From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bugler - no edit wars, OK? Let's resolve this here. What on Earth could POSSIBLY be "gross" about God's Creation? I think this reveals something about you, rather than something about the process of human reproduction. The information here is factually correct, goes into NO details of the process, and explains simply and clearly enough what is happening when "Mommy is pregnant". Do you want readers to look elsewhere on the internet for this information, with no control over the information they uncover? I thought the purpose here was a Trustworthy Encycopledia? EngelUmpocker 17:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

1. Just as sexual intercourse is a ptrivate matter, so should be the passing on of knowledge from parents to children. This is a family-friendly encyclopaedia, aimed at the homeschooling community, and we should respect the wishes, rights and ability of parents to conver sex education at the appropriate time. Bugler 17:04, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I may be mistaken in this - but in conflicts like this the matter should be for a sysop to decide. And, by reverting Ed Poor's edit, it seemed that you were denying this established means of settling conflict here. Bugler 17:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Bugler, this hardly qualifies as 'sex education'. There is no discussion of ANY of the processes, and it simply, correctly and blandly defines the term. Even the most basic dictionary would define it this way. Finally, your opinion that human biology is "disgusting" is very revealing. God's work is not to be derided, but respected, and it is a very bad idea to give out the impression that our bodies are "gross" or "disgusting" as you have suggested. How do you think young women reading this debate would feel about pregnancy if their first impression of it was that it was somehow "disgusting"? EngelUmpocker 17:10, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia is not supposed to be a how-to guide for how to make your own children, if that's what we're getting at... DanH 17:11, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
Where did I ever suggest it should be? If you'd been following the dialog between Ed Poor and I, we were trying to create a family-friendly entry. There is no desire for a 'how-to' guide. 17:13, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
It seems to be what Engel wishes... and where have I said "huiman biology is disgusting"? Some of it is - I don't need to spell out which bits; and an emphasis on the mechanics of conception can be grossly coarse and intrusive in a family friendly environment. Bugler 17:12, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
In the rapid back-and-forth here, a comment of mine seems to have got lost between edits. You had asked "where did I say human biology is disgusting?" - you said so in this comment, and here you referred to these God-given processes as "gross". EngelUmpocker 17:24, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

The last round of edits started with EngelUmpocker replacing the entire (two-paragraph) article with a new version. The previous version referred to pregnancy in general, whereas his new version refers almost exclusively to pregnancy in humans. And therein likes part of the problem, and solution, I believe. If you revert to the original version, or at least the first paragraph of that (the second wasn't the best-written paragraph around), and go from there, you might find it a little bit easier to write without getting out of family-friendly mode. Philip J. Rayment 04:54, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

We need a ruling from the project director about how vividly (and often) this encyclopedia needs to describe sex. My current understanding of policy is that we downplay it as much as possible, because the media (and even school textbooks) are saturated with it.
Editorially, I hope that we can describe everything in pregnancy from conception to birth. There's another article for conception, and by the way pregnancy does not begin with sexual intercourse despite what Engel said. Until he acknowledges this mistake, he is hereby banned from this article. --Ed Poor Talk 07:25, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
I think "pregnancy does not begin with sexual intercourse" is splitting hairs, akin to arguing when a building was begun: When the developer thought of it, got a plan drawn, received building approval, turned the first sod, the builders moved onto the site, the first brick was laid, or when? Philip J. Rayment 07:58, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
Technically pregnancy begins with the implantation of the foetus in the uterus, which occurs well after the intercourse which caused it. That said it does seem ridiculously harsh to ban someone from an article for an apparent unintentional mistake which was removed as soon as it was discovered. I do wonder where Engel got this information in the first place, it certainly wasn't from any school textbook or a proper teacher... StatsMsn 08:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
And it is a fickle point, but Ed with the greatest respect you stated that conception occurs in the womb. This is not true, conception occurs in the Fallopian tubes, the embryo then develops in the uterus. I intend to expand this article further and include information on the development of the baby without mentioning sex StatsMsn 08:09, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

A note about process - I ended up writing this article because Ed Poor and I were trying to make the sexual intercourse article have some useful, family-friendly content, rather than what it has now, which will simply make a young reader perplexed, then leave the site and go elsewhere for their information. And it was in fact Ed who deleted the previous version of this article, and I then wrote this stub, so that the pregnancy link in the SI article actually linked to something. Understand that I was trying to write the simplest, most family-friendly version, and was grossly simplifying and knowingly writing a stub. That said, I oversimplified, and that ended up with misleading information being posted, but please understand that to 'ban' me from this article is incredibly harsh, considering this site is littered with single sentence stubs that need massive expansion to make sense - for example, a quick Random Article click leads me to... Janet Reno, which only tells me she was involved in the Waco event. Surely lots of information missing there too, eh?

No matter - I admit it was wrong. But the article needs some explanation of the mechanism of what causes pregnancy. At present, the article reads as if pregnancy is something that simply 'happens' to women. How does it happen? Mostly, it happens through sexual intercourse. And that is all I wanted to say on the matter. No 'filth' - though I am appalled that anyone would think God's basic biology 'filthy', 'gross', 'disgusting' or 'coarse'. The attitudes to human reproduction on this site leave me feeling very uneasy about the nature of some of the individuals involved. EngelUmpocker 13:18, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Uniquely human?

It may be true that "pregnancy" in animals is known as gestation in academic circles, but informally, animals are often said to be pregnant. And I'm fairly sure the word "gestation" is also used (medically) of human pregnancies. Philip J. Rayment 08:36, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Correct on both counts, I could have worded my edits better. Is the current edition better? StatsMsn 09:02, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
Definitely better. I do question, however, the use of "sometimes". If a family pet is "pregnant", is "gestating" ever used (except perhaps by the vet)? Is anything other than "pregnant" used? Philip J. Rayment 10:50, 24 May 2008 (EDT)


I am removing this footnote: "In medical terms pregnancy is used only to describe the state of a human mother. In informal and agricultural circles it is often used to describe the state of any gestating mammal." This makes no sense at all. If anybody is a veterinarian and can confirm that animals are not referred to as pregnant, feel free to revert. Corry 00:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)