Repubtards: Government small enough to fit in your pants

[Clodfobble]

Well, that's the thing. It's inconvenient to start the clock at fertilization, 2 weeks, because stuff has been happening before that. The egg was actually doing some pre-development as it got ready to be released (something like the "luteal phase," and others, I can't remember.) The uterine wall was thickening, and if it doesn't properly do so, yet a pregnancy still occurs, you have to be able to talk about the developmental stage that went awry and led to the predicament of "not enough uterine wall to properly nourish the developing placenta." The biological error was at negative 1 week?

The woman's body doesn't know if it will or will not get fertilized. It goes through the process every month on the assumption that it will. Necessary steps have to happen before fertilization, even if those steps are completely wasted most months. Is the woman "pregnant" before she's pregnant? Not by my definition, but you have to count those weeks as part of the larger process.