Talk:Human reproduction

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.

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

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)

How about we use the word "vagina" but not "penis". Surely one is more disgusting than the other? Or alternatively "foo-foo" and "special rod" respectively. --Luke1978 13:04, 15 July 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)

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

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)