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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 a clip of Bill disclosing the above Truth.
Text version (quote #1 at bottom of page) along with other precious, Hicks gems.
And here’s another video of more Hicks correctness (though not of the “political” type!) on childbirth. (From his big, late-career, Revelations tour. [London show].)
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:
“CALL US LEGION, FOR WE ARE MANY.”
If you can’t trust a poster named I Love Me on the subject of masturbation, who can you trust?
Good one! 
But I’m merely passing along the Truth “As Bill Sees It”.
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.
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.
I never realized how accurate I was being when I said I did it religiously.
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.
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.
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.
Only on Sunday, sitting on a hard bench and listening to organ music?
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.