Semantics Don’t Change Truth: The social motivations behind new definitions

Posted By on November 22, 2010

Elizabeth Mitchell over at has written an excellent piece about how modern scientists simply change definitions in order to make something acceptable which was once unthinkable:

The FDA’s recent controversial approval of “ulipristal acetate—an emergency contraceptive effective for up to 5 days” after exposure—made headline news in the September issue of Ob.Gyn. News.1 Like similar medications with an approved 3-day window, the newer drug contains a hormone which not only delays ovulation but also alters the environment inside the uterus to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.2 And like the others, it claims to not cause abortion if the woman happens to already be pregnant.3

What about non-surgical termination of pregnancy before implantation—the so-called “morning-after pill”? Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 27th edition, copyright 2000, offered a bandage for the conscience of the general medical community and the society they serve: it redefined conception.5Once upon a time, conception was synonymous with fertilization; in the new millennium, conception became synonymous with implantation, which typically occurs 6-9 days later. Stedman’s semantic alteration, like an earlier change by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, reflected not medical science but sociological and political correctness.

You can read the rest of this well-documented piece at this link. Pass it on.

About The Author

Mrs. Chancey is the mother of 12 children, all of whom keep the household bubbling with life, learning, and levity. Jennie co-founded LAF in 2002 with Lydia Sherman and has been delighted to hear from women all over the world who enjoy their femininity and love to cultivate womanly virtues.


3 Responses to “Semantics Don’t Change Truth: The social motivations behind new definitions”

  1. mamajillian says:

    I enjoyed reading the link article – its a good summary of the issue.

    However, it fails to mention that most oral contraceptives have an abortifacient action. That is, they fail to prevent contraception 100% of the time, and their action prevents implantation. Many women would be horrified if they knew this.

    (Of course this explains the “failure rate” of contraceptives – the children that survived have also managed to implant in their mother’s womb).

    Unfortunately we live in an anti child society – where children are not seen as a blessing all the time, but as a social convenience.

    It is an indictment against the church that women who call themselves followers of Christ can have this attitude – “children when and if I feel like it.” This is an anti life attitude.

    I thank my heavenly father that he changed my heart – I used to think like this also.

  2. mamajillian says:

    OOPS, that 2nd paragraph should read “conception” not “contraception”

  3. Hello! This particular article was written in response to the new “Ella” pill, but if you check around on LAF, you will see that we have dozens of articles about the abortifacient nature of all chemical/hormonal contraception–as well as the adverse health risks (stroke, heart attack, depression, weight gain) tied to all forms of The Pill. Thanks for stopping by!

%d bloggers like this: