Physicians, Petri dishes, and Pregnancy

Just what exactly does this word connotate? For quite some time now, the word simply meant that a woman was carrying her young inside her body.

To illustrate what the long standing meaning of this word, I'll use the entries contained in the 1828 and 1913 editions of Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

Pregnant
1828 edition: Being with young, as a female; breeding; teeming. [1]
1913 edition: Being with young, as a female; having conceived; great with young; breeding; teeming; gravid; preparing to bring forth. [2]

More recent definitions can be found at: Medical Definitions

Essentially, the historical definition of pregnancy is that it is the state of carrying young prior to birth. There is nothing magical about the Petri dish which has altered scientific reality concerning this fact. If a new offspring exists within a woman, anywhere, she is pregnant – regardless of the location of the tiny human.

Physicians Use the Same Dictionaries

Some claim the definitions used by physicians are somehow different than that used by nurses or other medical professionals. Yet all of these professions rely on the same medical dictionaries regardless if they are physicians, nurses, or technical writers.

Concerning the practical aspects of fertilization and implantation, just what is a physician capable of understanding that a nurse practitioner, physician's assistant, or an educated lay person isn't? Just what is this mystery that only physicians are capable of understanding?

(I suspect that this particular claim is based largely upon arrogance and denial...)

Implantation in the Uterus is Not Required

Some would argue, in the face of science and medical fact, that pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation in the womb. Yet ectopic pregnancies exist outside of the womb, and are recognized by the medical community at large as a pregnancy.

Ectopic pregnancies disprove the claim that medical science insists that pregnancy *must* take place in the womb.

A further objection is that extra-uterine pregnancies have *implanted* and therefore are considered pregnancies. Yet, the word “ectopic” only implies that the tiny human implanted in the wrong place, not that pregnancy didn't exist until implantation. In fact, the first time the word "etopic" was used to describe pregnancy, it was simply used to describe a pregnancy which was extra-uterine and nothing more. [3]

Petri Dishes Can't be Pregnant

Now it's time to address the Petri dish and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).

The Petri dish is often erroneously offered as proof that fertilization is not the start of pregnancy. The line of reasoning is this: A Petri dish holding a new life can't be pregnant; therefore, a woman is not pregnant at fertilization.

Petri dishes, while capable of holding newly created life, are not capable of reproducing themselves, nor do they carry their own offspring.

A Petri dish holding a tiny human is no more pregnant than an incubator holding a premature baby is. Machines, glass, plastic are objects and not beings. The word "pregnancy", in the biological and medical sense, is restricted to living beings.

A pregnancy which originates from fertilization in a Petri dish (IVF) skips the normal fertilization "phase". This does not mean that implantation marks the start of all pregnancies, it only means that this particular method of achieving pregnancy skips fertilization inside of a woman. It's the exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

And when the little humans created via IVF are transferred into a woman's body, this condition meets the definition of pregnancy (carrying young) -- even though implantation may not have yet taken place. Remember, despite the claims of the IVF and contraception advocates, the medical definition of pregnancy does not require that implantation occurr.

Life created in a Petri dish only proves that life can be created and exist outside of a woman -- not that women aren't pregnant at fertilization.

Detection Does Not Define the Start of Pregnancy

That brings us to the claim that the earliest possible start of pregnancy is when it can first be detected (with accuracy): implantation.

Let's apply this claim to cancer. No credible physician will tell a cancer patient that they did not have cancer prior to a positive diagnosis. Instead, they say things like "we caught it early" or "we caught it too late". But they would never say "you never had cancer until we could diagnose it." Yet, when it comes to the state of pregnancy, this is exactly what some OB/GYNs and medical organizations are promoting. In their twisted view, pregnancy only starts at the earliest possible moment of diagnosis -- implantation.

A diagnosis of pregnancy at implantation is simply that – the discovery of an existing but previously un-diagnosable condition. A positive diagnosis isn't the beginning of a condition, nor does it cause a condition, it’s merely the confirmation or discovery of it. After all, pregnancy tests do not cause pregnancy and cancer tests do not cause cancer -- they only confirm the presence or absence of these conditions.

The earliest point at which pregnancy can be reliably detected does not define when pregnancy begins, it only indicates the earliest point this pre-existing condition can be detected.

Conclusion

To sum it up, Petri dishes can't be pregnant, women are pregnant at fertilization, pregnancy tests are simply diagnostic tools for a pre-existing condition, and "pregnancy" in this context is restricted to biological beings. It's sad that many physicians, after extensive years of education and doctorate degrees, can't grasp these simple concepts.

This article can be found in its orignal format at http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/pregnancy/Physicians-Pregnancy-Petri-Dish.htm

FOOTNOTES

[1] 1828 edition of the Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, available online at http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters

[2] ibid.

[3] "Definition of Ectopic", Medterms.com, "The term 'ectopic' comes from the Greek 'ektopis' meaning 'displacement' ('ek', out of + 'topos', place = out of place). The first person to use 'ectopic' in a medical context was the English obstetrician Robert Barnes (1817-1907) who applied it to an extrauterine pregnancy: an ectopic pregnancy."

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ruben Obregon is the President and co-founder of No Room for Contraception. He has worked in the pro-family movement for the past 16 years on issues ranging from education to marriage.

(c) 2006 by Ruben Obregon.. Permission has been given to ProlifeBlogs.com (and its news aggregators) to reprint this article. No part of this article may be electronically distributed or reproduced or reprinted without permission.