Is Conception The Most Moral Act Possible

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Here is the logic: if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do would not conceiving a human life, being its exact opposite, be one of the most moral acts possible? Would it not be moral to create one more human life to advance to glory for God and for him or her to experience worship, love, kindness, pleasure, and so on?

[Troppus]

If divinity were in fact the movivation behind sex, then yes! Absolutely. A healthy, happy child born to like-minded Christians spreading the Word would be the Most Divine Act.

However... the Biological Imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_imperative)trumps most, if not all acts of sexual divinity, and the urge to mix up genetic information is a powerful thing that compels all carbon-based life forms.

You are making things too hard, Qin Shi Huangdi. A happy family trying hard for a child must certainly feel divinity in the hope and attempt for a much-wanted child. But all creatures, regardless of taxonomy, are compelled to pass down genes. That is why sex feels good, and that is why most living creatures are compelled to the act. And what of those who do not follow your beliefs? Have you noticed they are any less fertile? If not, why not?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

If divinity were in fact the movivation behind sex, then yes! Absolutely. A healthy, happy child born to like-minded Christians spreading the Word would be the Most Divine Act.

However... the Biological Imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_imperative)trumps most, if not all acts of sexual divinity, and the urge to mix up genetic information is a powerful thing that compels all carbon-based life forms.

You are making things too hard, Qin Shi Huangdi. A happy family trying hard for a child must certainly feel divinity in the hope and attempt for a much-wanted child. But all creatures, regardless of taxonomy, are compelled to pass down genes. That is why sex feels good, and that is why most living creatures are compelled to the act. And what of those who do not follow your beliefs? Have you noticed they are any less fertile? If not, why not?

I believe conception is good for anyone including non-Christians for I believe it is better to live and not be of the Elect than not to exist at all, for even those not of the Elect will ultimately have some meaning in the greater scheme of things.

And yes there is biological and national duty too in conception.

[Troppus]

I believe conception is good for anyone including non-Christians for I believe it is better to live and not be of the Elect than not to exist at all, for even those not of the Elect will ultimately have some meaning in the greater scheme of things.

And yes there is biological and national duty too in conception.

Resources are finite. Oil, gas, land to grow food, water. What say you about that? How many people would you will onto this limited Earth?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Resources are finite. Oil, gas, land to grow food, water. What say you about that? How many people would you will onto this limited Earth?

Energy efficiency is increasing and the vast majority of the Earth is still virgin. Indeed it is stated in one book that by 2100 energy efficiency will be so great a planet of 10 billion people can be in existence with a First World living standard.

[Naxos]

Here is the logic: if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do would not conceiving a human life, being its exact opposite, be one of the most moral acts possible? Would it not be moral to create one more human life to advance to glory for God and for him or her to experience worship, love, kindness, pleasure, and so on?

That's not logic, it's religious wishful thinking.

However, Christians cannot have any objection to your proposition.

If they condemn a killer, they should exalt and praise the ones who give life to as many other human beings as possible.

But they don't, because they all condemn women of a non-white color that have many children.

Hypocrisy has no limits.

[random6x7]

What if the child was going to be born into a near-hopeless situation? To abusive parents in a place that overlooked that sort of thing? Or into extreme poverty? I'm not saying that people in those conditions shouldn't be alive. But can an act be truly moral if it brings more suffering than joy?

[Troppus]

Energy efficiency is increasing and the vast majority of the Earth is still virgin. Indeed it is stated in one book that by 2100 energy efficiency will be so great a planet of 10 billion people can be in existence with a First World living standard.

Cite?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

That's not logic, it's religious wishful thinking.

However, Christians cannot have any objection to your proposition.

If they condemn a killer, they should exalt and praise the ones who give life to as many other human beings as possible.

But they don't, because they all condemn women of a non-white color that have many children.

Hypocrisy has no limits.

What the flying fuck, where the heck did you get that from? Where in the world do they spoon-feed you so much anti-religious bigoted Julius Streicher-style propaganda? North Korea? Pol Pot's Cambodia? Or maybe you come from an alternate universe.

Cite?

Physics For Future PResidents

[Dissonance]

So.... rape is the most moral act possible, as long as it results in conception? Josef Fritzl wasn't a sick motherfucker with a dungeon to rape his daughter and keep their incestuous children in; he is a shining example of the highest morality possible and a bringer of glory unto God?

[Manda JO]

I think you are trying to make good simple and absolute, but good is never simple and absolute. Life would be easier if it were, but it just isn't.

[WhyNot]

What the flying fuck, where the heck did you get that from? Where in the world do they spoon-feed you so much anti-religious bigoted Julius Streicher-style propaganda? North Korea? Pol Pot's Cambodia? Or maybe you come from an alternate universe.
No, I think he's coming from this one, where it's regularly suggested (by Christians and non-Christians alike) that women on welfare should have to be on hormonal birth control, or they should lose their welfare if they have another baby.

The idea that we should literally be fruitful and multiply served the church well when they were trying to control land and money. But aside from a few fringe groups (like the Quiverfull), it's not really a current ideal. Even in Catholicism, where artificial birth control is not allowed, natural birth control by learning a woman's fertility cycle and abstaining during her fertile days is taught and encouraged.

All else being equal - everyone having enough food, enough clothing and shelter and love in their lives - then yes, having a wanted child is a wonderful thing. I'm not sure it's always "moral", though. Many people have children by accident, or for selfish reasons like wanting love for themselves or wanting to live vicariously through their child or even (and this is horrid to think about, but true) with the intention of abusing or selling their children into slavery. I think "moral" speaks to motive as much as to act, and some people do have babies for immoral reasons.

Furthermore, it's important to remember that all else isn't equal right now. People are hungry, people are scared because they don't have jobs, or don't have job security. People die in agony of diseases that can be nearly eliminated with clean drinking water and mosquito netting, or $5 of pills a month. People right here in the US are starving, including children. Maybe that will change by the time you're old enough to become a father. I certainly hope so.

In the meantime, I think we all need to put as much energy as we can into making the world safer and better, rather than encouraging people to have babies they don't want and can't feed. God created the world in 7 steps, remember - even He couldn't have humans before he had a way to feed them.

[gonzomax]

And Masturbation would be crime against god.

[Troppus]

Physics For Future PResidents

Yikes. Qin Shi Huangdi, this is a biased source, which I will happily find cites to refute, but I'd rather not derail the intent of your OP.

Look... puberty can be difficult, emotionally and socially. Biologically: it's a cinch. A body which is prepared to breed sends many signals. Sure, it's possible to ignore and squelch those signals, and guilt is a formidable tool. However, there are other ways to address the urge to procreate that do not involve having sex. Masturbation can be a quick and easy fix to that nagging erection which is present not to haunt, but to signal nothing more than sexual maturity. The urge to take care of sexual urges isn't sinful in origin; it's biological, natural, and wired in (presumably by God Himself, if you believe in Him. We are all as God made us, afterall.) If one is overly distracted by lust: fix it. 3 minutes in the shower and the mind is free to focus on Noble Pursuits. As natural as eating, sneezing, or peeing. No biggie.


Regarding your cite, please consider the authors of any source you cite. I realize it is difficult to provide neutral cites in a political age, but the recent weather phenomenon which wiped out the nation's breadbasket should clue you in: nothing is guaranteed, and people around the world are starving. Why is that?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Conception is, at best, morally neutral, and at worst morally wrong. I would define moral "good" as that which reduces suffering. Conception per se does not reduce suffering (except, arguably, to the extent that it may satisfy the craving to produce/nurture genetic offspring), and if the circumstances are not right, it has the potential to create suffering both for the offspring and the parents.

By the way, I'm really only talking about live births, by the way. Conception, as literally defined by pregnancy, has no moral meaning one way or the other.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Conception is, at best, morally neutral, and at worst morally wrong. I would define moral "good" as that which reduces suffering. Conception per se does not reduce suffering (except, arguably, to the extent that it may satisfy the craving to produce/nurture genetic offspring), and if the circumstances are not right, it has the potential to create suffering both for the offspring and the parents.

By the way, I'm really only talking about live births, by the way. Conception, as literally defined by pregnancy, has no moral meaning one way or the other.

But to most middle-class and upper-class households in the US, the child is very much assured a fairly comfortable life in society assuming it is not developmentally disabled, thus overall they will see more joy in their lifetime. In addition conception is important as a racial duty (in the sense of the human race) to propagate the species and insure its survival.

[WhyNot]

But to most middle-class and upper-class households in the US, the child is very much assured a fairly comfortable life in society assuming it is not developmentally disabled, thus overall they will see more joy in their lifetime. In addition conception is important as a racial duty (in the sense of the human race) to propagate the species and insure its survival.

Even middle-class people are becoming homeless and visiting food pantries right now. I say this not to scare you - it does seem as if the economy is improving - but nothing for an individual family is secure right now. Truly upper-class people, perhaps, but most of us aren't there, and I'm not sure morality is the right word to use if it only applies to a minority of people.

As for the survival of the species argument, it only really comes into play when a species is low in numbers. We want to help Galapagos Tortoises breed, for example, because there aren't enough of them left with varied genes to keep the species going without help. Humans are not anywhere close to this danger at this point in time. IF we ever get to that point, or look like we're getting to that point, then this argument may have some weight. Right now, it doesn't.

[Naxos]

What the flying fuck, where the heck did you get that from?

Check out the Bible some time.

Christianity condemns people to eternal hell for whatever reason a representative Christian chooses to do so.

Religion is always defined by the behavior of the claimed participants of the religion, not by some wishful thinking of abstract and irrelevant idealistic interpretation of meaningless rules.

[heathen earthling]

Morals aren't logical. Indirectly, being conceived has put me in a position to experience far more suffering than being murdered would.

We had a thread here last year with the opposite premise, Is having kids ethical? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=578311).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But to most middle-class and upper-class households in the US, the child is very much assured a fairly comfortable life in society assuming it is not developmentally disabled, thus overall they will see more joy in their lifetime.
This is still just morally neutral. It doesn't reduce any suffering. The world is no better off.
In addition conception is important as a racial duty (in the sense of the human race) to propagate the species and insure its survival.
Humans actually have the opposite problem. The world is overpopulated as it is. having said that, why does the human species need to be propagated? If humans become extinct, so what?

[Der Trihs]

Here is the logic: if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do would not conceiving a human life, being its exact opposite, be one of the most moral acts possible? No, it doesn't work that way. Opposites of vices are not automatically virtues, quite often they are just a different vice. And the opposite of conception would be killing in general, not murder.


Would it not be moral to create one more human life to advance to glory for God and for him or her to experience worship, love, kindness, pleasure, and so on?No. your god is nonexistent, and as typically portrayed incredibly evil. We certainly shouldn't do anything in your demon-god's "glory". Worship is twisted, self hateful grovelling and not remotely desirable. And just being born doesn't mean you'll get "love, kindness, pleasure" it can mean that you'll just live a life filled with nothing but suffering, abuse, and despair.

[Lamia]

Here is the logic: if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do would not conceiving a human life, being its exact opposite, be one of the most moral acts possible?No, that is not logic. I'm not seeing a well-crafted argument here, and your premises are highly questionable. I would say that saving a life, not conceiving a new life, is the opposite of taking a life. There's room for debate on that point, but I suspect more people would agree with me than you here. It also seems obvious that the opposite of something bad is not always something good. For instance, it would be bad to starve someone until they were dangerously underweight, but it would also be bad to force feed them until they were dangerously overweight.

Beyond that, I agree with Diogenes the Cynic that conception (fertilization) itself does not carry any moral weight. People can want to conceive, or want to avoid conceiving, but unless you're talking about in-vitro fertilization then no one has conscious control over whether a sperm and egg will meet up. Plenty of couples want to conceive but are unable to do so. Others conceive even though they've taken steps to avoid this.

To call the whole sperm fertilizes egg thing "moral" is like saying it's moral to win the lottery. People can take their chances (and the odds are much better than winning a jackpot with a scratch-off ticket), but if you're doing things the old-fashioned way then there are no guarantees what the result will be. Even in-vitro fertilization isn't 100% effective in terms of actually leading to a live birth. Is the opposite of tuna salad chicken salad, or salmon?

ETA:
No, it doesn't work that way. Opposites of vices are not automatically virtues, quite often they are just a different vice. And the opposite of conception would be killing in general, not murder.I'd say the opposite of conception is simply not conceiving, but the whole opposite thing is rather messy. I'm thinking of that Seinfeld episode where George and Jerry disagreed about what the opposite of George's usual lunch order would be.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Check out the Bible some time.

Christianity condemns people to eternal hell for whatever reason a representative Christian chooses to do so.

Religion is always defined by the behavior of the claimed participants of the religion, not by some wishful thinking of abstract and irrelevant idealistic interpretation of meaningless rules.

That has nothing to do with race, which you were frothing at the mouth about in your last post.

This is still just morally neutral. It doesn't reduce any suffering. The world is no better off.


It increases joy and the persons can help to reduce suffering.

Humans actually have the opposite problem. The world is overpopulated as it is. having said that, why does the human species need to be propagated? If humans become extinct, so what?


That's rather nilhistic...

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It increases joy and the persons can help to reduce suffering.
It increases joy for who? The parents? so what? How does increasing the parents' joy reduce suffering?
and the persons can help to reduce suffering.
If they do, then they will be doing a moral good, but it's their acts which would have moral value, not the act of conceiving and birthing them.
That's rather nilhistic...
How is asking you to support a premise nihilistic? You have proposed that perpetuating the human species is morally necessary. I'm just asking you why. That is not a nihilistic question, nor would it be an invalid question even if it were.

If the human species were to become extinct through lack of reproduction (which, by the way, is highly unlikely), then why do you believe that would be a bad thing? A bad thing for who?

[Troppus]

That has nothing to do with race, which you were frothing at the mouth about in your last post.



That's rather nilhistic...

Qin, you are such a smart kid. Scratch that: you are a smart human. I want to let you in on something: there is no justice in this world. Bullies get away with bullying. Burglers get away with theft. Pedophiles get away with pedophilia. Rapists get away with rape. And sweet, smart, pretty girls are occasionally fooled by those with apparently bad intent.

I'm sorry. Criminals do, on occasion: repent. But generally: it's a crap shoot. Some people are caught and punished; smart criminals are innovators and find a way to get around the system.

The rules and mores in the Good Book (depending on which section you choose yours from) are pretty cool, and work in some circles. But people are imperfect, biological entities and the opposite of divine. Give us a break. Give yourself a break. We are as God made us. If we have half the genetic code that makes a really great child and we meet another with the complementary code: that is an awesome event and worth of pride. But imperfect, unplanned children are also worthy of love. Motherless or fatherless children: worthy of love. Children who test boundaries: worthy of love. There is no perfect formula, and any god who expects us to figure it out: is unkind, and disconnected.

So yeah: sometimes the child of a loving union with ethical, responsible parents is a Very Good Thing. But the majority of children in the world, including myself, are imperfect. Afterthoughts; products of love, or lust, or rape. Accidents. And we are no less human and no less worthy of respect than the child of your favorite man of God.

Breeding in itself: is not divine, or noble, or something to aspire to. It is a natural function of biology, and it often results in a child. That child may grow to be Tenzin Gyatso. That child may grow to be John Wayne Gacy. Please read a bit about the strict upbringing of some serial killers. You may find that those with tough restrictions rebel in terrible ways. You may find that people with some freedom to learn and grow become incredibly compassionate human beings.

[Troppus]

That's rather nilhistic...

This study isn't nilhistic, at least not deliberately. It's honest. Will you look it over, please? http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-23/living/do.not.want.children_1_happiness-cultural-beliefs-children?_s=PM:LIVING

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

It increases joy for who? The parents? so what? How does increasing the parents' joy reduce suffering?

The children themselves, if they are in a fairly comfortable environment will experience joy.


How is asking you to support a premise nihilistic? You have proposed that perpetuating the human species is morally necessary. I'm just asking you why. That is not a nihilistic question, nor would it be an invalid question even if it were.

If the human species were to become extinct through lack of reproduction (which, by the way, is highly unlikely), then why do you believe that would be a bad thing? A bad thing for who?[/QUOTE]

Even if you're not religious, it would be a bad thing for humans and as a member of the species it would not be in our interest to let humanity go extinct. Plus we as far as we know are the most superior type of mortals in the universe and thus we are the carriers of civilization.

Qin, you are such a smart kid. Scratch that: you are a smart human. I want to let you in on something: there is no justice in this world. Bullies get away with bullying. Burglers get away with theft. Pedophiles get away with pedophilia. Rapists get away with rape. And sweet, smart, pretty girls are occasionally fooled by those with apparently bad intent.

I'm sorry. Criminals do, on occasion: repent. But generally: it's a crap shoot. Some people are caught and punished; smart criminals are innovators and find a way to get around the system.

The rules and mores in the Good Book (depending on which section you choose yours from) are pretty cool, and work in some circles. But people are imperfect, biological entities and the opposite of divine. Give us a break. Give yourself a break. We are as God made us. If we have half the genetic code that makes a really great child and we meet another with the complementary code: that is an awesome event and worth of pride. But imperfect, unplanned children are also worthy of love. Motherless or fatherless children: worthy of love. Children who test boundaries: worthy of love. There is no perfect formula, and any god who expects us to figure it out: is unkind, and disconnected.

So yeah: sometimes the child of a loving union with ethical, responsible parents is a Very Good Thing. But the majority of children in the world, including myself, are imperfect. Afterthoughts; products of love, or lust, or rape. Accidents. And we are no less human and no less worthy of respect than the child of your favorite man of God.

Breeding in itself: is not divine, or noble, or something to aspire to. It is a natural function of biology, and it often results in a child. That child may grow to be Tenzin Gyatso. That child may grow to be John Wayne Gacy. Please read a bit about the strict upbringing of some serial killers. You may find that those with tough restrictions rebel in terrible ways. You may find that people with some freedom to learn and grow become incredibly compassionate human beings.

Thank you for the post. However I wouldn't say children are "afterthoughts" of sex. Most births in the West at least are nowadays "planned" in the sense that the couple decides they want a kid. And I haven't said anything about the upbringing of kids.

[Troppus]

The children themselves, if they are in a fairly comfortable environment will experience joy.







Thank you for the post. However I wouldn't say children are "afterthoughts" of sex. Most births in the West at least are nowadays "planned" in the sense that the couple decides they want a kid. And I haven't said anything about the upbringing of kids.[/QUOTE]

Cite that "most" are wanted? I can guarantee that at least 2 unplanned, unwanted pregancies occurred in the comfortable, two income home of educated persons diligent about birth control. I'm afraid your "most" is misinformed at worst; optimistic at best. Infertile couples longing for children find getting pregnant difficult; fertile couples trying to avoid pregnancy are often less successful.

Check out this Washington Post article from 2009: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051301628.html

CDC figures from 2007:
http://blogs.babiesonline.com/pregnancy/cdc-statistics-teen-and-unmarried-birth-rates-are-up/

72% of African American children born to unwed mothers: http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/11/08/72-percent-of-african-american-children-born-to-unwed-mothers/

It isn't possible to determine that each of these children were unwanted and unplanned for a life in Christian service, but it is likely that no forethought was employed about children at all. Sex feels good, because sex is the mechanism which drives procreation. The product is often an afterthought. You can search stats yourself: unwed pregnancy 2010/ unwed mothers 2010/ unplanned pregnancy 2010/ abortions 2010

[WhyNot]

Thank you for the post. However I wouldn't say children are "afterthoughts" of sex. Most births in the West at least are nowadays "planned" in the sense that the couple decides they want a kid. And I haven't said anything about the upbringing of kids.
"Most" is an interesting term. If you mean, more than 50%, then yes, you're right. But there are still a whole lot of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies out there - 33% of pregnancies are unwanted, and lots of them happen to people who will not abort or adopt, so there are a lot of unwanted children out there, too.

About one in two pregnancies in America are unplanned.(i) 1
• That is, over three million of the 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States annually are unplanned.1 Moreover, about two-thirds of unplanned pregnancies—two million—are unwanted.(ii) 2 In other words, about one in three pregnancies are unwanted.
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/fast-facts-unplanned-key-data.pdf

[Measure for Measure]

In an overpopulated, resource constrained world, one less child is a wonderful thing. If we were living in an anime apocalypse, one additional happy child would be preferred. But we are not. Either way, people will respond to biological imperatives. But methinks a world population below 5 billion is superior to something above that. It would be better to focus our resources, love and efforts on fewer kids.

[Lamia]

Even if you're not religious, it would be a bad thing for humans and as a member of the species it would not be in our interest to let humanity go extinct."It would not be in our interest to cease reproduction altogether" is a very different thing from "Conception is the most moral act possible."

I'm going to ask you flat out here, are you building up to something with this "conception is the most moral act" business? Because frankly, this is such a stupid position to take that I have a hard time believing there's not something else behind it. It also reminds me an awful lot of things I've heard from other people who were trying to advance certain ideas about the proper role of women or the morality of homosexuality.

Plus we as far as we know are the most superior type of mortals in the universe and thus we are the carriers of civilization.Human civilization has led to the total extinction of countless other species, and if we ever move on to other planets we will almost certainly continue to wipe out various other forms of life. I'm not in PETA or anything, some poor cow died to give me the leather shoes I'm wearing right now, but let's not kid ourselves about the role humans play in the universe. Most of the other living things on Earth today would be better off without us, and there are plenty more who are already gone because of us.

[Implicit]

I'm going to ask you flat out here, are you building up to something with this "conception is the most moral act" business? Because frankly, this is such a stupid position to take that I have a hard time believing there's not something else behind it. It also reminds me an awful lot of things I've heard from other people who were trying to advance certain ideas about the proper role of women or the morality of homosexuality.

I'm curious where this is going too. Is it "pedophilia is moral as long as the kiddies are old enough to make babies" or maybe "monogamy is immoral because it impedes breeding". Those would be fun positions to argue; however, I suspect the gotcha is the more mundane "contraception is immoral" or "abortion is immoral" or "homosexuality is immoral".

[Onomatopoeia]

...however, I suspect the gotcha is the more mundane "contraception is immoral" or "abortion is immoral" or "homosexuality is immoral".I suspect it's probably number 2. Curtis has a somewhat curious and unhealthy fixation on abortion.

[foolsguinea]

No.

Because
1) human beings are holozoic creatures in a finite-resource system.
2) Each holozoic creature must consume biomass in order to live.
3) Therefore, each such creature may, by eating some other kind of life, put strain on the renewability of the resource base.
4) Thus, all animal populations should be managed so that overpopulation & its attendant miseries do not occur.

Therefore, really, it depends.

[Marley23]

Here is the logic: if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do would not conceiving a human life, being its exact opposite, be one of the most moral acts possible?
Bringing joy to another person is usually a good thing. If you have to create that person to bring them joy in the first place, that's neutral. Feeding a hungry person is a good thing, but it would be ridiculous to say that having a child is a good thing because it allows you to feed a hungry person. The need wouldn't exist if the child didn't exist.

Would it not be moral to create one more human life to advance to glory for God and for him or her to experience worship, love, kindness, pleasure, and so on?
Since God and The Elect are made up, this doesn't factor in to the matter.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The children themselves, if they are in a fairly comfortable environment will experience joy
This makes no sense. If the child never exists, then its joy cannot be increased. Non-existent things don't have joy.
Even if you're not religious, it would be a bad thing for humans
How can it be bad for humans if they don't exist any more?
and as a member of the species it would not be in our interest to let humanity go extinct.
This is silly. If we go extinct, we won't have any interests.
Plus we as far as we know are the most superior type of mortals in the universe
What do you mean by "superior," and why does it matter?and thus we are the carriers of civilization
What's so important about civilization?

[Bryan Ekers]

I prefer to go forth and solve differential equations, myself.

[MrDibble]

the vast majority of the Earth is still virgin.Ehh, only if you're including the oceans and even there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch), nowhere escapes our reach.

And no, saving a life is a better fit for the opposite of murder than conceiving one. So that would be the "most moral" act by that sort of absurd calculus.

Just having a child is morally neutral, it depends on the circumstances of the birth and the predicted and actual future actions of that child, whether that total life ends up being a nett good or bad one. If you have to do that sort of calculation, which I don't.

And even if I did, something as essentially passive as conception is exactly the kind of action that slave morality would teach us is the greatest good, not the vibrant, dynamic act of saving a life. It's a signal of ressentiment that the best way you can see to "balance" a murder is by the essentially passive-aggressive act of having a child.

Understand, I'm not condoning murder, but from a morality viewpoint, it is, at least, a vital, decisive act, one that cuts the actor off from herd morality (in a way that e.g. killing in warfare doesn't). Yet there could be few acts as bound in following herd morality as mindlessly adding to the herd.

Note, it is entirely possible to make of child-bearing a vital, decisive act. But that wasn't the type of child-bearing the OP advocated as a moral good. Instead, it was precisely the herd-increasing slave-mentality type ... "Advance to glory for God" indeed. There's glory for you.

[MrDibble]

Plus we as far as we know are the most superior type of mortals in the universe and thus we are the carriers of civilization.
Tell that to the Blue Whale, the Dodo, the Jews of Poland...

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

I think this is the thread where I stop reading these threads.

[Fear Itself]

Conception is not an intentional human act, so humans cannot take credit for any perceived morality. Conception is an indirect result of intercourse, and sometimes it happens, and sometimes it doesn't. I don't see how humans can take credit for being moral for a process they have so little control over.

I would say euthanasia to relieve suffering is the most moral act, because it is always a direct human act, and it is done intentionally with the goal of alleviating pain at the end of life. The caregiver assumes responsibility for the act of mercy. There can be no more moral action than that.

[elbows]

one more human life to advance to glory for God and for him or her to experience worship

What of the offspring of Satan worshipers, with no aim for the glory of God or joy of worshiping him?

Children aren't supposed to be born with a job, be it holding together the parent's marriage, providing love for an unloved teenager, or to become a soldier of Christianity. You do realize that your God gave his creation free will, right? That means they have the will to prevent a pregnancy. Children in the west are born into prosperity, in part, because their parents actively choose not to have 10-20 children, by the way.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

In an overpopulated, resource constrained world, one less child is a wonderful thing. If we were living in an anime apocalypse, one additional happy child would be preferred. But we are not. Either way, people will respond to biological imperatives. But methinks a world population below 5 billion is superior to something above that. It would be better to focus our resources, love and efforts on fewer kids.

Again we have enough resources to maintain more than 7 billion people-8,9,10 billlions but the problem is distribution as many socialists and communists have argued.


Bringing joy to another person is usually a good thing. If you have to create that person to bring them joy in the first place, that's neutral. Feeding a hungry person is a good thing, but it would be ridiculous to say that having a child is a good thing because it allows you to feed a hungry person. The need wouldn't exist if the child didn't exist.



Since God and The Elect are made up, this doesn't factor in to the matter.

But we do not know its composition-that is who is in the Elect and who is not.

This makes no sense. If the child never exists, then its joy cannot be increased. Non-existent things don't have joy.


I meant if the child existed there would be more joy in the world.

How can it be bad for humans if they don't exist any more?

That's like saying a dead person wouldn't mind dying.

This is silly. If we go extinct, we won't have any interests.

See above.

What do you mean by "superior," and why does it matter?

Most intelligent, adaptable, etc.

[WhyNot]

Again we have enough resources to maintain more than 7 billion people-8,9,10 billlions but the problem is distribution as many socialists and communists have argued.


We have enough food in the world. Yes, that part I agree on. But distribution requires other resources, like fossil fuels, people to pick, package and transport that food, trucks, trains and airplanes to move it in, time to get it there before it spoils, safe zones where people aren't shooting at relief workers, etc. We do NOT have the resources for distribution right now.

[Marley23]

But we do not know its composition-that is who is in the Elect and who is not.
Interesting that you responded to this aside and not the rest of the post. But again, I don't see what is moral about conception. The person's need to be happy wouldn't exist if they hadn't been conceived. (And what about people who are born into miserable circumstances or lead tragic lives?) Manda JO is right: you're trying to fit everything into a very simple moral calculus, and life is more complicated than that.

And God and The Elect still don't exist, so they can't support your argument.

[Manda JO]

Even sticking with the original (flawed) premise, I want to point out that not all life-taking is morally equivalent. Self-defense, or a soldier defending his country, or someone sacrificing themselves to save others, or any number of things are clearly not the "eviliest things a person can do", and if we make those kind of distinctions in terms of life-taking, ought we not making them in terms of life-making?

[Lamia]

I see you've chosen to ignore my posts, Qin Shi Huangdi. I flatter myself that this is because you are unable to make any rebuttal to my points, but even so, I'd like an answer to the direct question I asked you.

I'm going to ask you flat out here, are you building up to something with this "conception is the most moral act" business?

[Reno Nevada]

if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do

Well, that right there is where your argument goes off the rails. The greatest sin that a Christian can commit is putting a "In case of the Rapture this car will be uncontrolled" sticker on his car. This is the sin of PRIDE, saying "I am saved and you are not." It is abrogating the role of GOD in judgment. Murder is pretty small potatoes by comparison.

I am not sure "moraller" is a good comparative, anyway. Moral is binary; an act is moral or it is not.

[Skald the Rhymer]

That's not logic, it's religious wishful thinking.

However, Christians cannot have any objection to your proposition.

If they condemn a killer, they should exalt and praise the ones who give life to as many other human beings as possible.

But they don't, because they all condemn women of a non-white color that have many children.

Hypocrisy has no limits.

(bolding mine)

What the hell fuck are you talking about? Do you think all Christians are white or something? My sisters and father would be very surprised to hear that they have suddenly become of nothern European ancestry.

[rat avatar]

Conception and reproduction are the default outcome to a romantic relationship, I do not think that can claim any form of "morality". How does it relate to the concept of right and wrong?

Except that some mythoi encourage reproduction I fail to even see where the act it's self can be good and or bad if you consider the act alone as posited in the original post.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Conception and reproduction are the default outcome to a romantic relationship, I do not think that can claim any form of "morality". How does it relate to the concept of right and wrong?

Except that some mythoi encourage reproduction I fail to even see where the act it's self can be good and or bad if you consider the act alone as posited in the original post.

The clause I bolded is not true. Even if you set aside gays & lesbians, there are tons of heterosexual couples who cannot have a child whether they wish to or not.

[rat avatar]

The clause I bolded is not true. Even if you set aside gays & lesbians, there are tons of heterosexual couples who cannot have a child whether they wish to or not.

The fact that there may be exceptions that do not result in conception does not change that fact that for most couples, over time, the act of sex will typically result in conception unless they take action to prevent it.

So how does that relate to good or evil?

[Skald the Rhymer]

The fact that there may be exceptions that do not result in conception does not change that fact that for most couples, over time, the act of sex will typically result in conception unless they take action to prevent it.

So how does that relate to good or evil?

It doesn't. I was contesting the default remark, which I found objectionable.

[rat avatar]

It doesn't. I was contesting the default remark, which I found objectionable.

To be honest your reasoning for this objection interests me more than the original question?

Outside of a biological exception* or through significant effort on the part of the couple, we are dang lucky that it is the default IMHO. Well in the way that I was lucky enough to exist because I doubt that every one of my ancestors made a "moral" action to reproduce.

(biological exception being any cause like infertility or sexual preference or any natural existing limit on ones ability to reproduce with your sexual partner)

[Onomatopoeia]

The more of Curtis' threads I read, the more I say to myself "in a few years this kid is going to have sex with another person and, when he does, much of the ridiculous, unsupported nonsense he proposes on this board will suddenly disappear." However, I'm beginning to have my doubts.

How does one assign a moral value to the instinctual, biological imperative to procreate? Actually, I think an argument can be made that to not bring a life into the world is, in certain cases, morally superior than doing so, such as for rape* pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and unwanted pregnancies.


* Yes, I know it's no longer rape month (heh) on the SDMB, and its mention stands the chance of causing a derailment but (a) this entire thread is meaningless anyway as its premise** is nonsensical, and (b) perhaps this will spur Curtis to state his motivations for starting it, possibly fostering a meaningful discussion.

** I say 'premise' because many of Curtis' threads seem to really be forums for the pronouncement of prejudicial religious and conservative positions couched as questions, so when Curtis asks "Is conception the most moral act possible?" or another question in the myriad other threads he starts, I suspect he's actually pulling a Cavuto.

[Marley23]

Naxos, the mods have told you that these posts are getting old. You were warned for this off-topic, hyperbolic bashing of religion in another thread and I'm repeating that instruction here. Stay on topic or find a more appropriate thread (probably in the Pit) for these posts.


That's not logic, it's religious wishful thinking.

However, Christians cannot have any objection to your proposition.

If they condemn a killer, they should exalt and praise the ones who give life to as many other human beings as possible.

But they don't, because they all condemn women of a non-white color that have many children.

Hypocrisy has no limits.

Check out the Bible some time.

Christianity condemns people to eternal hell for whatever reason a representative Christian chooses to do so.

Religion is always defined by the behavior of the claimed participants of the religion, not by some wishful thinking of abstract and irrelevant idealistic interpretation of meaningless rules.

[Irishman]

Here is the logic: if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do would not conceiving a human life, being its exact opposite, be one of the most moral acts possible? Would it not be moral to create one more human life to advance to glory for God and for him or her to experience worship, love, kindness, pleasure, and so on?

I agree with Lamia, your logic is flawed. Conception, or reproduction (which is what you really mean), is not the inverse of murder.

Murder is evil because it is taking away something that you cannot restore. The unprovoked taking of another human's life is to, without provokation, cease their existence and take away something you are powerless to restore.

If I steal your money, I could give you the money back, or something equivalent. If I steal your car, I could return your car, or a similar car, or something of equal value. But if I take your life, that is irrevocable. I can't restore it later.

Replacing you with a new baby from scratch is not restoring something that was lost, it is just creating a new human that is now in the world, for better or worse.

Saving a life is closer to the opposite of murder.

Conception and reproduction are different acts and must be evaluated on their own merits.

[Cat Fight]

Bringing joy to another person is usually a good thing. If you have to create that person to bring them joy in the first place, that's neutral. Feeding a hungry person is a good thing, but it would be ridiculous to say that having a child is a good thing because it allows you to feed a hungry person.

Truly ridiculous. (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)

Not sure this debate is headed anywhere, but my two (obvious) cents: Conception can be a miracle or a tragedy. Just ask the couple who's been trying to conceive, or the single mom who's finally gotten a good job. Same with murder, I suppose, when you take into account mercy killing. Aborting an unwanted fetus and helping a person end their suffering can be two of the noblest, kindest actions a person can ever take.

[YogSosoth]

Here is the logic: if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do would not conceiving a human life, being its exact opposite, be one of the most moral acts possible? Would it not be moral to create one more human life to advance to glory for God and for him or her to experience worship, love, kindness, pleasure, and so on?

No because murder is vile not for the reasons that it takes you away from god, but that it's simply something that violates your body and mind in an irreversible way. Creating a life is neutral in morality

Saving a life would be the correct analogous opposite of killing

[Steve MB]

Energy efficiency is increasing and the vast majority of the Earth is still virgin.

Places where nobody in their right mind would want to live don't count. Sheesh.

[Steve MB]

Again we have enough resources to maintain more than 7 billion people-8,9,10 billlions but the problem is distribution as many socialists and communists have argued.

Determining optimum population on the basis of assertions from socialists and communists is like determining the course of a space probe on the basis of assertions from astrologers and flat-earthers or determining how to treat mental illness on the basis of assertions from scientologists and witch doctors.

Really, this sort of thing (well, that and my habit of unwarranted generosity) is why my responses to you tend to be in the "30% serious, 70% mock" category.

[Yllaria]

. . . Even if you're not religious, it would be a bad thing for humans and as a member of the species it would not be in our interest to let humanity go extinct. . .

"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth . . . " It's looking full enough to make extinction unlikely. Mission accomplished.

Now if you want to say that the earth is vulnerable to asteroid strikes and that we'd better get a secondary population going off-planet, I might consider that to be, maybe not moral, but desirable. Not the opposite of murder, but desirable.

And we had a poll a while ago on planned vs surprise children. You might want to check it out. Sometimes I think it's like antibiotic resistance. The longer we use contraception, the more we're breeding for getting past contraception. But I doubt that hypothesis would really fly.

[Der Trihs]

And we had a poll a while ago on planned vs surprise children. You might want to check it out. Sometimes I think it's like antibiotic resistance. The longer we use contraception, the more we're breeding for getting past contraception. But I doubt that hypothesis would really fly.Modern contraception hasn't been around nearly long enough to have any evolutionary effects. Not with the long generation times humans have; bacteria evolve far faster than us because their generations are measured in minutes instead of decades.

[The Second Stone]

So the local Tom cat is the most moral neighbor in the area? He's knocked up one kitty for at least 3 litters worth.

[Little Nemo]

If we regress the morality of birth back to conception, why not regress the morality of conception back to ejaculation? It's all part of the process. So then isn't masturbation an act of glory to God?

And now a reading from the Book of Sorority Girls...

[Guinastasia]

If we regress the morality of birth back to conception, why not regress the morality of conception back to ejaculation? It's all part of the process. So then isn't masturbation an act of glory to God?

And now a reading from the Book of Sorority Girls...

Wouldn't that make porn religious films? What with all the money shots.

[Measure for Measure]

We have enough food in the world. Yes, that part I agree on. But distribution requires other resources, like fossil fuels, people to pick, package and transport that food, trucks, trains and airplanes to move it in, time to get it there before it spoils, safe zones where people aren't shooting at relief workers, etc. We do NOT have the resources for distribution right now. Well, I'll disagree: IMHO, we have sufficient fossil fuels, etc. to support 10 billion people, provided we had suitable economic institutions. Among other things, that would involve having gas prices reflect the burdens of pollution, waging war, etc. We don't have that by a long shot.

But Qin: it's not enough to argue resource sufficiency if you want to support the OP. You have to argue that an additional child brings more benefits to the world than costs. And consuming an extra mountain of gasoline, coal, CO2 et al diverts resources away from better activities, or so I claim. Again, it serves the commonwealth better to go for human quality than human quantity.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

And Masturbation would be crime against god.Once again (as I am always more than happy to point out) Bill Hicks nailed it. Nothing more need be posted.;) [Links at end of post.]

"Here's another idea that should be punctured, the idea that childbirth is a miracle. I don't know who started this rumor but it's not a miracle. No more a miracle than eating food and a turd coming out of your butt. It's a chemical reaction and a biological reaction. You want to know a miracle? A miracle is raising a kid that doesn't talk in a fucking movie theater...

[snip]

...I am sorry to tell you this. [Children] are not special. I'll let that sink in. Don't get me wrong, folks. I know YOU think they're special. You think that. I'm telling you-they're not.

Did you know that every time a guy comes, he comes 200 million sperm? Did you know that? And you mean to tell me that you think your child is special? Because one of out 200 million sperm—that load ...we're talkin' that load!—connected. Gee, what are the fucking odds?

Do you know what that means? I have wiped entire civilizations off my chest, with a grey gym sock. That is special.

Entire nations have flaked and crusted in the hair around my navel. That is special...

And I want you to think about that, you two-egg-carrying beings out there with that holier-than-thou, 'we-have-the-gift-of-life' attitude. I have tossed universes, in my underpants, while napping. THAT is special."
Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqtcb66Yeyo&feature=related) a clip of Bill disclosing the above Truth.

Text version (http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id=00047) (quote #1 at bottom of page) along with other precious, Hicks gems.

And here's another video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6GhOLE6hSU) of more Hicks correctness (though not of the "political" type!) on childbirth. (From his big, late-career, Revelations tour. [London show].)

[Der Trihs]

If we regress the morality of birth back to conception, why not regress the morality of conception back to ejaculation? It's all part of the process. So then isn't masturbation an act of glory to God?Nah. Conception may be holy, but sex and especially masturbation are evil. Just picture a wad of semen filled with millions of sperm, and all the sperm speaking in not-quite-unison (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VoiceOfTheLegion):

"CALL US LEGION, FOR WE ARE MANY."

[Little Nemo]

If you can't trust a poster named I Love Me on the subject of masturbation, who can you trust?

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

If you can't trust a poster named I Love Me on the subject of masturbation, who can you trust?Good one! :D

But I'm merely passing along the Truth "As Bill Sees It".

[suranyi]

Once again (as I am always more than happy to point out) Bill Hicks nailed it. Nothing more need be posted.;) [Links at end of post.]

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqtcb66Yeyo&feature=related) a clip of Bill disclosing the above Truth.

Text version (http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id=00047) (quote #1 at bottom of page) along with other precious, Hicks gems.

And here's another video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6GhOLE6hSU) of more Hicks correctness (though not of the "political" type!) on childbirth. (From his big, late-career, Revelations tour. [London show].)

Hmm. Well. If you go through years of fertility treatments with no luck, and then finally succeed in having a child, it sure feels like a miracle, notwithstanding all those millions of sperm. Those millions simply didn't do anything for us.

[Fear Itself]

Hmm. Well. If you go through years of fertility treatments with no luck, and then finally succeed in having a child, it sure feels like a miracle, notwithstanding all those millions of sperm. Those millions simply didn't do anything for us.One of them did.

[Manda JO]

I think there is a secular sense of the word "miracle" that just means "really amazing and hard t comprehend" and fetal development/childbirth qualifies for that. A newborn seems miraculous to me: not because I think there is any ineffable mystery in it, but because it's just astounding that so many things could go right, that new life could develop out of something so small. I've got a baby kicking inside me right now, and I have to say, I find it miraculous, and it seems . . .pretentious . . . for someone to deny that. Like a kid looking at the Grand Canyon and scuffing his foot and saying "so a bunch of water came through and eroded away the rock. BFD.".

On the other hand, people who use "miracle" to mean "permanently beyond human understanding" are annoying, when it clearly isn't.

[42fish]

If we regress the morality of birth back to conception, why not regress the morality of conception back to ejaculation? It's all part of the process. So then isn't masturbation an act of glory to God?


I never realized how accurate I was being when I said I did it religiously.

[kanicbird]

Here is the logic: if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do would not conceiving a human life, being its exact opposite, be one of the most moral acts possible? Would it not be moral to create one more human life to advance to glory for God and for him or her to experience worship, love, kindness, pleasure, and so on?

According to Scriptures man's lot is to die and his salvation comes from dieing, woman's salvation is to bring forth life. The cycle of death and rebirth are a equilibrium in this world, some call it reincarnation. It is the temporary condition we are in till God restores His Kingdom and death is abolished and all we have is life.

[Jas09]

Saving a life is closer to the opposite of murder.
Saving a life would be the correct analogous opposite of killingYup. To put it in a Biblical perspective:

"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13

When combined with Jesus' moral commandment - "Love your neighbor as yourself" - it becomes quite clear what the most moral act possible is, at least to a Christian.

[Voyager]

I believe conception is good for anyone including non-Christians for I believe it is better to live and not be of the Elect than not to exist at all, for even those not of the Elect will ultimately have some meaning in the greater scheme of things.

Have you spoken to someone who doesn't exist to demonstrate that existence is better? The absurdity of my question stems from the absurdity of your comparison.

What is moral is taking care of children you have. Conception itself is morally neutral. Is a woman who conceives and intends to throw the baby in the trash doing something moral? The man who is planning on leaving the child in poverty? At the time, you don't know if your child is going to be healthy and happy or sick and miserable. It is a bet, the outcome of which you can influence to some extent by your background and circumstances - but not totally.

I'd say adopting is a far more moral act than conceiving. We have two wanted and planned kids, but anyone can have that. Our real estate agent who adopted four kids whose parents died in a fire and who had no one to take care of them was far more moral in this area than we were.

[Czarcasm]

I never realized how accurate I was being when I said I did it religiously.Only on Sunday, sitting on a hard bench and listening to organ music?

[kanicbird]

Yup. To put it in a Biblical perspective:

"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13

When combined with Jesus' moral commandment - "Love your neighbor as yourself" - it becomes quite clear what the most moral act possible is, at least to a Christian.
I would say saving someone's soul would be the important issue, not saving a life, Jesus said you have to die to live. The physical life is not that critical, and saving a life therefor not the opposite of murder, scripturally childbirth is much closer.

[YogSosoth]

Here is the logic: if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do would not conceiving a human life, being its exact opposite, be one of the most moral acts possible? Would it not be moral to create one more human life to advance to glory for God and for him or her to experience worship, love, kindness, pleasure, and so on?

I'm curious, what if that kid turns out to be atheist? Would the same amount of morality apply to his birth as it would a Christian's?

[Jas09]

I would say saving someone's soul would be the important issue, not saving a life, Jesus said you have to die to live. The physical life is not that critical, and saving a life therefor not the opposite of murder, scripturally childbirth is much closer.And yet the passage I quoted seems to pretty directly state the opposite. There isn't any real ambiguity in it, and Jesus doesn't seem to be speaking metaphorically.

He clearly states: The two greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Then: The greatest love you can have is to lay down your life for a friend.

I don't see much wiggle-room here - the answer to the OP's question about the "most moral act possible", from a Christian perspective, is to lay down your life to save another person's (and the answer to the "who is your neighbor" question is also made plain by the story of the Good Samaritan).

Also, could you please cite the "Jesus said you have to die to live" part - it sounds familiar but the only references I can find are to Paul, not to Jesus.

[kanicbird]

And yet the passage I quoted seems to pretty directly state the opposite. There isn't any real ambiguity in it, and Jesus doesn't seem to be speaking metaphorically.

He clearly states: The two greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Then: The greatest love you can have is to lay down your life for a friend.

I believe you are making a leap which is not there and does not follow the other scriptures. Jesus as God undoubtedly had the greatest Love for His friends (us) and laid down His physical life for the exchange for our eternal life.

We are called to follow Jesus, the possible sacrifice of our physical life for the eternal life of another is our greatest act of Love. Note the scriptures do not say The greatest love you can have is to lay down your life for the life of a friend, but just for a friend.

This is what many people who are called by God need to do. Some may be martyrs, though many just place themselves in a situation that seems certain of death yet they are protected by God.

Also, could you please cite the "Jesus said you have to die to live" part - it sounds familiar but the only references I can find are to Paul, not to Jesus.

One of the few passages across all 4 gospels:

For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.
Also in Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, John 12:25
And a case can be made for similar in Revelation, which is also quoting Jesus.

Also you have the take up your cross and follow Jesus quote in 3 out of the 4 gospels.

Also note that Jesus did not come to save Laserth <sp>, but allowed him to die and Jesus raised him from the grave, saving a life is not that important if one has the power to raise the dead, and raising of the dead is a power Jesus gave to us. Because Jesus came after the death, though there was apparently time to come before, it shows that saving a physical life may not be the best thing.

[Jas09]

Thank you for the reference.

I'm not sure how else to interpret John 15:13 than as "laying down your life for the life of a friend", but I guess if you prefer to think of it as "laying down your life to save a friend's soul" that's no skin off my back.

It's still a huge leap from "the greatest moral act is to die to save someone's soul" (assuming that's even a correct interpretation) to "the greatest moral act is conception". All your doing by conceiving is creating another soul that may be damned.

Oh, and as for the Matthew quote, I now remember why I never made a point of remembering it - I find it impenetrable hokum (what is that final "it" even referring to...). Might as well be a Zen koan. ;)

The only reasonably meaningful interpretation is a combination of the banal and the woowoo - "If you think the most important thing is your own life you're doomed, because you're going to die". Well, no shit Jesus. Followed by "but if you die for me (as a martyr, I guess) then you'll get some sweet digs in heaven" - pretty standard religion-as-undefined-future-reward stuff.

[Little Nemo]

On a more serious note than my previous posts, I think conception shouldn't be necessarily regarded as a moral act. The context of this argument is the premise that there is such a thing as a soul and also that there is an existence for souls outside of the mortal realm.

If souls are eternal, then they already existed in the outer realm before conception. The act of conception just trapped a soul in a physical body for the length of a mortal lifetime. And even if souls are created by the act of conception, then there's still the issue of the consequences to a soul of having a mortal existence.

The premise of most religions is that the acts of a mortal lifetime have an effect on the soul's condition after death. Some acts can theoretically improve a soul's existence but other acts can harm the soul.

So regardless of whether you favor the trapping or creation theory, is it moral to place a soul in a human body with the knowledge that you're placing that soul in a perilous position? If that soul goes on to experience damnation, isn't it partly your responsibility for putting it on that path? Wouldn't that damned soul have been better off if you hadn't caused it to be born?

[suranyi]

I think there is a secular sense of the word "miracle" that just means "really amazing and hard t comprehend" and fetal development/childbirth qualifies for that. A newborn seems miraculous to me: not because I think there is any ineffable mystery in it, but because it's just astounding that so many things could go right, that new life could develop out of something so small. I've got a baby kicking inside me right now, and I have to say, I find it miraculous, and it seems . . .pretentious . . . for someone to deny that. Like a kid looking at the Grand Canyon and scuffing his foot and saying "so a bunch of water came through and eroded away the rock. BFD.".

On the other hand, people who use "miracle" to mean "permanently beyond human understanding" are annoying, when it clearly isn't.

That's pretty much how I feel. Especially when it really was a struggle to us, medically, to have a baby.

Now, for the purposes of this thread, that doesn't mean I think there is any moral aspect to it. But to me it still was an amazing thing, and I get annoyed by those who say that it's not a big deal, it's as common as fucking. Believe me, we fuck a LOT, and it never created a child before.

[kanicbird]

Thank you for the reference.

I'm not sure how else to interpret John 15:13 than as "laying down your life for the life of a friend", but I guess if you prefer to think of it as "laying down your life to save a friend's soul" that's no skin off my back.
FWIW here is the quote from the NIV


Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

It's still a huge leap from "the greatest moral act is to die to save someone's soul" (assuming that's even a correct interpretation) to "the greatest moral act is conception". All your doing by conceiving is creating another soul that may be damned.

I do have a issue with the premise of murder is the greatest immoral act, which it clearly is not. Murder can be forgiven in this life (King David's murder of Uriah, forgiven by the Lord through Nathan), the unpardonable sin however cannot be forgiven in this age or the age to come (from Jesus), so that would be a greater immoral act and since it is the only unforgivable sin, it is the greatest immoral act.

As such I state that conception, or childbearing is the opposite of death and murder, in a codependent ying/yang sense, and also based on multiple scripture reference of the place we come from (conception) is the same place we return to (death), this for one given by God to Adam for his sin (in Gen 3)

[Jas09]

Wasn't the "unpardonable sin" blaspheming the Holy Spirit? So the "converse" of that would be glorifying or spreading the Holy Spirit? So I guess that would argue that the greatest moral act is evangelizing (which also ties in with your interpretation of John 15:13).

Guess it's a good thing I'm an atheist now, because that result certainly doesn't mesh with my intuitive morality.

[kanicbird]

Wasn't the "unpardonable sin" blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

Yes

So the "converse" of that would be glorifying or spreading the Holy Spirit? So I guess that would argue that the greatest moral act is evangelizing (which also ties in with your interpretation of John 15:13).

Actually I'd say no, since the greatest act of Love is clearly defined is to lay down one's life for friends and therefor is not evangelizing by definition. So John 15:13 would be the opposite of the unpardonable sin. Though the act of giving one's life for a friend in John 15:13 may very will be evangelistic in nature, it is not necessarily so.

Here is the quote from Revelation I mentioned, which is also a quote of Jesus:

Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.

[Irishman]

That just proves that the opposite act is not necessarily the inverse morality.

[kanicbird]

That just proves that the opposite act is not necessarily the inverse morality.

Well committing the greatest act of Love does glorify the Holy Spirit, so in that respect they are opposite of the greatest sin.

[kanicbird]

Jas09 I have been thinking about what you stated and it is possibly that the greatest act of Love includes evangelism, but it may take a God to make that happen.

If you will follow this example:

You and your friend live in a atheistic society. Your friend moves to a African village and plans to live with the indigenous people. After your friend moves you find God and wish to tell your friend. You travel in search of your friend and die in the process.

It appears that you have died for your friend, yet no apparent envangelation took place. And for the most part, if there is no god that would be the end of it. But if there is a God, and God looks at your heart and basically follows the teachings of Jesus about God, then God will make your effort good, He has to. So it isn't the end of the story.

Perhaps your friend will find your body one day, with a bible in his possession. And your friend starts reading it, then this is evangelism.

So I recant my above statement and that it is possible that the greatest act of Love always include evangelism.

[Docta G]

Here is the logic: if murder as in the unprovoked taking of human life is one of the eviliest things a person can do would not conceiving a human life, being its exact opposite, be one of the most moral acts possible? Would it not be moral to create one more human life to advance to glory for God and for him or her to experience worship, love, kindness, pleasure, and so on?

Good grief.

[Czarcasm]

Well committing the greatest act of Love does glorify the Holy Spirit, so in that respect they are opposite of the greatest sin.What does this have to do with conceiving a child?

[kanicbird]

What does this have to do with conceiving a child?

I disagree with the OP.

The most moral act possible = dieing for one's friends, scripturally defined as the greatest act of Love
The opposite would be the least moral act possible = Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, scripturally defined as unforgivable in this age and the age to come

Murder is scripturally forgivable in this life, so it is not the greatest immoral act.

However death, including death through murder has a counterpart in the feminine and that is childbearing and I would say that childbearing is the 'opposite' of murder.

[Czarcasm]

I disagree with the OP.I apologize-I was spot-reading while between clients at the food pantry. Still and all, wouldn't the greatest moral act of all depend on what one's morals are in the first place? Let's say you have a psychological need to be a martyr. If you laid down your life for another then it would be nothing more that an act of self-satisfaction.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I apologize-I was spot-reading while between clients at the food pantry. Still and all, wouldn't the greatest moral act of all depend on what one's morals are in the first place? Let's say you have a psychological need to be a martyr. If you laid down your life for another then it would be nothing more that an act of self-satisfaction.Even if you do NOT have a martyr complex it would be an act of self-satisfaction. Everything is. There is no such thing as true altruism. Each and every decision a human makes is 100% selfish. Everything ever one of us will ever do is 100% selfish.

Jump in front of a bus to save a kid's life, knowing that you will certainly die? 100% selfish. You do it because you felt it was the right thing--FOR YOU--to do at the time. You did it to satisfy your own needs, which is all any of us ever do.

Give every penny of a $150 million lottery prize to the Salvation Army?
100% selfish.


Kill yourself?
100% selfish.


Continue to live?
100% selfish.



Etc., etc. The trick to understanding this is to relax and think a moment. Do not let yourself get caught up in all of the negative baggage that is attached by custom and usage to the concept of 'selfishness'.

I stress 'concept' because I know people can be pedantic and manage to lose ideas in the precise "laws" of dictionary pronouncements. Maybe 'selfish' is not the best word here--maybe "self-serving" or "self-seeking" would be better. My point is that intentional altruism does not exist.

As far as the subject of this thread--certainly having children is a totally self-serving or selfish act.

[Der Trihs]

Defining everything as "selfish" just renders the word "selfish" useless. Clearly, there are people who care nothing for others, and there are people who care a great deal about others; with what words do you distinguish between the two if you've defined "selfish" to apply to all human behavior? This person is selfish, while that person is generous is a useful distinction to make.

[kanicbird]

I apologize-I was spot-reading while between clients at the food pantry. Still and all, wouldn't the greatest moral act of all depend on what one's morals are in the first place? Let's say you have a psychological need to be a martyr. If you laid down your life for another then it would be nothing more that an act of self-satisfaction.
My take on it:
To some extent we can define our own morality. But I do believe that any morality except for Love God, Love your neighbor will fail the person (soul) eventually.

There is also a absolute morality, that of Love, all moralities will eventually become this single one, till then we get what we have, different and sometimes opposed moralities.

In the case above, if the person does it for Love, it will lead to glorification of God, if for any other reason then Love then as you put it 'self satisfaction'. This 'self satisfaction' however will be found not to be satisfying at all, but will be used as learning process for that soul of what they don't want as their morality, and the soul will search for a new morality.

This brings up the question is any morality besides Love God/Love neighbors is wrong or bad. Ultimately I believe no, no person's morality is actually bad as long as the soul learns the correct morality eventually, which I personally believe all will learn. So the person's individual morality is correct as a learning tool.

Yes people who have bad morals produce pain in the world for others, and that really sucks, but that pain will eventually come back to them, this is what is sometimes called karma.

SO yes you can define the greatest moral act as conception, the greatest immoral act as murder, plug that into your life and let it run, see how it goes.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Defining everything as "selfish" just renders the word "selfish" useless. Clearly, there are people who care nothing for others, and there are people who care a great deal about others; with what words do you distinguish between the two if you've defined "selfish" to apply to all human behavior? This person is selfish, while that person is generous is a useful distinction to make.I did admit that perhaps self-serving is a better term. But I think your objection would still stand.

I do not see all behaviors as zero-sum situations where any action is either totally self-serving or totally generous. Almost all actions are both.

If I give a million dollars to a needy charity, that action is generous and self-serving at the same time. It is generous to the charity and that action would likely be seen by others as very generous.

But my personal motivation behind the gift was (mostly sub-consciously, I would assume) completely self-serving. As a living organism I am hard-wired to react to each fork I encounter in the decision-tree of life in the way that I have calculated will best serve my self-interest.