Abortion is Wrong

K

kit

Member
Is that right?
Aren't fertilisation and conception basically the same thing?
The egg is released. The egg meets sperm somewhere up in the fallopian tubes. The sperm joins with the egg and in doing so fertilises it and a potential life is conceived. The fertilised egg starts to divide, travels into the womb, implants into the wall, becomes blastocyst etc etc etc.

How can fertilisation happen after conception?
 
M

mseminotaur

New member
Actually it isn't right as far as I can see.
Conception and fertilisation are considered basically the same.
Maybe you are getting it mixed up with the time measured from the previous period (the only verifiable time when the woman wasn't pregnant) or implantation?
Which can be days before and after conception/fertilisation.
 
K

Kaynard

New member
I agree. I never understood how you can charge a woman with "fetal abuse" for drinking while pregnant but abortion doesn't fall under that umbrella? Also, I'm sure everyone knows about the case of the kidnapped girls in Cleveland and how they were beaten when it was found out they were pregnant so the "fetus" didn't survive. They want to charge the kidnapper (Ariel Castro) for those crimes. How is that not hypocrisy in our society?
 
D

Donnie

Member
Because one is a man violently assaulting a woman whom he has imprisoned and raped and the other is a doctor performing a consensual medical procedure.
 
A

Ad

Member
"I stabbed someone in the face and got five years, meanwhile a Doctor gets paid to stab people with a scalpel. Balderdash and hypocrisy!"
 
C

ChrisSmith

New member
You can charge someone with fetal abuse for drinking whilst pregnant??? Who knew?

But the difference is actually pretty straightforward (and irrelevant to the abortion argument). Drinking/taking drugs whilst pregnant can lead to developmental issues and abnormalities in the fetus. If the fetus is carried to term, that means the resulting child (who we all agree is alive) has been physically harmed by those actions.

If you have an abortion at week 10, then getting high at week 6 doesn't make a blind bit of difference, does it?
 
T

teeny612

New member
Um, there is no "conception" in medicine, as I mentioned previously in this thread. (At least I think I mentioned it. It was weeks ago. I have no concept of time.) Conception and fertilization are most certainly NOT the same thing.

It goes:Ovulation.
(Sex)Fertilization.Implantation. (Or "conception" to those untrained in the topic.)
[Day 0] Sex
[30M - Day 5] Fertilization = The sperm and ovum unite, creating a zygote.
[Day 7-14] Implantation = The blastocyst binds to the wall of the uterus.

Basically.
 
A

AlexisInfectious®

Active member
So all the people involved in IVF treatment, midwifery, pregnancy scanning etc etc are doing it all wrong when they use the word conception?
Because that word gets use a HELL of a lot in medicine when applied to pregnancy.
 
H

helpisonitswayt

Member
In the US and the UK, in it's present day use, the word "conception" is Medieval, imprecise, and has a strong Christian and anti-abortion political connotation. Today, right now, we can measure the stages in embryonic development far more precisely than we could when we believed in all manner of hocus pocus during the terms inception in 1300-1350.



Then we move over to a Wiki article on it, which, could be laid out a bit more clearly...



So, there you have it. Basically, you have all manner of people using "conception" to mean sex, fertilization of the egg by the sperm, or inception of the blastocyst to the uterine wall. The real gem, the part in blue, explains that because of institutionalization, religious and political bias, ignorance, and good ole fashion convenience, you have "professionals" popularly using the term in modern medicine to mean the period of time two weeks before the woman began ovulating or any sex was had. Seems legit.



If it were my genes I'd carefully used to fertilize one of those alluring XXers, and some MD came into the room and started dropping "conception" bombs repeatedly into the conversation, it would be a red flag for me that they either had an agenda that can and too often does influence their medical recommendations, or were a lazy academic.
 
W

WW

Member
You're trying to justify/equate a medical procedure where life is taken with a medical procedure for saving one. They are not the same. Intentional killing is murder whether in the street or in the operating room.
 
S

sweetie92

New member
I don't think I fully agree there.

While agree that the definition (or lack thereof) of conception should be replaced by more specific and unambiguous terms. But then the word 'conception' is something that laypeople (general populace) use and pretty much know what a doctor is talking about when they use it. So when a doctor purposely uses plain language and an effort to make themselves more easily understood they may still use it.

If you talk more to the doctor and make it clear you have more knowledge and understand of the area and terminology than a typical patient they may realise that and start using more accurate language. But it's a conversation you can't really judge until you have it.
 
A

AlexisInfectious®

Active member
No, what he was doing was pointing out that the academically dishonest debate tactic you used in attempting to compare two grossly unrelated events to further your agenda was absurd and offensive. He did that by mocking your statement and rephrasing it in another context. We all got it, but you seem to have missed his subtle cue.

Do you sincerely believe that a man brutally assaulting a child to intentionally kill the unborn fetus he put inside her after kidnapping and raping her is equivalent to a consensual medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy?
 
A

AppleHead

Member
To the child, yes they are the same. I agree there are different levels of brutality and while the prior example is more heinous, they both end in the same result. Do you not agree that one murder can be considered more heinous than another?
 
Top