Pregnancy

[scardella]

Okay, first off, this question is meant to be independent of the question "When does life begin?" I'm quite clear that life begins at conception and that deliberately killing the conceived baby, whether via abortion or abortifacient means is morally illicit.

If a woman knew that conception had occurred, but the egg has not implanted within her yet, is she pregnant? I guess the only legal ramifications of this might be in terms of things like RU-486. To ask the question in a different manner, does a woman whose fertilized egg fails to implant miscarry or just fail to implant?

The reason I ask is that the woman's body does not know that conception has occurred unless the egg is implanted. BTW, would someone with a medical background care to correct this if I'm wrong?

I feel like this question does not affect moral decisions, but I want to know what people think.

[StColette]

I believe that pregnancy begins at conception. We recognize that when someone has conceived a baby that even before implantation that baby is a living person and thus the person is pregnant. Pregnancy = conception.

I would say that if conception has occurred and implantation does not occur then it would be considered a miscarriage. We consider a miscarriage the loss of an unborn child. Again we recognize that a life begins at conception, so even if there was no implantation the conceived child is still a living person and is still considered a loss. This is why we consider the pill a form of an abortifacient because it keeps implantation from occurring. Some people will argue that conception does not take place until implantation. Science text books and doctors say otherwise. Implantation normally occurs between 10 to 16 days after conception.

The bodies of many women do not even recognize that they are pregnant after implantation has occurred. For some women it could take weeks to months before their bodies start acting or showing signs that it is carrying a child within it. So not even implantation can be a sure fire way of knowing you're pregnant or even your body knowing that you're pregnant.

Hope I didn't confuse anyone.

[picchick]

Conception occurs in the fallopian tube and as the baby travels don the tube, the cells divide and divide. Then implantation occus as St. Colette said.

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='picchick' post='1902288' date='Jun 26 2009, 10:52 PM']Conception occurs in the fallopian tube and as the baby travels don the tube, the cells divide and divide. Then implantation occus as St. Colette said.[/quote]

Except if you're Mary - she conceived in her womb

I agree with the conception = pregnant idea. When there's a baby, and it's not on the outside, you're obviously pregnant

[Nihil Obstat]

If this is purely from a scientific perception, and the question of life is completely detached, then there's also a valid argument that the technical pregnancy starts when the implanted blastocyst (or is it gastrula?) starts releasing human chorionic gonadotropin to stop the endometrium from disintegrating.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1904878' date='Jun 28 2009, 11:59 PM']If this is purely from a scientific perception, and the question of life is completely detached, then there's also a valid argument that the technical pregnancy starts when the implanted blastocyst (or is it gastrula?) starts releasing human chorionic gonadotropin to stop the endometrium from disintegrating.[/quote]

interesting.
1. can you explain the scientific jargon you are using?
2. why would you say it's a reasonable argument, scientifically speaking? im not being rhetorical or sarcastic etc, i genuinely want more info.

maybe i should say... explain the jargon, if it helps explain why u think it reasonabe.

Edited June 29, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, i'm not sure the fertilized egg not being implanted, would be a 'miscarriage' as was said above, to most people.
for one, it's just not commonly thought of as miscarriage, so i dont know u can made that deduction. for two, half of all fertilized eggs don't get implanted. some of the ones who do, are miscarriages in the full sense of the word. so 'more than half of all pregnanies end in miscarriage', seems a little counter intuitive.

it looks more to me, that the poster who said that, thought it was self evident, to her, that that was the case that ya should call it miscarriage. and maybe she was extending that self evidency to everyone else, and genuinely thought it a valid extension?

i don't know. but i question whether it's a valid extension.

Edited June 29, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

Implantation is the process by which an embryo implants itself into the uterine wall, which is the endometrium. The endometrium has built itseld up from the effects of the hormone progesterone in the uterine cycle. Normally at the start of the new cycle, low levels of estrogen and progesterone will cause the thick endometrium to break down and be expelled.
However when a blastocyst implants on the endometrium, one of the layers (the chorion) will cause HCG (human chorionic gonadotropin), which maintains the corpus luteum in the ovaries. Maintaining the corpus luteum causes them to continue secreting progesterone and some estrogen, which is the reason the endometrium is thick in the first place.
My thought in this is that if we seperate it entirely from the question of when life begins, then it is a valid hypothesis that a pregnancy scientifically begins when certain hormones act on the female body to cause this more unusual state.

Of course it's equally valid to suggest that pregnancy begins when the fertilized child begins to grow, which is pretty much immediately, or when formerly haploid cells become diploid, meaning conception.

[Dan]

Wishing to err on the most conservative side...

When the mother's egg and the sperm join, each contributes their DNA. At this blending of the DNA, the child is neither the mother or father.

While the child is still quite far away from implantation, the child is a unique indivual ( 2 cells, 4 cells, 2048 cells, etc ).

[Sojourner]

[quote name='StColette' post='1902281' date='Jun 26 2009, 02:45 PM']I believe that pregnancy begins at conception. We recognize that when someone has conceived a baby that even before implantation that baby is a living person and thus the person is pregnant. Pregnancy = conception.

I would say that if conception has occurred and implantation does not occur then it would be considered a miscarriage. We consider a miscarriage the loss of an unborn child. Again we recognize that a life begins at conception, so even if there was no implantation the conceived child is still a living person and is still considered a loss. This is why we consider the pill a form of an abortifacient because it keeps implantation from occurring. Some people will argue that conception does not take place until implantation. Science text books and doctors say otherwise. Implantation normally occurs between 10 to 16 days after conception.

The bodies of many women do not even recognize that they are pregnant after implantation has occurred. For some women it could take weeks to months before their bodies start acting or showing signs that it is carrying a child within it. So not even implantation can be a sure fire way of knowing you're pregnant or even your body knowing that you're pregnant.

Hope I didn't confuse anyone.[/quote]
That's not entirely true. Your body might not manifest outward signs for a while that you're pregnant, but it knows that the baby is there once implantation starts. As soon as implantation occurs, you produce hCG, which is the hormone pregnancy tests test for. That's the big signal to all body systems that pregnancy is there. While the levels vary from woman to woman (and pregnancy to pregnancy) it is always there. You might be lucky and have no symptoms (like all those people on TLC who have no idea they're pregnant), but you probably will within a couple weeks of implantation.

Before that, the medical community is split about whether a fertilized egg constitutes pregnancy or not, from what I can tell. For myself, I'm not sure how I'd come down on it. If your fertilized egg, for whatever reason, did not implant and passed out through your normal period, you'd have no idea one way or the other. There would be absolutely no sign in your body, chemical or otherwise, that would indicate a pregnancy. You could still call it a miscarriage, though, I think, but you would just not really know unless you did tests on everything you passed every period. I would say that the fertilized egg is alive, that life begins at conception, but that pregnancy begins at implantation when the pregnancy hormone(s) begin being produced. Whether you know it or not has no impact on whether or not you're pregnant. I think the measurable changes in bodily chemistry would be the determining factor for me.

[philothea]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1905177' date='Jun 29 2009, 11:06 AM']I would say that the fertilized egg is alive, that life begins at conception, but that pregnancy begins at implantation when the pregnancy hormone(s) begin being produced. Whether you know it or not has no impact on whether or not you're pregnant. I think the measurable changes in bodily chemistry would be the determining factor for me.[/quote]
Agreed.

The woman's body has to be participating for there to be a pregnancy. Obviously, things like in-vitro fertilization don't constitute "pregnancy" until implantation. Same difference, IMO, until there's some physical connection.

[scardella]

[quote name='philothea' post='1905194' date='Jun 29 2009, 10:29 AM']The woman's body has to be participating for there to be a pregnancy. Obviously, things like in-vitro fertilization don't constitute "pregnancy" until implantation. Same difference, IMO, until there's some physical connection.[/quote]

Ooh... That's an interesting point.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm uncomfortable answering the poll just because it's so close to being a life issue.... and yet.........

[scardella]

I think the key to the life issue is the fact that the conceived child, implanted or not, born or unborn is a human made in the image and likeness of God.

[StColette]

[quote name='scardella' post='1905468' date='Jun 29 2009, 04:35 PM']I think the key to the life issue is the fact that the conceived child, implanted or not, born or unborn is a human made in the image and likeness of God.[/quote]

Right, which is why I'm having difficulty saying that pregnancy begins at implantation rather than conception. I mean both my kiddos implanted, but before they did was I not pregnant? I associate conception with life and life with pregnancy. I mean if we say that a pregnancy does not begin until implantation aren't we treading on dangerous ground or a slippery slope. Lots of pro-abortion folks use the "pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation" thing to say that the morning after pill is permissible and not terminating a pregnancy. If it's not terminating a pregnancy then what is it terminating? I guess I just can't separate pregnancy with life and life with conception.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='StColette' post='1905518' date='Jun 29 2009, 03:29 PM']Right, which is why I'm having difficulty saying that pregnancy begins at implantation rather than conception. I mean both my kiddos implanted, but before they did was I not pregnant? I associate conception with life and life with pregnancy. I mean if we say that a pregnancy does not begin until implantation aren't we treading on dangerous ground or a slippery slope. Lots of pro-abortion folks use the "pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation" thing to say that the morning after pill is permissible and not terminating a pregnancy. If it's not terminating a pregnancy then what is it terminating? I guess I just can't separate pregnancy with life and life with conception.[/quote]
Two things. Although I know nothing of your personal cycle/charting, it is very possible that you had other embryos that did not implant, for one reason or another, and passed out with menstruation. Was that a pregnancy? The only reason you know of the fertilization is because of the implantation.

That's not to say that a fertilized embryo is not alive. An embryo should be afforded every opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. This is, I believe, being "open to life." I think of it like the womb is a garden. I should do everything I can to make it ready and hospitable to life that might come along, but until that life actually implants and starts growing I am not considered pregnant. Using drugs like RU-486 violates the call to be open to life because it makes the womb inhospitable to life. It's like throwing down Round-Up instead of Miracle-Gro.

Not a perfect analogy, but still.

[StColette]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1905537' date='Jun 29 2009, 05:46 PM']Two things. Although I know nothing of your personal cycle/charting, it is very possible that you had other embryos that did not implant, for one reason or another, and passed out with menstruation. Was that a pregnancy? The only reason you know of the fertilization is because of the implantation.

That's not to say that a fertilized embryo is not alive. An embryo should be afforded every opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. This is, I believe, being "open to life." I think of it like the womb is a garden. I should do everything I can to make it ready and hospitable to life that might come along, but until that life actually implants and starts growing I am not considered pregnant. Using drugs like RU-486 violates the call to be open to life because it makes the womb inhospitable to life. It's like throwing down Round-Up instead of Miracle-Gro.

Not a perfect analogy, but still.[/quote]

I understand that the only reason I know that fertilization has taken place is because of implantation, but if there were embryos that did not implant and I didn't know about them and they passed out with menstruation I would still consider it a miscarriage. A miscarriage is the loss of a child (either fetus or embryo) which we know that child is alive at conception, so if the embryo did not implant I would consider it a miscarriage because it's still the loss of a child just one that did not implant.

I mean if we could somehow have knowledge of the exact moment that a child was conceived, like a woman would know instantly, would that then change the definition of when pregnancy begins?

Does the medical community determine someone is pregnant just because after implantation we are able to know for sure that a child has been conceived and a chemical process is taking place? If we were able to know that a child was conceived by some sign would that change the definition?

I understand why the definition is the way it is, I'm not arguing that. My point is who or what decides that implantation was the point at which a pregnancy begins. I mean before we had the knowledge about implantation or knowledge about pregnancy symptoms was the definition of when a pregnancy started different? If we define pregnancy, relative to the woman, and there is a remote chemical change that takes place at conception in the woman's body that we do not know about (it's possible lol) and we discover it would that change the definition?

Micah and I have been discussing this topic at length. Micah says it would depend upon what you wanted "pregnancy" to mean

[quote]again, it would depend on what you wanted "pregnancy" to mean...is pregnancy the state of having conceived a life one is still bearing (therefore the definition being relative to the child conceived) or is it the hormonal and biological state of a pregnant woman's body (the hormonal state beginning at implantation, and therefore being relative to the woman)[/quote]

The medical community seems to approach it from it being relative to the woman, while I am trying to approach it being relative to the life conceived.

[scardella]

I would tend to think that pregnancy being defined as beginning with implantation speaks to the physical bond created between mother and child when the child is implanted. That bond continues until labor. In that bond, they share bodily fluids, hormones, etc. Before implantation, however, that bond does not yet exist.

That line of thought was what prompted the thread in the first place.

[StColette]

[quote name='scardella' post='1906423' date='Jun 30 2009, 04:51 PM']I would tend to think that pregnancy being defined as beginning with implantation speaks to the physical bond created between mother and child when the child is implanted. That bond continues until labor. In that bond, they share bodily fluids, hormones, etc. Before implantation, however, that bond does not yet exist.

That line of thought was what prompted the thread in the first place.[/quote]


I understand this line of thinking, and it's very in line with the definition of pregnancy that we have today. But my main question is why do we say that pregnancy begins at implantation? What makes us decide that once that physical bond of implantation occurs then that is when pregnancy starts? I think that's the root of my probing at this topic, why have we (medical community or whatever) decided that it is at implantation that pregnancy begins, rather than at conception? Why does a physical bond established at implantation mean you're pregnant?

[philothea]

[quote name='StColette' post='1906430' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:02 PM'](snip)
Why does a physical bond established at implantation mean you're pregnant?[/quote]

Because that's what the word means.

It doesn't in any way add or detract from the conceived child being alive.