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

Con posted; "Thanks, Chuz-life, for a refreshingly civil take on this conflict of opinion."You're welcome, CreedHunt and thank you for the same. I am a bit confused about Con's comment about swallowing a petri dish. I have re-read the comment several times now and I think I know what my opponent was TRYING to say but I would rather not make any assumptions at this point. Con starts off clearly stating that "ACOG is not suggesting that one could not define pregnancy as "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body."Aren't they?I can not agree with my opponent when he says that ACOG is trying to define pregnancy in a "more accurate" way - when ACOG has the definition so narrowly focused that my opponent has to anticipate the exceptions like 'ectopic pregnancies.[1]' Interesting enough, I found that link just to provide a source for what 'ectopic pregnancies' are and it begins with; "Pregnancy begins with a fertilized egg." Again, I'll note that not all fertilizations 'take' (succeed) and that would mean that not all fertilized eggs result in a pregnancy. Still, it was a nice find to support my claims.To Con's comment that the (Merriam Webster's) definition of conception that he shared "merely says that it (pregnancy) can be considered to be implantation, rather than fertilization..." Pro has already agreed that implantation CAN begin a pregnancy. As it does when the IVF procedure is used. Does Con agree that the definition he provided indicates that pregnancies can also begin PRIOR to implantation? If so, then Con must agree that ACOG's claim that suggests pregnancy can ONLY begin at and by implantation - is wrong. Per my opponent's claim that "CConception can refer to fertilization, implantation, or both;" We already agree on that. However, when my opponent says that "ACOG is referring to implantation, and that is valid" I have to remind my opponent that this debate is not about the fact that some pregnancies (like those from IVF) can and do begin at implantation. It's about the other circumstances and definitions as well. Con insisted that I "Pro has presented no proof as to why the definition I presented is faulty." That is because I do not think that it is faulty. I thought that I made it clear that the definition Con provided actually supports my claim that ACOG has it wrong. Perhaps my opponent was confused by my use of the definition he provided to raise the point that not every fertilized egg results in a conception. Sometimes it just doesn't take. Where my opponent says that "According to the definition, conception can only occur if a pregnancy does..." I believe my opponent is mistaken. Conception in some animals (fish for example) [2] takes place outside the female's body. The female lays her eggs in a nest of sorts, the male fertilizes them with his sperm and if he succeeds, conception takes place in the ones that 'take.'With (most?) Fish, there is no pregnancy - yet their young are conceived in much the same way the young of other animals are. With the successful union of a single sperm cell and an egg of the same species. As shown earlier with IVF process - Conception can and regularly does take place outside the woman's body. I digress. This debate is about ACOG's position on when and how a 'pregnancy' - and not the biological details of conception. Thanks to Con for outlining his own case in R2. I have reviewed your definitions and I visited the sources. BTW, Your 3rd link does not take me to anything but a search engine / log in page. Con's links [1] [2] & [3] from Round Two again support my view more than his. They all show that pregnancy begins even before implantation takes place. As Con himself provided - the definitions for Pregnancy read; "The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female."Please notice that there is No mention of implantation in that definition. The 2nd definition reads; "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body "I ask Con to consider the image I in R2. Is the newly conceived child/ embryo not contained in the mother's body for the 3 - 8 days it is floating un-attached in the mother's fallopian tubes? Of course it is. And again, there is no mention of 'implantation' as a requirement or condition in Con's 2nd definition either. Con's definition for number three was; "The period from conception to birth. " No mention of implantation being necessary again, and a child/ embryo floating unattached would still fit this definition. Con's sources ended there so I could not use them to verify his claims from this point on. I'll respond to some of the quoted definitions anyway. Where Con posted that Gestation is "the time between conception and birth, during which the embryo or fetus is developing in the uterus" I don't agree that THAT definition was ever intended to exclude pregnancies that are carried outside the womb - like the Ectopic Pregnancies that Con himself mentioned early on. Furthermore, we are not here to argue when and where Gestation takes place. Only when and where pregnancies BEGIN. My opponent still holds in round two that "Conception can refer to implantation, and conception is the start of pregnancy..." I can't disagree more. When I use the sources that Con himself provided - I see that they define implantation not as conception but as this instead;"the process of attachment of the early embryo to the maternal uterine wall" [4]Please notice that means the early embryo is already in existence at the time that implantation takes place. So, the question for Con is - How can that early embryo actually exist and be ready for implantation, unless it's conception has already taken place? We can't implant something that doesn't already exist - can we? The only logical conclusion is that conception precedes implantation. Con (and ACOG) is therefore only partially correct in their views. They are correct when they acknowledge the fact that a pregnancy begins at conception. But they are incorrect when they claim that conception and pregnancy doesn't take place until implantation. Rather than to respond to Con's opinions about the downside of recognizing pregnancy as beginning BEFORE implantation, I would like to use my remaining characters to shed some light on pregnancies that never involve implantation at all.Given we are for the most part talking about human beings and human pregnancy in this debate but I ask my opponent and our readers the following; "Should the standards be higher for a human pregnancy to be recognized than it is for any other animal's pregnancy?"There are several species of animals which are "Ovoviviparous [5]." They breed just like most other animals do, only they carry their fertilized eggs UNATTATCHED through their entire pregnancy and deliver their live young in a live birth just like humans and other animals do. Certain snakes, salamanders and even sharks carry their pregnancies this way. [6]Please understand, this is not being presented to equate human pregnancies with salamanders. It is shared only to ask the question... If implantation is not a requirement for a simple salamander to be recognized as pregnant - then why should implantation be required for the recognition of a Human pregnancy?"Is it acceptable to my opponent - that a salamander's pregnancy can be said to begin at fertilization / conception and with no implantation ever taking place.... But a human pregnancy can not be recognized unless or until an implantation does take place? That seems arbitrary and a bit exclusive to me. It should be established that a pregnancy exists at any time a parent is carrying their young in their body. for these ovoviviparous animals, that point is immediately following fertilization/ conception and for human beings, it should be the same. [1] Ectopic Pregnancies - http://www.mayoclinic.org...[2] Spawning - http://www.ehow.com...[3] Conception - http://www.memidex.com...[4] Implantation - http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] Ovoviviparous - http://dictionary.reference.com...[6] Pregnancy in Salamanders - http://animals.pawnation.com...