Actually, the term false pregnancy is commonly applied to empty sac pregnancies. look it up. Empty sac pregnancies are also called hysterical pregnancies in cases. even animals experience it.

likewise, sometimes the 'sac' will appear empty at several weeks and then a successful pregnancy ends up happening anyway. so using your argument remains problematic all around.

Sometimes people do have to make difficult choices RAZD. i am not about to condemn them for those choices, only their own hearts can guide them. I agree very much with the NH ruling. attempting to set rules in stone concerning sensitive situations is not in anyone's best interest.

however, relying on the expertise of a so-called medical professional is not always in everyone's best interest either. and doctors, and the law in places, have also been known to demand abortions when the mother was opposed to it, even at risk of her own life.

The expectation that doctors will always present you with the very best honest fact based information is sure to let you down time and time again. More deaths are caused by medical professionals than any other cause, including cancer, on a yearly basis. and that statistic does not include abortions.

and i'd disagree... that in the context of this discussion, rareness does affect the question. and the term conception is commonly accepted, not as a false or empty sac pregnancy, but as true conception and the beginning of life. bothering with pages and pages of trying to define conception to include all errors simply to make a point that abortion should be acceptable is simply deceitful. Conception requires a healthy working fully intact sperm and egg, not something inbetween that slides by because no other term exists to define it except mutant rejected or parasite. You know for a fact that neither Russ nor Bex were ever referring to false pregancies in their opinions concerning abortion.