Conservapedia talk:The Unborn Child

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Another possibility is creating a Portal:The Unborn Child that uses a random number generator to provide different content each time it is visited. Tisane 16:47, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

Interesting suggestion. Please explain further.--Andy Schlafly 16:48, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
Well, for instance each time you hit this link, you'll usually get new selections. An unborn child portal could work the same way. However, I sense that you want a more sequential (rather than random) system, which is logical, considering that the development of an unborn child proceeds in a sequential, rather than random manner. There is probably a way to create a portal template that, when you click on "Next," will go in a sequence through Portal:The Unborn Child/Week/1, Portal:The Unborn Child/Week/2, etc. and perhaps even loop around at the end, or perhaps take the user to a page that says something to the effect of "Now that you know the facts, time to take action." Ideally, you want to avoid hard-coding the next page/previous page links and their targets into each subpage, but rather minimize code duplication by putting the control logic in the top-level portal page. Tisane 17:50, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
Very interesting suggestion. A portal that enabled a user to click through each week of development would terrific for visitors and students! Can you do that?--Andy Schlafly 23:12, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
I wouldn't be surprised if something like that already exists somewhere, and just needs to be wikified. A lot of stuff is copyrighted, but you might be able to secure permission for educational use. Plus I'm sure the federal government has a lot of non-copyrighted works along these lines. Or maybe there is an intern at one of these right to life organizations who would like to collaborate on this? The possibilities are endless. Here are some diagrams of unborn children in various stages of development, by the way: Those are available for us to use freely, of course. Tisane 23:21, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
Wikipedia's images seem awfully inadequate ... perhaps intentionally so! Hopefully we can find better ones for educational use ....--Andy Schlafly 23:28, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
I would agree, they leave out much of the detail in a manner that could be considered dehumanizing if one wished to attribute it to malice, but might also simply be the result of a dearth of incentives to produce quality work, given that Wikipedia's contributors are unpaid. The truth is probably somewhere between the two. But as I say, I'm sure that the right to live movement has plenty of unborn child images, from all stages of development. If it's okay with you, I will get in touch with them, inform them of our project, and invite them to participate and contribute images. Tisane 23:31, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
Please do ask around as you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

Rigorous Biological Aspect

I strongly suggest the course gives sufficient attention to the molecular biology aspect of fetus development. For example, it should include fertilization, the layers of stem cells and how they begin to differentiate, the various tissue layers, etc. This way, students can see exactly when every organ comes into existence.

This course should be rooted in science - specifically biology - not nebulous humanities-oriented conceptions of the fetus, as the current outline seems to suggest. PhyllisS 17:40, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

Certainly the course should be scientifically rigorous, but to the exclusion of all else? Isn't there merit in looking at a topic from literary, artistic, religious, philosophical, and legal perspectives, as well as scientific? I think students might find a broad-based course of deeper and more enduring educational value than one taking a highly narrow approach. DanielPulido 02:47, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
Hmm, yes, that is a good point. All the perspectives that you mentioned are valuable and should be included, unless they are treated in a manner that is not rigorous and biased. I feel that perspectives such as literary, artistic, religious, and philosophical are more susceptible to not rigorous and biased treatment. But good point. PhyllisS 14:23, 19 July 2010 (EDT)