their conceptions take place and even how temperature affects the gender of those conceived. [3]Thanks to all who read and to those who take the time to vote.- Chuz [1] Appeal to Ridicule - http://www.nizkor.org...[2] Appeal to Fear - http://www.nizkor.org...[3] Fish, Conception - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...