# Conception and Humanity: A Modest Proposal **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 24, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967 "2006-02-24T19:53:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/41 "2006-02-24T23:38:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Wrong, and I can prove it! For if one form of preconceptive matter is not a baby, would not it then follow that the other form was similarly non-sacrosanct? But, we know that to be false, as is deftly argued in the OP. But the OP is flawed as follows: Mankind lying with womankind is indeed referred to as abomination in Lev. 18, as is a man lying with a beast. However, there is a whole list of other sins in that chapter which involve the possibility of conception, such as lying with one’s sister-in-law or one’s neighbor’s wife. These are also included in the command, to “not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you”. Furthermore, in Deut. 23:18, it is commanded that “thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore […] into the house of the LORD thy God, for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”. Obviously, lying with a whore in the house of God contains the possibility of conception. Hence, it is not the case that the possibility of conception is what separates abomination from non-abomination. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/42 "2006-02-24T23:41:17Z")
Correction: > [@](#): > > Mankind lying with womankind is indeed referred to as abomination should be > [@](#): > > Mankind lying with mankind is indeed referred to as abomination [sub]Shows where _my_ mind is…[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/43 "2006-02-25T00:03:32Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > But the OP is flawed as follows: > > Mankind lying with womankind is indeed referred to as abomination in Lev. 18, as is a man lying with a beast. However, there is a whole list of other sins in that chapter which involve the possibility of conception, such as lying with one’s sister-in-law or one’s neighbor’s wife. These are also included in the command, to “not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you”. > > Furthermore, in Deut. 23:18, it is commanded that “thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore […] into the house of the LORD thy God, for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”. Obviously, lying with a whore in the house of God contains the possibility of conception. Hence, it is not the case that the possibility of conception is what separates abomination from non-abomination. Your second point is ridiculous; we’re not supposed to sell stuff in the temple either, and commercialism is one of our god-given obligations! As for your first point, you obviously overlooked the part where he proved that coveting your neighbor’s wife was equivalent to shagging her. Given that, there is an apparent contradiction in the bible, since coveting is a mere sin; yet the bible is entirely true and has no flaws whatsoever. Such apparent contradictions are (of course) errors on your part, but don’t worry; you can always rely on we of the religious right (‘right’ as in ‘correct’) to tell you what is true. ---
**Author:** ![if6was9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47c2d/32.png) [@if6was9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/if6was9)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/44 "2006-02-25T00:20:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No reasonable person disputes the full humanity that it is realized at conception… So 9 Supreme Court justices in 1973, I don’t know how many justices since then (not to mention the 7 Presidents who appointed them), 32 congresses and millions upon millions of Americans are unreasonable (absurd, all wet, arbitrary, biased, capricious, contradictory, erratic, fallacious, far-fetched, fatuous, foolish, headstrong, illogical, incoherent, incongruous, inconsequential, inconsistent, invalid, irrational, loose, mad, nonsensical, off base, opinionated, preposterous, quirky, reasonless, senseless, silly, stupid, thoughtless, unreasoned, unsensible, vacant, wrong)? Only you and your “holy armies” have a clue? Don’t you and your minions have a damn high opinion of yourselves… ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/45 "2006-02-25T00:40:12Z")
> [@luc](#): > > All over our sinful and debased land, adolescent males are squandering uncountable billions of potential conceptions! The numbers stagger the imagination! […] We must take immediate steps to ensure that such abominations are not tolerated by our legal system. […] > > And, yes, this is not the only area of concern. Some of our more sophisticated Cecilians are aware of……certain practices…. that involve inappropriate orifices. […] We cannot contemplate such, and will not. Suffice to say that if the Lord of Hosts had wanted such practices to be acceptable, He would have made semen taste like chocolate. I have it on very good authority that this is not the case. But let us draw a discreet veil, even as we shudder in horror. Professor George? Conservative Princeton University jurisprudence professor Robert George? [Is that you?](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060313/blumenthal/3) > [@](#): > > Natural law informs much of George’s 2001 book, _The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion and Morality in Crisis_, especially its passages on sexual morality. “The plain fact is that the genitals of men and women are reproductive organs all of the time–even during periods of sterility,” he writes. To curb sexual practices he views as immoral, including oral sex and masturbation (which he calls “bad” sex), George supports state laws banning sodomy, adultery and fornication. (Yet more evidence that it’s hard to be satirical these days without getting blindsided by reality.) ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/46 "2006-02-25T00:44:15Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > Furthermore, in Deut. 23:18… Quoting the bible chapter and verse is exactly what Hitler would do. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/47 "2006-02-25T00:47:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Your second point is ridiculous; we’re not supposed to sell stuff in the temple either, and commercialism is one of our god-given obligations! You miss my point. Intercourse with a whore in the temple is given as an abomination; it has the possibility of conception; hence there can be abominations that have the possibility of conception. > [@](#): > > As for your first point, you obviously overlooked the part where he proved that coveting your neighbor’s wife was equivalent to shagging her. I fail to see where he did so. Please point it out. ---
**Author:** ![if6was9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47c2d/32.png) [@if6was9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/if6was9)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/48 "2006-02-25T01:00:07Z")
> [@if6was9](#): > > STFU I’ve been informed that I was whooshed… :o ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/49 "2006-02-25T01:10:09Z")
> [@](#): > > In our day and age, there is no practical reason why our government cannot install cameras to supervise our nation’s bedrooms (I propose the symbolic title “Moral Guardians”) and entrust their monitoring to persons of sufficient moral fiber and character! Baptists, for the most part, I would imagine. Unitarians, agnostics, and their ilk need not apply. “Everybody knows the scene is dead but there’s gonna be a meter on your bed that will disclose what everybody knows.” – Leonard Cohen ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/50 "2006-02-25T01:17:59Z")
Hi! This is **Scylla** from **Rock The Vote 2006,** and I’m hijacking this thread to bring you an important public service announcement. Do you think you’re ill-informed? Do you feel that your opinions are based on balderdash, poopycock, strawmen and false assertions? Don’t worry. This does not disqualify you from expressing your opinions. No matter how ill-founded they may be, you can still make them count in 2006! Don’t forget to register and vote! We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant. ---
**Author:** ![mrrealtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@mrrealtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrrealtime)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/51 "2006-02-25T01:32:15Z")
you guys are all a bunch of jerks…after all, we’re all one of daddy’s little squirts. > [@tdn](#): > > And I HATE David Lynch films. she’s my mothers sisters girl. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/52 "2006-02-25T01:35:55Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > You miss my point. Intercourse with a whore in the temple is given as an abomination; it has the possibility of conception; hence there can be abominations that have the possibility of conception. Of course its an abomination in the temple, or in any other part of the head. It’s only non-sinful in the right orifice. Sheesh, some people don’t read the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/53 "2006-02-25T01:45:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I rise to a question of the deepest gravity. No you don’t. Gravity brings you down. It doesn’t make you rise, but keep going. > [@](#): > > Consider the Biblical sources. We are given to understand that a man lying with another man as he might with a woman is an abomination. Lying with beasts in the field is an abomination. However, coveting thy neighbors maidservant’s ass is a _sin_, but not an _abomination_! Could it be more clear? It makes absolutely perfect sense to me if you parse it carefully. In the first two examples we have sexual relations occuring. In the first between a man and a man. In the second between a man and a beast. In the third example we have a person merely wanting to have sex with a beast. One would expect that the contmplation of a sin would be the lesser offense than the action, would one not? Anyway, I recall no dogmatic distinction between “sin” and “abomination” in my Catholic Bible. Perhaps you can quote me a chapter and a verse. > [@](#): > > What separates a mere sin, a misdemeanor, if you will, from an abomination is this: the potential of conception! Conception in the first two instances of depravity is impossible, but entirely reasonable in the example of lust that overlooks the inherent property rights of one’s neighbor. Actually, conception is impossible in the third example as well. You still can’t get pregnant from just wanting to do it. You have to do it. Secondly, an ass is a beast who’s germ plasm is incompatible with humanity’s (though strangely not with a horse, hence the mule.) > [@](#): > > From this it necessarily follows that the _potential_ of conception has an equal standing with the actual\* fact\* of conception, which we have already established is sacred. I give the reader a moment’s pause to consider the implications. No. It does not follow. You spend the first section addressing a distinction in degree of severity of sins, yet now you pretend that all things are equivalent. You can’t have it both ways. Either all sins are equal or there are gradations. Personally, I think that littering is worse than killing and go with gradations myself. > [@](#): > > All over our sinful and debased land, adolescent males are squandering uncountable billions of potential conceptions! The numbers stagger the imagination! And be mindful of the story of Onan, who was struck dead for this abominable practice. _Struck dead_, mind you! I concede you have something of a point there. It does seem somewhat extreme, doesn’t it? Perhaps your missing something from the story or misinterpreting it? Try this on: We agree that Onan spilling his seed was a sin. We agree that killing him for doing this seems disproportionate. Therefore I propose two possibilities. Possibility the first is to interpretate the story so that we have a ridiculously unjust God. Possibility the second is to try to understand within the context of the story why Onan was struck dead. You see, Onan had a duty to impregnate this woman under law (I think she was his dead brother’s wife) and Jewish law stated that he had to marry her and give her children so that there would be a direct lineage of firstborn sons. If he doesn’t than it’s a betrayal of his brother, his brother’s wife, and both families. It betrays all his ancestors. Firstborn sons and their sons inheriting and whatnot. So, Onan (in the context of the story) wasn’t struck dead for simply spilling his seed. He was struck dead for betraying his brother, his brother’s wife, his family, and God’s law. The crime was actually a lot more severe than simply spilling his seed. His betrayal was pari passeu with murder not because of the seed spilled, but because he was murdering his families legacy, betraying his brother etc, etc. (I may have gotten a detail wrong, it’s been a while, but that’s the gist.) > [@](#): > > Its in the Bible. You could look it up. You should go to Sunday school so you know what it means. > [@](#): > > A nation that need not fear God need fear nothing! “Nothing?” The word you were looking for was “anything.” ---
**Author:** ![Agonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/439d5e/32.png) [@Agonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agonist)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/54 "2006-02-25T02:01:06Z")
I’m being deafened by the whooshes in this thread. May I introduce some of you to a grand old satirist named [Jonathan Swift](http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)? ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/55 "2006-02-25T02:02:07Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > No you don’t… \ Your first post was a little flat, but you could have given it just a little more time to ferment before going the more conventional route. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/56 "2006-02-25T02:13:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course its an abomination in the temple, or in any other part of the head. It’s only non-sinful in the right orifice. Within the context of marriage or concubinage, at least according to the Old Covenant. The text here says not to hire a whore for use in the temple; it says nothing about which orifice is being used. Vaginal intercourse with a fertile whore in the temple could very likely result in conception, yet is nevertheless an abomination. > [@](#): > > May I introduce some of you to a grand old satirist named Jonathan Swift? I find the best way to counter satire that makes a point one doesn’t agree with is to treat it as if it were serious. It can take the fun out of satire when one’s opponent doesn’t play along. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/57 "2006-02-25T02:18:13Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Hi! > > This is **Scylla** from **Rock The Vote 2006,** and I’m hijacking this thread to bring you an important public service announcement. > > Do you think you’re ill-informed? > > Do you feel that your opinions are based on balderdash, poopycock, strawmen and false assertions? > snip. ## Poopycock? I am adopting this as my new way of saying “poppycock.” **Jpeg Jones** : It’s fine…as long as the cat wasn’t touching **your** butthole. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/58 "2006-02-25T02:20:57Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > Poopycock? > I am adopting this as my new way of saying “poppycock.” But don’t you see? Today poopycock – tomorrow droopycock! Problem solved! ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/59 "2006-02-25T02:24:25Z")
> [@](#): > > **elucidator** : And, of course, this necessarily implies that women who have passed what might be reasonably considered to be “child-bearing age” would be required to submit themselves to connubial practices even when conception is unlikely. I can only trust in the unyielding moral character of the American woman, that she behave as stern duty demands. This came immediately to mind: “When Duty whispers low, ‘Thou must!’”… Of course, that was written about the young. I like Emerson, but he didn’t really probe the depths of what women – strong, older women – are capable of giving in times of need. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967/60 "2006-02-25T04:58:19Z")
Was there a special breakfast this morning at which stupid food was served? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conception-and-humanity-a-modest-proposal/345967.md?page=4)