Human reproduction/archive1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Let's work on this behind the scenes and try to come up with something suitable for all ages.
Draft is here. --Ed Poor 16:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I note that X is also missing. This should be a priority I feel, as this could be a valuable source of information with integrity for vulnerable youth looking for answers. --stevendavy 16:23, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Where did "X" come from? I wrote penis, which is surely not going to warp anyones mind. We need to write about the penis and the vagina. There is nothing crude in these things.stevendavy (EDT)
Exercise caution. I was banned from editing for a week after I used a different clinical termm which I shall not repeat here - and that was on a debate page, where the rules should be more permissive. - NewCrusader

I notice there is a distinct lack of reproductive organs in this wiki. I don't understand, surely conservatives can describe them in a clinical, objective manner without exploding with passion? There are conservative gynecologists, aren't there? --Afi 18:22, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

No, we can't. Not in public. It's not our place to put even the most clinical description of sexual subjects in places where minors may see them. Conservapedia can remain silent, and the parents can fend off any curiosity with stories of the stork until they judge their offspring mature enough to handle anything more than 'mummy plus daddy makes baby.' - NewCrusader

Dont be disgusting, I dont want my child going on the internet and reading smut and filth! Conservapedia needs to be kept clean. This article is completely unnecceassary and should be removed. Anyone suggesting "penis" is not a rude word has obviously been going to michael moore school of family values. warmonkey Jan 11 2008

Please be satire, please be satire... Barikada 23:01, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Please, please, please... ProserpinaFC
You have got to be joking... Right...? A common-sense, clear, scientific explanation of how the human race multiplies itself should be curriculum. And if penis is a rude word, the same should go for knee, toe, shoulder and all other body parts. It is no more than a completely ordinary part of the human body. I see your concern; there are far too much pornography in this world. The Wikipedia sites on these subjects are - IMHO - great examples of how this should be. Clear, honest descriptions of the things all parents have been through. Some say that parents should teach their children those things... My experience as a teacher is that kids want to hear this from everyone but their parents. And obviously... If the human race are going to last, they have got to learn it somehow... Unless they want to end up like a dutch couple who grew up in a strictly conservative christian enviroment. Somehow they expected that kids would turn up... And when this did not seem to happen, they went to a doctor - shows up they had never heard about what their genitalia were made for...tangentus Apr 07 2008
If it's just a 'completly ordinary part of the human body,' why is it forbidden by both social taboo and criminal law to display it in public? We call them the 'dirty parts' for a reason - they are kept out of sight because this allows them to be kept out of mind, not filling people's thoughts with lust and sin or damaging children. - NewCrusader
The fact that certain body parts might have certain doubtful connotations, should really not obscure the fact that we're talking about an act fundamental to the human race. And I clearly suppose you would prefer them to learn from a (relatively) serious encyclopedia, than certain unmentionable web-sites. Calling them "dirty parts" and keeping them out of sight and mind, might help certain religious fundamentalists, but it definitely won't do their children any good. The only thing you achieve, is that they search for information other places. Besides; if you do want grand-children, they have to learn it somehow... :p. Why you come to speak of "damaging children", is beyond my wildest dreams. Fact is, kids are getting sexually active sooner and sooner, and for the vast majority, this is merely healthy and trusting proofs of working relationships. This is a fact. Trust me. Obviously; there are those awry cases. These prove the need for sexual education - learning how to put on a condom, etc. Abstinence only-programs should be banned. If nothing else, they contribute to teenage pregnancies - proven by statistics. Yes, I know this is supposed to be a Christian web-site - but the Bible says nothing against sex - the Song of Songs in the Old Testament is for the most part a salute to human reproduction and its glories.. The words against sex outside of wedlock should be reinterpreted as a warning against sex in a current relationship. A wedding is a nice and cosy ceremony, but it's entirely possible to be trusting lovers without it. What matters, is that you trust each other, respect each others feelings and take precautions against the consequenses. If these things aren't reasons enough, science shows that the more youth know about sex, the less dangerous are the consequences. Sir/miss/madam "Newcrusader" - if you have children, I would be sincerely worried about them - parents like you are the reason youth psychologists thrive. Regards; - Tangentus
Penis is not a dirty word in and of itself. It has dirty connotations, sure, but it is a scientific term. In some situations the context can lend a rude meaning but there is no other way to describe intercourse. Are we going to beat around the bush like 5th graders by saying some ridiculous euphemism? - Snotbowst - 27 Feb. 2008
No. I suggest we simply walk past the bush and don't acknowledge it's presence. - NewCrusader

I suggest changing this page to something along the lines of "Oh you mean the birds and the bees. Well when a bird sees a bee it eats it, so stay away from birds or else." That way the only imagery is of two things that came straight off Noah's ark. And it gives a teenagers a realistic reason to avoid sex. Rellik 21:38, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Rellik, warmonkey and NewCrusader, and have updated the page as Rellik suggested. MacArthur 18:55, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Contents

Criticism of liberals

  • Some liberal "families" may reproduce outside of marriage or unions, but these "families" are prone to dissolution, drugs, violence, pedophilia, mental illness and liberal values.

Shouldn't this go in the Family article? --Ed Poor Talk 22:13, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

The article is on human reproduction. It seems appropriate to explain where the proper and right place for human reproduction is: In marriage, and nowhere else. - NewCrusader
This is meaningless, as children of married parents have much the same problems. In fundamentalist religious families, these problems are even more common. - Tangentus

Sex itself is a low form of reproduction engaged in by animals and Democrats. It is the official position of all decent folk that God played an awful joke on us when he invented it, and someone should speak to him about it.

Having children

Most Christians believe that giving birth to children (bringing a new life into the world) is much more than "perpetuating the species" - as if homo sapiens were a kind of organism at risk for extinction! I think this article has adopted too much of Wikipedia's materialism.

Not that I'm blaming anybody. The Category:Life Sciences have been taught in rather a materialistic way for many decades now, and it's hard to be "encyclopedic" and overcome that bias at the same time. --Ed Poor Talk 13:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Terminology

This is going to become an issue soon, so it should be cleared up: What do we call the thingie from conception to birth? The correct scientific terms offer a series of dehumanising words - zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus(/foetus), but I know many object to using these words because they reduce the child to inhuman status. Conservapedia is pro-life, so it makes far more sense to call it a 'baby' from conception onwards. Why not? It's human at every stage. On the other hand, calling a newly-fertilised egg a baby seems to be so dripping in bias it would make us a laughing stock, as would pre-born baby or pre-born child. Mixing pro-choice and pro-life terms is also a way to introduce confusion - if we start off calling it an embryo, then switch to baby, what is the significence of the point of transition? More thought on this would be needed, but I just don't feel comfortable refering to a human being as a 'zygote' or 'embryo.' It sounds worryingly like a name given to a group in order to deprive it of human rights. - NewCrusader

Hmmm, using scientific terms in an encyclopedia seems to be pretty appropriate. Of course, if we want to toss off the mantle of science, and go with a name that doesn't "deprive it of human rights", so be it. But then don't expect respect of the article as an academic resource. --Jareddr 10:47, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
I understand the point, but some things go beyond science. Besides, I don't think Conservapedia is ever going to be considered much of an academic resource - academics are too liberal, and will just dismiss us no matter what language we use. We have an article on that, under Professor Values - we should be writing to appeal to conservatives, not academia. To conservatives, a baby is a baby no matter it's size or cell-count. - NewCrusader
I understand that, but this site was originally set up to be used as an academic reference for home schoolers. If a home schooler used this site as a reference, and then went on to college and referred to a fetus or a zygote as a baby, I believe they would be corrected by the teacher. I am not suggesting that CP should be a resource for "academics" (i.e. professors), but rather an "academic resource" (useful for students). --Jareddr 11:51, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Thingie is an unborn child. Bugler 14:23, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Bugler is correct in the word "unborn". It's not clumsy and matches the values promoted on this site. Human 16:12, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Graphic!

I just reverted to his version BHarlan 14:54, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't agree, but I also don't have the stamina to argue it. However, please be careful when reverting that you don't revert helpful intermediate edits. HelpJazz 17:32, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
HelpJazz, I noticed you removed the comment about when the human soul enters the picture. I understand your earlier edit comments saying it should be described separately from the biological aspects, so I expected you to place it elsewhere on the page. However, the comment was removed entirely. The soul is an inherent step in the process of human reproducation. Otherwise, without a soul, at which point does it become a human life? The soul appears at conception, for if it didn't then there would be no problem with abortion because you'd just be "terminating" something without a soul, akin to an animal. -Foxtrot 21:46, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
The soul (and the idea of "what makes a human life") is a theological and philisophical subject, and one I know very little about. I don't know if it should go into it's own article, or as a subsection of this one, but I know I'm not qualified to write it myself. I'm not sure I know enough to even write a tossoff sentence that wouldn't step on someone's toes. HelpJazz 22:40, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm no hobbyist theologian either, but I'll give it a try. -Foxtrot 23:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

"human gender is fixed at conception"

This is not completely accurate, although in most cases it is. There is chromosomal gender (xx or xy) but there are further abnormalities down the pipe that can cause a person to develop a phenotypical gender that is different from their chromosomal gender. One such disorder actually causes phenotypical females who are chromosomal males to grow a penis upon hitting puberty. The point I am making is that there is more to gender than xx and xy. These are rare disorders, but I'd like to either add some information or remove the line quoted in the title of this section. Let me know what you think- this seems to be a contentious article. Corry 23:57, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree that physical gender is fixed at the point the dna combination is complete (not sure just when that is ) but there is discussion about the mental(?) gender with brain development caused by presense of testosterone or estrogen. Is that worthy of inclusion ? It is a physical explanation of the transgender situation. I will try to find a source. Markr 14:56, 24 November 2008 (EST)

soul at conception ?

Do you have a citation for this ? I was taught that the Bible specifies sould at first breath , I will try to find the quote ? not suggesting a change , just curious Markr 19:26, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I don't have a cite for this, I was simply writing what I learned in a Catholic upbrining. If this isn't universal across Christianity, then please add in the variants. I had included a justification for the position in anticipation of that possibility. -Foxtrot 21:50, 14 November 2008 (EST)
no, the church is a bit wibbly on the topic. There are a number of bible verses used to argue either way. I was taught the view that since Adam was alive after receiving the breath of life from God , that the infant was ensoulled at his first breath. A child who died at birth without breathing was considered stillborn and NOT a person. Markr 23:22, 14 November 2008 (EST)
That's an interesting interpretation of the Bible verse, but I'm worried about its implications. In particular, it seems to suggest that abortion is not murder because the baby hasn't breathed yet either. At least that seems to be the case in traditional abortion -- I'm a little vague on the dynamics of this partial-birth abortion stuff (but it sounds immorally cruel no matter what). Back to the main point, couldn't one argue that God created Adam and Eve as adults, so they weren't really born? They simply had life breathed into their bodies. It's a different dynamic with babies, who develop from embryos into children and finally adults. -Foxtrot 23:28, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Certainly its a point of contention , and with no clear Bible support for either argument it will probably continue. I found some refs that stated the Jewish religion follows the soul at birth, and therefore abortion wasnt an issue at all. If one assumes the early christian church followed jewish law then it becomes more significant. Its interesting that the Catholic church did not require(allow?) church services for misscarriages or stillborn infants, I dont know if thats still the case. Any infant death prior to babtism was problematic. Markr 23:36, 14 November 2008 (EST)
The article currently states, with regard to ensoulment that "there is no evidence that the soul can enter the body at any time later than conception". What evidence is there that the soul enters the body at conception? Thurston 00:35 (GMT), 19th January 2009

How come...

The animals and plants don't have souls?--Sycamore 11:27, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

Personal tools