Difference between revisions of "Talk:Human reproduction"
(idea for moving a sentince) |
(I think this article has adopted too much of Wikipedia's materialism - I'm not an endangered species) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Shouldn't this go in the [[Family]] article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:13, 17 March 2008 (EDT) | Shouldn't this go in the [[Family]] article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:13, 17 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:10, March 21, 2008
Blimey, this was an ommision. Requires expansion and illustration.
- Let's work on this behind the scenes and try to come up with something suitable for all ages.
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)