# Is Conception The Most Moral Act Possible **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2011, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701 "2011-05-29T21:43:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/21 "2011-05-29T23:09:45Z")
> [@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? 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. > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/22 "2011-05-29T23:29:34Z")
> [@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? 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: > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/23 "2011-05-30T00:27:50Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > 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… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/24 "2011-05-30T01:13:20Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/25 "2011-05-30T01:15:54Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/26 "2011-05-30T01:25:10Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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](http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-23/living/do.not.want.children_1_happiness-cultural-beliefs-children?_s=PM:LIVING) ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/27 "2011-05-30T01:48:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. > [@Troppus](#): > > **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. ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/28 "2011-05-30T02:07:39Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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](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/](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/](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 ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/29 "2011-05-30T02:12:20Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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](http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/fast-facts-unplanned-key-data.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/30 "2011-05-30T02:23:24Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/31 "2011-05-30T02:37:03Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Implicit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/32 "2011-05-30T03:02:40Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > 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”. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/33 "2011-05-30T03:34:57Z")
> [@Implicit](#): > > …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. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/34 "2011-05-30T03:43:22Z")
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.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/35 "2011-05-30T03:51:04Z")
> [@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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/36 "2011-05-30T03:54:51Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/37 "2011-05-30T06:58:08Z")
I prefer to go forth and solve differential equations, myself. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/38 "2011-05-30T08:40:29Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/39 "2011-05-30T08:55:33Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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… ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701/40 "2011-05-30T09:13:42Z")
I think this is the thread where I stop reading these threads. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conception-the-most-moral-act-possible/583701.md?page=3)