NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it ok with you? After all, in this case:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1253397,00.html

we're talking about consenting adults..

Do you think it's ok? Not ok? Just gross?

Vote!

It's irresponsible for them to be having children.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519220

Gross, but if they're both adults and both consent, it's really no one else's business.

Consenting adults? What's not to be ok with?

While siblings in my opinion shouldn't have kids due to the problems that follow inbreeding, I am opposed to the criminalization of incest between consenting siblings - given that a law that penalizes abuse efficiently is in place and working.

It might be "icky", but it's not deserving of jailtime.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/chores030.gif

It's irresponsible for them to be having children.

From what I have seen from the stats it's one generational effect is only very rarely an issue, while still possible there are other things that cause higher berth defects probabilities then relation

From what I have seen from the stats it's one generational effect is only very rarely an issue, while still possible there are other things that cause higher berth defects probabilities then relation

Something's not meshing with this couple's DNA. They really should have stopped after the second child born with birth defects.

Although, I'm not opposed to consenting adults marrying. As long as it's not a parent/child marriage.

Meh, seems icky in my opinion. Mind you, I have a fugly sister.

In nearly cases it's not okay and something that should be discouraged.

I have nothing against consenting adults to marry. However due to the high incidence of degenerative genetic diseases caused by homozygotic genes, which is very high in inbreeding so close, I think they should not be allowed to have children.

And IMHO, parents who choose to have children they know ( from ultrasounds and genetic tests) will be very sick and never have a chance of a normal life ( down syndrome, etc), are selfish.

From what I have seen from the stats it's one generational effect is only very rarely an issue, while still possible there are other things that cause higher berth defects probabilities then relation

Being elderly or living near Chernobyl might be a tad worse, but incest is still pretty bad for the kids.. I mean, have you *seen* the British royal family? That's all the evidence I need.

Is it ok with you? After all, in this case:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1253397,00.html

we're talking about consenting adults..

Do you think it's ok? Not ok? Just gross?

Vote!
Ah well. You have to do something to pass the time.

Being elderly or living near Chernobyl might be a tad worse, but incest is still pretty bad for the kids.. I mean, have you *seen* the British royal family? That's all the evidence I need.
Not to mention all those retards running lose in the US.

Well, it's morally harmless, though rather gross. I have two sisters, and....no. Just no. So for everyone other than myself, it's ok for consenting adults.

But it would be kind of fun to hear the conversation when the parents explain why Dad is also Uncle, and Mom is also Aunt.

Of course, you'd only have one set of grandparents, so fewer presents on birthdays. Sucks for them.

I am reminded of the vaguely amusing comedy of Jeff Foxworthy...

"You might be a redneck if...your family tree does not fork."

I don't care what consenting adults do, but maybe those consenting adults ought to have been more careful regarding children.

Meh...

Is it ok with you? After all, in this case:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1253397,00.html

we're talking about consenting adults..

Do you think it's ok? Not ok? Just gross?

Vote!

Not ok!

I am reminded of the vaguely amusing comedy of Jeff Foxworthy...

"You might be a redneck if...your family tree does not fork."


Meh...

you might be a red neck if your father is also your uncle. :p

but seriously thats grosss :eek:

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! :eek:

I see some "eeew"'ing and stuff, but I'm missing any real arguements as to why such "gross behaviour" should be punishable by jailtime. Any takers?

I see some "eeew"'ing and stuff, but I'm missing any real arguements as to why such "gross behaviour" should be punishable by jailtime. Any takers?

Well theres

No relationship within the family could be healthy

Or Think about how fucked up their kids will be/are.

and the counter argument: what about people with genetic disorders should they not be allowed to have relationships and have children?

It never fails to surprise me how on this forum so many people take the concept of sexual liberty and run it into the fucking ground. The pedophilia threads for example, with hordes of 13 year old NSG posters claiming they are adults and should be allowed to have sex with 50 year olds and that pedophilia should be legalized. The serious arguments that say necrophilia should be legalized. Now the pro-incest crowd.

And always, they use homosexuality to carve the way. "Oh, if you are against incest, you're just like homophobes who want to ban homosexuality11!1!1!!" As if. Incest is not homosexuality, and homosexuality is not pedophilia or corpse-fucking for that matter.

"Consenting adults" is not a magic phrase that can excuse any and all activities. You know, I and Osama bin Laden might be "consenting adults," but apparently if we work together to plot to blow up buildings, it's a crime. Consenting adulthood is not a panacea.

And yes, I know the comparison is extreme. I am not saying incestual couples are terrorists. Calm down (for those whose pants are already being creamed over the implication.)

Incest shouldn't be legal and frankly, shouldn't be done.

... I think they should not be allowed to have children.

How do you propose to implement that policy?

How do you propose to implement that policy?

voluntary sterilization :)

Wow… likening two consenting adults having sex to terrorism… that’s a new one.

BTW - consenting adults does imply a 'none-of-your-business' situation.
Everyone involved is capable of making their own decisions.
If everyone involved in that decision agree, who are you to tell them what they can or cannot do?


What is the problem? So two people (who happen to have very similar genetics) meet and fall in love. . How is this akin to the brutal killing of random people?

What is so abhorrent about these people having sex?

You cannot simply state “its just wrong!”; you have to actually give a reason you can defend in a logical manner.

If you want to argue genetics, then be prepared to limit unrelated couples with genetic disorders, and permit incestuous ones without children.

If you want to argue god, I suggest you actually read the bible before frothing at the mouth about it being against god. Not that it would be a valid argument anyway.

If you want to argue psychological damage to children, explain fully why it would be damaging. (remember the logical argument requirement, no saying “well of course it would!”)

Unfortunately, whilst I sypmathise with this couples situation, incest isn't good for the gene pool. You just have to look at the old European monarchy to see what inbreeding can do. Just about all of them where haemophiliacs among other things. Incest isn't good for the gene pool. Period

Wow… likening two consenting adults having sex to terrorism… that’s a new one.


What is the problem? So two people (who happen to have very similar genetics) meet and fall in love. . How is this akin to the brutal killing of random people?

Both are illegal despite both involving "consentual adults."

Jeez, I knew someone would freak out and say "ZOMG u think incestual couples are terrorists11!1!!" And miss the point.

What is so abhorrent about these people having sex?

Well, what is so abhorrent about a 50 year old fucking a 7 year old? Some can and have argued that hey, 7 year olds can consent, so there should be no problem and anyone who disagrees probably is just so puritan they hate homosexuals.

Do you not personally see any abhorrence in incest? Do you just think about having sex with your close relatives a lot and shrug it off, think it's completely normal and you'd do it, if only you were interested?

BTW - consenting adults does imply a 'none-of-your-business' situation.
Everyone involved is capable of making their own decisions.
If everyone involved in that decision agree, who are you to tell them what they can or cannot do?

And yet, society does that all the time. Consenting adults can't murder each other. Consenting adults can't purchase or sell illegal drugs. Consenting adults can't just avoid paying taxes. Again, "consenting adults" is not an acceptable defense of all behaviours, and if it is, you must logically also be against a large amount of laws that limit the behavior of consenting adults.

Yay for hillbilly buttsex!

us humans are the only specias that has an incest taboo. Ever wondered why?

And don't give me religion and shit.Religion is just a pretext.

The truth is- yeah, incest = birth defects.

In order for a gene to work properly, its allele have to be of different kinds. they are noted as pP or Pp. This is called a heterozygotic gene. If a gene has two allele of the same type- pp or PP, it doesn't work right. It's called a homozygotic gene.
For relatives, who share part if not all of one genepool, the chances for their offspring to have homozygotic genes are very high. Homozygotic genes cause a shitload of genetic diseases.

You see, in nature is quite simple: weak animals born from incest die. It's natural selection.
with humans, it doesn't. Since shortly after Sparta's times, who left the weak on the Taiget mountain... we trick natural selection. A child born with a birth defect will be raised. Some of them can grow up and live full lives, and be contributing members to society.
Those who don't... are burdens. Sorry, folks. They are burdens on the parents, and burdens on the society ( especially in welfare states such as England).
And do not give me the "all life is precious" bullshit. Life is not precious. It's trivial, there is a thick fucking layer of protoplasm covering this planet, and in case you haven't noticed, there are far too fucking many humans and we're running out of resources.

Eugenics? Yep. Nature has been doing it for quite a while, and it seems to fucking work. Us humans aren't, and lo and behold 70% of the newborns in teh west are born ill, 1 in 3 will get diabetes, 1 in 2 will get heart problems, and 1 in 3 will get cancer.

My grandmother had nothing better to do than to marry her second cousin, dumb fucking bitch. Two of her kids died of cancer, and of her two grandchildren, me and my brother, he killed himself because he had cancer in a late stage and i just had breast cancer surgery, plus a congenital heart problem that may or may not have me nrrding open heart surgery.

And yeah, I wish the dumb bitch would have married someone from outside her own fucking genepool.

Well theres

No relationship within the family could be healthy
Why not?

Or Think about how fucked up their kids will be/are.
There is an increased possibility, sure.
So, should consentual sex between to people with genetic problems be punishable too? Or diminished mental capabilities (not enough to be deemed incapasitated)? After all, the chances for a "fucked up child" may be greater in those cases.

and the counter argument: what about people with genetic disorders should they not be allowed to have relationships and have children?
Indeed - but at least you came up with some arguments against. :)
It never fails to surprise me how on this forum so many people take the concept of sexual liberty and run it into the fucking ground. The pedophilia threads for example, with hordes of 13 year old NSG posters claiming they are adults and should be allowed to have sex with 50 year olds and that pedophilia should be legalized. The serious arguments that say necrophilia should be legalized. Now the pro-incest crowd.

And always, they use homosexuality to carve the way. "Oh, if you are against incest, you're just like homophobes who want to ban homosexuality11!1!1!!" As if. Incest is not homosexuality, and homosexuality is not pedophilia or corpse-fucking for that matter.

"Consenting adults" is not a magic phrase that can excuse any and all activities. You know, I and Osama bin Laden might be "consenting adults," but apparently if we work together to plot to blow up buildings, it's a crime. Consenting adulthood is not a panacea.

And yes, I know the comparison is extreme. I am not saying incestual couples are terrorists. Calm down (for those whose pants are already being creamed over the implication.)
What's your point?

Incest shouldn't be legal and frankly, shouldn't be done.
Why?
Unfortunately, whilst I sypmathise with this couples situation, incest isn't good for the gene pool. You just have to look at the old European monarchy to see what inbreeding can do. Just about all of them where haemophiliacs among other things. Incest isn't good for the gene pool. Period
So that's a compelling reason to impose sanctions such as jail time on consenting aduts? And BTW: What if they - like the guy in question - sterilized themselves? Why should they be punished when they no longer have the possibility to harm the gene pool?
Do you not personally see any abhorrence in incest?
Even if I do, the question still remains: Why should in be sanctioned by the government?

And here I just read The Castle in the Forest.

Why not?

So that's a compelling reason to impose sanctions such as jail time on consenting aduts? And BTW: What if they - like the guy in question - sterilized themselves? Why should they be punished when they no longer have the possibility to harm the gene pool?



Well in that case, I don't see much of a reason for jail time. As long as it can be well and truly confirmed they can't have children, then it should be fine. Unless anyone can give me another compelling argument.

In order for a gene to work properly, its allele have to be of different kinds. they are noted as pP or Pp. This is called a heterozygotic gene. If a gene has two allele of the same type- pp or PP, it doesn't work right. It's called a homozygotic gene.
For relatives, who share part if not all of one genepool, the chances for their offspring to have homozygotic genes are very high. Homozygotic genes cause a shitload of genetic diseases.

Woah, where did you get that from? Although it's true that some genes operate better, as far as the organism in question is concerned, when the alleles are heterozygotic, others are more beneficial to the organsim when the alleles are homozygous, for a classic example, take Huntingtons disease, where hh (homozygous recessive) is preferable to Hh (heterozygous). Here, the heterozygote will develop the disease later in life, while the homozygote will be "normal".

Woah, where did you get that from? Although it's true that some genes operate better, as far as the organism in question is concerned, when the alleles are heterozygotic, others are more beneficial to the organsim when the alleles are homozygous, for a classic example, take Huntingtons disease, where hh (homozygous recessive) is preferable to Hh (heterozygous). Here, the heterozygote will develop the disease later in life, while the homozygote will be "normal".


exceptions normally confirm the rules, remember?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage

Both are illegal despite both involving "consentual adults."

Consenting adults can't murder each other

I think you do not understand the concept of consent.

You see, consent means you agree to the pertinent course. In the case of terrorism, those who are killed, wounded, or even just loose property have not consented to the act of terrorism. Likewise in the case of murder, had it been a matter of consenting adults, it would be called assisted suicide.

Well, what is so abhorrent about a 50 year old fucking a 7 year old?

A 7 year old is not sufficiently developed to be able to give consent – hence the ‘adult’ part of ‘consenting adults’. Additionally, countless psychological and physiological studies have been conducted on the harm caused by someone fucking a 7 year old.

This is an obvious case of harming a minor. It is illegal to fuck a 7 year old just as it is illegal to hit them in the head with a hammer.

Do you not personally see any abhorrence in incest?
Nope – nothing inherently wrong with consensual behavior between adults.

Do you just think about having sex with your close relatives a lot and shrug it off, think it's completely normal and you'd do it, if only you were interested?
That is completely irrelevant. That would be my personal choice. My personal choices are not relevant to the question of why incest is intrinsically wrong.

Just as my making comments about how homophobics tend to be so rabidly against homosexuality because they themselves are homosexual would be inappropriate.

For the record, because you sound the type to latch onto this – no, I do not fancy a shag with any of my relatives. I am not personally attracted to them. I am also not attracted to a lot of people in this world, but it would be incredibly immature to think everyone is exactly the same as I am.

And yet, society does that all the time.. Consenting adults can't purchase or sell illegal drugs. Consenting adults can't just avoid paying taxes. Again, "consenting adults" is not an acceptable defense of all behaviours, and if it is, you must logically also be against a large amount of laws that limit the behavior of consenting adults.

I happen to disagree with prohibiting drugs, though I never take any myself. So long as you are not hurting others, there is no reason for me to intervene. Society tends to see the harm to others caused through drug use to exceed the harm caused by drug enforcement, I personally see it the other way around – enforcement causes more harm than prohibition. Either way, the argument against drug use is still the harm against others – that drug users harm others, and thus preventing drug use prevents that harm to others.

It is easily argued that by remaining within a jurisdiction implies consent to taxation. Being forcefully made to stay against your wishes and taxes implies tyranny. If your arguments are based on tyranny being a good thing, you have quite the uphill battle ahead of you.

I am against every law which inhibits the behavior of consenting adults – if those directly affected by a decision consent to that decision, there is no reason why anyone not affected should have any say in the matter.

The issue of incest is one which does not harm anyone. The only people who should have the slightest say in whether adults can have a consensual relationship are those very same adults.

exceptions normally confirm the rules, remember?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage

...In order for a gene to work properly, its allele have to be of different kinds. they are noted as pP or Pp. This is called a heterozygotic gene. If a gene has two allele of the same type- pp or PP, it doesn't work right. It's called a homozygotic gene.

You put that in very absolute terms. As such, you're wrong, there is much more to it than that.

Well in that case, I don't see much of a reason for jail time. As long as it can be well and truly confirmed they can't have children, then it should be fine. Unless anyone can give me another compelling argument.

So you are against incest because of the increased likelihood for genetic defects?

In that case - it is acceptable for those who will not have children to sleep with close family members?

Secondly - those who have genetic disorders (and thus a higher than average chance of passing on defective genes) should likewise be banned from having children?

Well there's also when the kids grow up, and when they're in highschool, it'll be like "yeah! my mommy fucked my uncle, but I don't care!" and you can imagine how this would turn out. Also, genetic problems. Hemophilia is when someone's blood doesn't clot and is common with interbreeding. Bad. and not to mention down syndrome, autism, and other brain disorders. Also bad.

If you fuck a clone, is it masturbation?

What if you go back in time and have sex with yourself?

If you fuck a clone, is it masturbation?



No, because the clone will be a different person entirely.

If you fuck a clone, is it masturbation?

What if you go back in time and have sex with yourself?

Only you would wonder such a thing. :p

And yet, society does that all the time. Consenting adults can't murder each other. Consenting adults can't purchase or sell illegal drugs. Consenting adults can't just avoid paying taxes. Again, "consenting adults" is not an acceptable defense of all behaviours, and if it is, you must logically also be against a large amount of laws that limit the behavior of consenting adults.

Murder, purchase and sale of drugs and not paying taxes all have (generally) severely negative consequences, and mostly include other people. Murder deprives all the deceased's aquaintances of the benefits their being alive would bring, and therefore doesn't include just the 'consenting adults'. Druh use is somewhat trickier depending on the drug and the manner of the sale, but for the more harmful drugs it has a negative effect on society - what if, for example the proceeds went to a criminal organisation that then murdered people? And again the negative effects on the person's acquaintances. Paying taxes is more obvious since that affects... well, everyone in the country. I'm sure you can figure that one out for yourself.

Shreetolv:
"voluntary sterilization :)"

If all parents close enough on the genetic tree were willing to be sterilized, I don't think you'd need a policy for it. What if the parents were not willing to be sterilized?

"exceptions normally confirm the rules, remember?"

Exception probat regulam or 'the exception proves the rule' is a legal maxium.

For instance, the phrase 'The store is closed on Sunday' from a logical perceptive, tells us only that the store is closed on Sunday. It would be a logical fallacy to then assume that the store was open on Monday, or any day of the week actually.

In the legal system, however, an explicit exception creates an implicit rule. If you read a sign that says 'No parking in the red zone' then there's an implicit rule that "Parking is legal any non-red zone.'

Only you would wonder such a thing. :p

*shifts uncomfortably*

I only ask out of curiosity.

*hides time machine*

If you fuck a clone, is it masturbation?

What if you go back in time and have sex with yourself?

1. No, it's like fucking your identical twin. Which obviously isn't masturbation.

2. That's one fucked-up kid, then.



And about the blowing up a building example that Trostia gave there, you do not actually have "consenting adults" in that situation. "Consenting adults" would be if you asked every single person in the building if they were ok with dying and they all either said yes or left the building.
If you did do that, then blowing up that building is perfectly fine.
Seriously, how do you think cities knock down buildings when they need to?
They ask the owner of the building if he's ok with it (sometimes), then he leaves and gives it to the city,then they kick everyone else out, and then they destroy the building and build whatever on that spot.

And yet, society does that all the time. Consenting adults can't murder each other. Consenting adults can't purchase or sell illegal drugs. Consenting adults can't just avoid paying taxes. Again, "consenting adults" is not an acceptable defense of all behaviours, and if it is, you must logically also be against a large amount of laws that limit the behavior of consenting adults.

You keep on misidentifying who needs to consent to make it moral.

Consenting adults can't LEGALLY murder each other... unless the govt. gives them permission. So the two people and the govt. need to consent to this.

Well, yes, of course it's illegal to buy or sell illegal drugs. Nice qualifier there.
But ignoring that, it is legal if the govt. allows it, and it's moral if the two parties consent, which they always do(kinda hard to buy something without consent), so it's always moral.

And it is legal to not pay taxes. US citizens don't need to pay Swiss taxes, French citizens don't need to pay British taxes, etc.
So all you need to not pay taxes is to be out of the group of people taxed.
Which is set by the govt., and is usually BUT NOT ALWAYS all the people they can without starting a war.
So if you somehow got permission from the govt. (In the US I think you need to make less then about $3,000 a year) then you don't need to pay taxes.
Like any transfer of money.
I pay you $5.00 for something. If you want, you could just give me the something or I could just give you the $5.00. Same with taxes.

If you said they should be allowed than your dumb. Its hell no. :upyours:

If you said they should be allowed than your dumb. Its hell no. :upyours:

So, do you have an actual argument, or are you just going to be hateful?

This is wrong in so many ways to me. However the two should not be thrown in jail due to the fact they are consenting adults. This goes along the same lines as laws against homosexual acts and the like.
I along with a lot of posters here think it is morally wrong and genetically wise it is stupid. I also do not agree with them having kids. If they were cousins I would not agree with kids. I know its legal for cousins to be married in large parts of the world. I would think the trauma that it may cause the kids is greater then the sexual urge by some to have sex with their cousins or siblings.

For all you people demanding that people get sterilized before they can fuck their sisters, do you also think people with genetic defect should be streilized? This is getting awful close to Godwin time I think.

So, do you have an actual argument, or are you just going to be hateful?

The big, red middle finger seems to suggest the second case.

For all you people demanding that people get sterilized before they can fuck their sisters, do you also think people with genetic defect should be streilized? This is getting awful close to Godwin time I think.

I think that every parent has a responsibility to try to raise a healthy, happy child. If someone knows they have serious genetic problem they're likely to pass onto their child, or if they have a condition that would greatly increase the likelihood of their child having a genetic defect, that deliberately ignoring this is selfish and immoral.

And let's point out here that one can have a child without needing to impregnate one's partner or carry a fetus. If you wish to have a child, but for whatever reason are likely to pass on a major physical aliment, it would be more moral to just adopt.

Siblings? No
Half-siblings? Possibly, but that is really pushing it.
First cousins? Maybe...

Being elderly or living near Chernobyl might be a tad worse, but incest is still pretty bad for the kids.. I mean, have you *seen* the British royal family? That's all the evidence I need.

I said single generation ...

Shreetolv:
"voluntary sterilization :)"

If all parents close enough on the genetic tree were willing to be sterilized, I don't think you'd need a policy for it. What if the parents were not willing to be sterilized?

I would probably make it mandatory for anyone who mates with their less than 4th degree blood relative to be sterilized for the period of the relationship. There is such thing as temporary sterilization.



"exceptions normally confirm the rules, remember?"

Exception probat regulam or 'the exception proves the rule' is a legal maxium.

For instance, the phrase 'The store is closed on Sunday' from a logical perceptive, tells us only that the store is closed on Sunday. It would be a logical fallacy to then assume that the store was open on Monday, or any day of the week actually.

In the legal system, however, an explicit exception creates an implicit rule. If you read a sign that says 'No parking in the red zone' then there's an implicit rule that "Parking is legal any non-red zone.'

considering the high incidence of genetic diseases and degenerescence present in offspring resulting from incest, I would say that the rule seem pretty accurate.

I think that every parent has a responsibility to try to raise a healthy, happy child. If someone knows they have serious genetic problem they're likely to pass onto their child, or if they have a condition that would greatly increase the likelihood of their child having a genetic defect, that deliberately ignoring this is selfish and immoral.

And let's point out here that one can have a child without needing to impregnate one's partner or carry a fetus. If you wish to have a child, but for whatever reason are likely to pass on a major physical aliment, it would be more moral to just adopt.

I fully agree

For all you people demanding that people get sterilized before they can fuck their sisters, do you also think people with genetic defect should be streilized?


Yes

...

You put that in very absolute terms. As such, you're wrong, there is much more to it than that.

I was trying to simplify it. From that POV, you are correct

Well, it has been going on the south for generations and now look at it...;)

us humans are the only specias that has an incest taboo. Ever wondered why?

And don't give me religion and shit.Religion is just a pretext.

The truth is- yeah, incest = birth defects.

In order for a gene to work properly, its allele have to be of different kinds. they are noted as pP or Pp. This is called a heterozygotic gene. If a gene has two allele of the same type- pp or PP, it doesn't work right. It's called a homozygotic gene.
For relatives, who share part if not all of one genepool, the chances for their offspring to have homozygotic genes are very high. Homozygotic genes cause a shitload of genetic diseases.

You see, in nature is quite simple: weak animals born from incest die. It's natural selection.
with humans, it doesn't. Since shortly after Sparta's times, who left the weak on the Taiget mountain... we trick natural selection. A child born with a birth defect will be raised. Some of them can grow up and live full lives, and be contributing members to society.
Those who don't... are burdens. Sorry, folks. They are burdens on the parents, and burdens on the society ( especially in welfare states such as England).
And do not give me the "all life is precious" bullshit. Life is not precious. It's trivial, there is a thick fucking layer of protoplasm covering this planet, and in case you haven't noticed, there are far too fucking many humans and we're running out of resources.If life is trivial then why does it matter if recessive genes are passed on or not?Eugenics? Yep. Nature has been doing it for quite a while, and it seems to fucking work. Us humans aren't, and lo and behold 70% of the newborns in teh west are born ill, 1 in 3 will get diabetes, 1 in 2 will get heart problems, and 1 in 3 will get cancer.You gotta die of something. And most diabetes is now acquired rather than congenital.My grandmother had nothing better to do than to marry her second cousin, dumb fucking bitch. Two of her kids died of cancer, and of her two grandchildren, me and my brother, he killed himself because he had cancer in a late stage and i just had breast cancer surgery, plus a congenital heart problem that may or may not have me nrrding open heart surgery.

And yeah, I wish the dumb bitch would have married someone from outside her own fucking genepool.Sorry, but the incestual relationship of your grandmother has little to no bearing on any of her grandchildren contracting cancer unless you have all contracted the same type of cancer and your doctor has informed you that it is because of hereditary factors. Last I heard 90% of breast cancer cases cannot be explained by hereditary factors.

I don't care if someone else has already pointed this out, but you have no idea what you are talking about. On its own there is nothing wrong with a homozygous pair of alleles. Having a homozygous pair of alleles is a problem when that allele is a recessive defective gene. People who have blue, green or grey eyes have homozygous alleles because the alleles that cause the iris to take on these colours are recessive, but are not defective.

The higher and lower case letters annotation used in describing alleles refers to dominant and recessive alleles respectively. Having a homozygous pair of dominant alleles is better than a heterozygous pair, because, as the dominant allele is always expressed over a recessive allele, it means that neither you nor any of your children can possibly have a congenital disease relating to that set of alleles. PP works perfectly, and most pp work just fine too.

incest =/= birth defects in the same way that black skin =/= lower school grades. Carriers of the same recessive and defective genes having children together = birth defects.

The probability that the an incestual relationship will bear children with a birth defect IF one of the grandparents is a carrier of a recessive defective allele (of which this is fairly low probability) is 6%, if both are carriers then this rises to 28%. If we take the incidence rate of hemophila in the States (1/5000 males) as an approximation for the prevalance of all recessive genes in the population as a whole then we get that per recessive gene the likelyhood of incest resulting in children with a congenital birth defect is 0.12%

So you would stop incestuous couple have children because there is a one in a thousand chance that their children might have a congenital disease, which could be reduced to a 0% if both were screened and that neither of them were carriers of the same recessive defective alleles?

And yeah, I wish the dumb bitch would have married someone from outside her own fucking genepool.

Then you wouldn't be around....

If life is trivial then why does it matter if recessive genes are passed on or not?

polluting the genepool is not necessarily a good idea. Neither is the burneding of society with people who can't fulfill their end of the social contract.


You gotta die of something.

you just wiped ourt medicine. Congrats

And most diabetes is now acquired rather than congenital.

The predispozition for it has been proven to be congenital

Sorry, but the incestual relationship of your grandmother has little to no bearing on any of her grandchildren contracting cancer unless you have all contracted the same type of cancer and your doctor has informed you that it is because of hereditary factors. Last I heard 90% of breast cancer cases cannot be explained by hereditary factors.

and unless you are my doctor and have have had access to my rather extensive sets of tests and genetic scans, you really do not know what you are talking about.
"contracting " cancer? Cancer is not actually an infectious disease. I think the correct formula is "developping cancer". Also, genetic predisposition to certain types of cancer has been proven several time.

Last I heard, we still didn't really know what causes cancer, just a shitload of suppositions.

Any data to backup that 90% ?

I don't care if someone else has already pointed this out, but you have no idea what you are talking about. On its own there is nothing wrong with a homozygous pair of alleles. Having a homozygous pair of alleles is a problem when that allele is a recessive defective gene. People who have blue, green or grey eyes have homozygous alleles because the alleles that cause the iris to take on these colours are recessive, but are not defective.

I was trying to make a fast resume of things, and I have missed some stuff out. I agree. However, homozygotic allele are responsible for quite a lot of genetic problems, and the chance that there is only one set of recessive alleles in one genepool is somewhat far fetched.



incest =/= birth defects in the same way that black skin =/= lower school grades. Carriers of the same recessive and defective genes having children together = birth defects.

and incest doesn't happen between people that share at least a part of the same genes? I am sorry, but the first part of your comparison is fawlty. In order for it to be relevanr, the relationship between the second pair would have to be similar to the relationship between the first pair.

Each and every human being carries a certain amount of recessive genes. Therefore, I am afraid that your reasoning is fawlty.

The probability that the an incestual relationship will bear children with a birth defect IF one of the grandparents is a carrier of a recessive defective allele (of which this is fairly low probability) is 6%, if both are carriers then this rises to 28%. If we take the incidence rate of hemophila in the States (1/5000 males) as an approximation for the prevalance of all recessive genes in the population as a whole then we get that per recessive gene the likelyhood of incest resulting in children with a congenital birth defect is 0.12%

I am sorry, but I so not agree with any of your ifs. Maybe because due to the fact that we do have a finite, there is very little chance that someone would carry only ONE recessive allele.

So you would stop incestuous couple have children because there is a one in a thousand chance that their children might have a congenital disease, which could be reduced to a 0% if both were screened and that neither of them were carriers of the same recessive defective alleles?

I would believe you, however since the incident of genetic defects in offspring produced as a result of incest is a lot higher than your numbers- there must be something wrong with your numbers.

Last I heard, we still didn't really know what causes cancer, just a shitload of suppositions.

Kind of like the supposition that incest had anything to do with the cancer in your family? You basically refuted your own point, there. If we really don't know what causes cancer, how can you say, let alone prove, that incest had anything to do with it?

I would believe you, however since the incident of genetic defects in offspring produced as a result of incest is a lot higher than your numbers- there must be something wrong with your numbers.

First thing: The word is "faulty," not "fawlty." (and yes I realize it isn't in this particular quote, I just have a thing for spelling)

Second: If you're so certain of the incidence of genetic defects in the offspring of incest, perhaps you would like to provide statistics, rather than just your own personal certainty, to prove it? It takes more than just a common belief (something that's said a lot and generally believed) and personal feelings to prove that the incidence of genetic defects is significant enough to warrant calling incest immoral, or making it illegal.

And like Dunes said, there is always testing in order to see the chances of an incestuous couple passing on a defect to their children.

Besides, all this business about risking defect in children doesn't really make the actual act of incest in any way immoral; at best it makes having children through incest more suspect. As with any other kind of sex, there is contraception, abortion, and sterilization, if they want to avoid pregnancy. The relationship itself, and the sex, is morally in the clear.

Really, trying to hype up the incidence of genetic defects seems like little more than a way of trying to validate the completely subjective feelings of disgust at the activity. In essence, "It's gross and I don't like it, therefore it is immoral. But here is some poor reasoning and bad science to back up those feelings."

Can anyone who says they're against it honestly say that they're against it for reasons other than religiosity or the simple fact that it is a cultural taboo instilled in us from a very young age? Because I have to say, neither of those proves a damned thing. At least own up to it and have done with it, rather than all the pretext.

Well...as long as they're consenting adults...but they really shouldn't be having children. That's just irresponsible on their part.

The probability that the an incestual relationship will bear children with a birth defect IF one of the grandparents is a carrier of a recessive defective allele (of which this is fairly low probability) is 6%, if both are carriers then this rises to 28%. If we take the incidence rate of hemophila in the States (1/5000 males) as an approximation for the prevalance of all recessive genes in the population as a whole then we get that per recessive gene the likelyhood of incest resulting in children with a congenital birth defect is 0.12%

So you would stop incestuous couple have children because there is a one in a thousand chance that their children might have a congenital disease, which could be reduced to a 0% if both were screened and that neither of them were carriers of the same recessive defective alleles?
In some Pakistani communities in the UK there is a large problem with marriages between close family members - cousins and second cousins. This trend goes back several generations. British Pakistanits suffer a thirteen fold increased risk of genetic illness:

BBC Linkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm)

But the statistics for recessive genetic illness in cousin marriages make sobering reading.

British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder.


And this is only for cousins - who are genetically much more distant than siblings. Also note - the thirteen fold increase bundles the cousin marriages in with non-cousin marriages, i.e. the increase rate for cousins is actually quite a bit more than a thirteen fold increase in risk.

Is it ok with you? After all, in this case:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1253397,00.html

we're talking about consenting adults..

Do you think it's ok? Not ok? Just gross?

Vote!
Would i sleep with your sister?
Maybe.
Would i sleep with mine?
Hell no!

humans of many cultures have had incest taboos in many, sometimes odd and interesting forms, for a very long time. many other life forms, observable in nature, appear not to suffer from such qualms. and domestic live stock are sometimes bred incestuously intentionaly.

the widely held belief is that children of incestuous unions tend to have physiological mental challanges. widely held beliefs have about an equal tendency to be inaccurate as they have to be correct.

at any rate, this is only a problem if, and of, such offspring if engendered.

my feeling thus would be, not to wish to encourage the procreation of a known, if indeed it is a known, and not merely supposed, or supposed on a basis where other factors are also intrinsiclly involved and requred, but where no such progeny are expected or intended, and resonable precautions are taken to preven their inception, i can see NO other, even remotely rational, objection.

in simple words, if they don't actualy cause to be born a messed up in the head kid, ain't nobody's damd bussiness but their own.

if they do, this is unfortunate, and measures taken to prevent this would have been preferable. such measures need not however, include the total censure of physical relations between persons otherwise "too closely" of decent.

(our long standing position, even here where it might otherwise be questioned, being that what anyone goes to bed with, where, when or how often, ain't no body's bussiness but their own (and of course, each other's))

=^^=
.../\...

the widely held belief is that children of incestuous unions tend to have physiological mental challanges. widely held beliefs have about an equal tendency to be inaccurate as they have to be correct.

If you look two posts above yours you will see:

But the statistics for recessive genetic illness in cousin marriages make sobering reading.

British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder.


Along with the source.

If you look two posts above yours you will see:



Along with the source.

well, i never ment to imply there couldn't be such sources. nor, in all truth, am i entirely ignorant of them. this does however, ONLY relate to CHILDREN OF incestuous relations.

and is thus of little or no pertinance to issuless relations!
(especialy where reasonable precautions to prevent such progeny are taken!)

=^^=
.../\...

Not to mention all those retards running lose in the US.

Yeah, eventually they would start running for public office. Then we could end up with one as president... oh, too late. *insert embarrassed smiley*

Well theres

No relationship within the family could be healthy

Or Think about how fucked up their kids will be/are.

and the counter argument: what about people with genetic disorders should they not be allowed to have relationships and have children?

They asked for arguments. That's an assertion.

If you look two posts above yours you will see:
Along with the source.

And that proves what? That a specific segment of a specific population that may already have a predisposition to genetic disorders can exacerbate things through incest? How about the countless first-cousin marriages that have taken place the world over that have not resulted in such problems. Last I heard, not everyone is a British Pakistani, which is the only group shown to have such problems in that article.

Now prove it for the world, not a tiny, tiny group of isolated people (not geographically isolated, mind you).

How about diseases that are extremely prevalent among certain races? Take sickle-cell anemia, for instance. Look at the stats on that; it's frighteningly common among african-americans. Should african-americans stop marrying each other because their children have a much higher chance of developing the disease than if they were to marry someone of another race? I sure hope your answer is no. And yet no one jumps on black people for marrying each other, and therefore risking genetic defects in their children. Maybe that's because intraracial marriage isn't taboo to begin with?

Even if the risks were as high as some here like to believe they are, there is always the risk of genetic defect. That article Shx quoted pointed that out, though that part wasn't quoted.

And even granting higher risks, this still does nothing to prove the actual relationship, sexual or otherwise, wrong. At most it makes their having children wrong. Though personally I don't see how even that is wrong. What is the rationality that says you may only have a child if you are certain it will be healthy or "normal"? How on earth could you have a moral obligation to someone who does not even exist yet? I would very much like to hear the reasoning behind such an attitude. It would be nice if all children could be born healthy, but the parents have no moral obligation to procreate only if there is little or no risk involved.

Once again, the thing that is being overlooked is that all these genetically based arguments only attack breeding, not incestuous sex, because it is possible to have sex but not get pregnant (take that, Catholic church). Not only that, but they really only attack breeding between couples that are at risk of passing on a defect, and of those, only the ones that do not have themselves screened for such defects beforehand (this is assuming that those screened and found to be at risk would choose adoption, rather than procreation). Does anyone have a reasoned argument on why incestuous relationships are wrong, even if children are not an issue? If not, this argument is really only against incestuous breeding, not incest. Not only that, but you would have to bite the bullet that couples with genetic disorders should not be allowed to breed (the good ole days of eugenics--a true golden age).

I'm just proud that the main political group supporting the abolishment of the incest paragraph are the Young Liberals, the FDP's youth organisation.

But considering that two of their four children are disabled, I think it's irresponsible of them to have kids. If they want to f*ck each other, they can do that. But they should know better than to take the risk.

But the same goes for disabled couples passing on their disabilities to their kids. And you probably wouldn't want to outlaw disabled people having sex with each other. That would be eugenics.

Well...as long as they're consenting adults...but they really shouldn't be having children. That's just irresponsible on their part.

Ditto.

No, no, no, no.

It is wrong, it tears families apart, and the reasons people want to do it in the first place is usually indicative of deep psychological issues that we should be dealt with, not encouraged.

Allowing anything and everything between 'consenting adults' is a concept that can be taken too far, and in cases like this will do far more harm than good.

And that proves what?
The person I was responding to said:

"the widely held belief is that children of incestuous unions tend to have physiological mental challanges. widely held beliefs have about an equal tendency to be inaccurate as they have to be correct."

Which strongly implies they are saying that the belief that children of incestuous unions could easily be inaccurate - I was providing a large scale example where children of incestous relationships much more distant than brother-sister have a thirteen fold increase in genetic illnesses.


That a specific segment of a specific population that may already have a predisposition to genetic disorders can exacerbate things through incest? How about the countless first-cousin marriages that have taken place the world over that have not resulted in such problems. Last I heard, not everyone is a British Pakistani, which is the only group shown to have such problems in that article.
Yes - 90% of first-cousin births do not result in your kid dying in infancy or being severely disabled due to genetic illness, however that still means 10% of the children do suffer this fate - which is much much higher than the average for the population.


Now prove it for the world, not a tiny, tiny group of isolated people (not geographically isolated, mind you).
Seriously? A sample size of almost 2million is not good enough for you? This si not justa asingle hick village of 100 people or the like. What do you want for proof? A large scale breeding program of about 200 million people where cousins regulary marry and have kids and monitoring the outcome - taking into account a distribution of races from all over the world?

Come on - I've given you a well documented example large scale of the problems of cousin marriages. If you object to it then please try to find a large scale system of cousin marriages which has a similar level of genetic illness to those who do not marry their cousins.

Is your only objection that you claim this population of almost 2million is inherently more subject to genetic illness, and by extension - the entire population of pakistan - without even providing any evidence for your objection?


How about diseases that are extremely prevalent among certain races? Take sickle-cell anemia, for instance. Look at the stats on that; it's frighteningly common among african-americans.

Do you know WHY sickle cell anemina is so common amoung black people?

Even if the risks were as high as some here like to believe they are, there is always the risk of genetic defect. That article Shx quoted pointed that out, though that part wasn't quoted.
Yes - the article mentioned there is always a risk of genetic illness, NOBODY is denying that, however some seem to be severely trying to play down the increased level of risk.

And even granting higher risks, this still does nothing to prove the actual relationship, sexual or otherwise, wrong... Does anyone have a reasoned argument on why incestuous relationships are wrong, even if children are not an issue? If not, this argument is really only against incestuous breeding, not incest.

Although not relevent to the case quoted (which is extremely untypical of incest cases) aside from the greatly increased risk of genetic illness in children an aspect of incest is that the relationship is very often inherently abusive - 'consent' is a very tricky topic when the judgement is affected by the pre-existng relationship during childhood between the child and their siblings or between the child and their parent - in a similar way that 'consent' is not entirely clear cut between a patient and their psycharitrist.

I do believe we covered in the past 100+ threads on incest that a little of it has no side affects its only when you do it for generations that it becomes a real issue

As such I see no problem with someone’s right to breed we don’t live in Sparta and as such its hardly reason to throw babies off cliffs just to slow mans declining fitness

No, no, no, no.

It is wrong, it tears families apart, and the reasons people want to do it in the first place is usually indicative of deep psychological issues that we should be dealt with, not encouraged.

Allowing anything and everything between 'consenting adults' is a concept that can be taken too far, and in cases like this will do far more harm than good.

And simply claiming that something shouldn't be allowed because it's wrong without providing a reason for why this is so is something else that can be taken too far.

Is your only objection that you claim this population of almost 2million is inherently more subject to genetic illness, and by extension - the entire population of pakistan - without even providing any evidence for your objection?

My objection is that the findings among a very specific group do not necessarily translate to the human population as a whole. Two million is not representative of several billion, all with different genetics and familial reproductive pasts. Besides, as Call to Power pointed out, the risks of a single instance of incest are not the same as continuous incest through the generations. The royal families, and this group of British Pakistanis, have a significant history of incest within their families, so claiming that a random incestuous couple carries the same risks as them is more than slightly disengenuous.

But the amount of risk involved is not my only objection; it's not even my main objection. I am not a utilitarian; niceness and pleasantries are not enough to dictate morality. Show me--with reasoned argument--how couples have a moral obligation to reproduce only when there is little or no risk. Show me how producing a child with some defect or other is immoral, or how having sex despite some increased risk, is immoral. From whence this moral obligation to ensure completely healthy offspring? I don't deny that it is good idea to ensure it, for purely practical (and yes, kindness) considerations. However, morally speaking, I don't see any moral obligation to produce only nominally healthy children. And I hate to get touchy-feely, as emotions are not my thing, especially in debates, but the implication is there that children who are disabled are less. Less deserving of life, or love, and all that sappy stuff. All those disabled children born to incestuous parents would not even exist if not for that relationship; this strain of argument would seem to imply they're better off dead/not existing at all (which may be true in some cases, but certainly not all). [/bleeding heart]

And I notice you haven't tackled the issue of eugenics/people with genetic disorders mating (unless it was in a past post and I missed it). They're at greater risk, so should they be denied the right to be together as well? It is more than a little inconsistent to not bite this bullet as well.

Although not relevent to the case quoted (which is extremely untypical of incest cases) aside from the greatly increased risk of genetic illness in children an aspect of incest is that the relationship is very often inherently abusive - 'consent' is a very tricky topic when the judgement is affected by the pre-existng relationship during childhood between the child and their siblings or between the child and their parent - in a similar way that 'consent' is not entirely clear cut between a patient and their psycharitrist.

In such cases, the issue is much more specific than incest; the issue is the abuse, not blood. That is a totally separate issue. Between child and parent, the problem is the same as with any other adult and a child: there can be no consent by children. So it isn't the same as two adult siblings or cousins choosing to go at it. And as for adults, an adult can consent to sex with a parent as much as he/she can consent to sex with anyone, so while rather (extremely) disgusting, I see no moral objection there, unless of course the (adult) child is unbalanced, or part of an already abusive relationship with the parent, in which case mental illness is a factor--not the incest itself. If the people in question are already unbalanced, then the issue is mental illness, not incest.

As for the rest, having a pre-existing relationship is hardly enough to say one cannot consent. Say you're friends with someone from the time you can walk, all through your adulthood. You're close as brother and sister (or whatever combination you choose). Is it wrong to become lovers, simply because you're so close from childhood? No, of course not. It only seems to be a problem if there is a blood relation.

So, I have to ask, again, where is the moral problem of incest between consenting adults?

My objection is that the findings among a very specific group do not necessarily translate to the human population as a whole. Two million is not representative of several billion, all with different genetics and familial reproductive pasts. Besides, as Call to Power pointed out, the risks of a single instance of incest are not the same as continuous incest through the generations. The royal families, and this group of British Pakistanis, have a significant history of incest within their families, so claiming that a random incestuous couple carries the same risks as them is more than slightly disengenuous.
So you can't provide a large scale example of incesteous relationships that does not have a high incidence of genetic illness?

And how is 2million not a large sample? It's a hell of a lot larger than sample sizes used in most medical trials or any other common scientific practice.

In such cases, the issue is much more specific than incest; the issue is the abuse, not blood. That is a totally separate issue. Between child and parent, the problem is the same as with any other adult and a child: there can be no consent by children. So it isn't the same as two adult siblings or cousins choosing to go at it. And as for adults, an adult can consent to sex with a parent as much as he/she can consent to sex with anyone, so while rather (extremely) disgusting, I see no moral objection there, unless of course the (adult) child is unbalanced, or part of an already abusive relationship with the mother, in which case mental illness is a factor--not the incest itself. If the people in question are already unbalanced, then the issue is mental illness, not incest.
When I said parent-child I ment 'parent and their adult child'

And the issue is not seperate - it is inherent in the nature of the majority of incesterous relationships. While there are some rare cases where it is not the standard case is intrinsically intertwined with abuse through the nature of the relationship. Note - in many places it is illegal to have sex with adopted siblings and for adoptive parents to have sex with adopted childered even once the children are legally able to consent to sex - the objection to this 'social incest' is the same as the non-repoductive-related objection to regular incest - that the nature of the relationship is inherently abusive.


As for the rest, having a pre-existing relationship is hardly enough to say one cannot consent. Say you're friends with someone from the time you can walk, all through your adulthood. You're close as brother and sister (or whatever combination you choose). Is it wrong to become lovers, simply because you're so close from childhood? No, of course not. It only seems to be a problem if there is a blood relation.
You seriously can't see the difference between the relationship you have with a close friend and the relationship with an older brother/sister? or between a father/daughter or father/son or mother/daughter or son?

So, I have to ask, again, where is the moral problem of incest between consenting adults?
Seeing as you think the relationship between a father and his adult child is apparently comparable to the relationship between playground buddies grown up I am not really sure how to explain this to you...


On another related topic - what is the definition of "Adult" here? And why?

So you can't provide a large scale example of incesteous relationships that does not have a high incidence of genetic illness?

Offhand, no. Luckily, I'm not the one making the claim, so the burden of proof does not rest with me. If I were to make the claim that elephants can fly, but only when someone isn't looking, it would be up to me to prove it, not up to you to provide a study showing otherwise. I doubt anyone has bothered to study it; however, this does not mean that it's therefore true that elephants do fly when no one's looking.

People don't tend to test wholly unremarkable groups, such as incestuous relationships where nothing is wrong. Chances are, they don't even notice. Just as no one tests those elephants for flight.

And how is 2million not a large sample? It's a hell of a lot larger than sample sizes used in most medical trials or any other common scientific practice.

I don't recall saying 2 million was a small number; it's higher than I've ever bothered to count in one sitting. However, that does not make this sample representative of all the billions of people in the world, with differing genetics and without a long, long family history of incest.

And again, the risk is really a secondary issue, to me.

And the issue is not seperate - it is inherent in the nature of the majority of incesterous relationships. While there are some rare cases where it is not the standard case is intrinsically intertwined with abuse through the nature of the relationship. Note - in many places it is illegal to have sex with adopted siblings and for adoptive parents to have sex with adopted childered even once the children are legally able to consent to sex - the objection to this 'social incest' is the same as the non-repoductive-related objection to regular incest - that the nature of the relationship is inherently abusive.

The issue is separate. I am perfectly able to consent or withhold consent from my mother. If, for whatever reason, I wanted to have sex with her, I am capable of consent, as there is no prior abusive relationship that messed with my grasp of reality, nor do I have any mental problems.

Maybe you can actually show me how an incestuous relationship is "inherently abusive," rather than just telling me that it is so. I am not incapable of consent, or of grasping reality, simply because I am related to someone. I reckon you aren't either.

This, just as the risk issue, seems to me as little more than a smokescreen for those pesky little subjective feelings that say, "It's icky, therefore it's wrong."

You seriously can't see the difference between the relationship you have with a close friend and the relationship with an older brother/sister? or between a father/daughter or father/son or mother/daughter or son?

Seeing as you think the relationship between a father and his adult child is apparently comparable to the relationship between playground buddies grown up I am not really sure how to explain this to you...

I didn't say the relationships were the same, but as far as consent is concerned, they're not so vastly different, unless other issues confuse the issue (mental illness, prior abuse, etc). In cases where the incestuous relationship is abusive, then the relationship should stop; not because of the incest, but because of the abuse. Simple as that. Because abuse and incest are not inextricable, however much you may want it to be so.

Now, perhaps you'd like to discuss the points you nicely glossed over/ignored? Such as eugenics? Or where exactly the moral obligation comes from that says couples should only reproduce when there is little to no risk? Those are much bigger issues than what the exact percentage of risk is, as far as I'm concerned.

Discouraged but not outlawed i guess

Offhand, no. Luckily, I'm not the one making the claim, so the burden of proof does not rest with me. If I were to make the claim that elephants can fly, but only when someone isn't looking, it would be up to me to prove it, not up to you to provide a study showing otherwise. I doubt anyone has bothered to study it; however, this does not mean that it's therefore true that elephants do fly when no one's looking.
I made the claim. I provided you with studies based on populations of about 2million people. This is what might be called 'evidence'.

If you want to refute the claim and then say that the risk is not that much greater (which is also a claim - you have the same onus to back it up as someone claiming the opposite) then you might like to provide a shread of evidence.


People don't tend to test wholly unremarkable groups, such as incestuous relationships where nothing is wrong. Chances are, they don't even notice. Just as no one tests those elephants for flight.
You've really gone off the deep end here...


I don't recall saying 2 million was a small number; it's higher than I've ever bothered to count in one sitting. However, that does not make this sample representative of all the billions of people in the world, with differing genetics and without a long, long family history of incest.
It does however show how the genetic interactions of our species work and how illnesses crop up.


Maybe you can actually show me how an incestuous relationship is "inherently abusive," rather than just telling me that it is so. I am not incapable of consent, or of grasping reality, simply because I am related to someone. I reckon you aren't either.

This, just as the risk issue, seems to me as little more than a smokescreen for those pesky little subjective feelings that say, "It's icky, therefore it's wrong."
The issue of upbringing is inherent in the majority of cases of incest - that someone can be brought up in such a way that their ability to consent is severely impaired.

This is also why adoptive children/siblings (where genetics is obviously not an issue) are not legally allowed to have sex even once over the age of consent.


I didn't say the relationships were the same, but as far as consent is concerned, they're not so vastly different
Ummm... yes they are.


Now, perhaps you'd like to discuss the points you nicely glossed over/ignored? Such as eugenics? Or where exactly the moral obligation comes from that says couples should only reproduce when there is little to no risk? Those are much bigger issues than what the exact percentage of risk is, as far as I'm concerned.

Wait - I thought the genetic thing was not the issue for you. I agree it is a side issue, however I think it is dishonest for people to play down the risk rather than admit that it greatly increases the dangers posed.


Seeing as you are claiming that there is no harm and that the people engaging are perfectly able to make the choice to consent - perhaps you can provide something to actually back this up - to provide research of some sort maybe - rather than very odd arguements that relationships with your parents are similar to relationships with playground buddies...


Can you also define what you consider to be a consenting adult.

Can you explain why they are capeable of consent? And how this consent ties in with the defintion you give of consenting adult?

LOL, this is an easy one to solve here.

In NS, I'd dismiss this issue because it appears theres black and white. Let me get my gray crayon out-

1. Incest is illegal
2. Anything illegal isn't "techincally" illegal until you are caught.
3. Incest between family memebers is caught in a few ways-
3a. Rape or molestation (not consenting or underage child)
3b. Two family members have a child (bad for gene pool, genetic disorders, etc)
3c. Blackmail (family member swears to let everyone know, unless price is paid)
4. So, if two family members consent, are adults, and aren't evil towards each other, and have safe sex to prevent pregnancy, no one will know that shouldn't.
5. If no one else knows, you don't get caught.
6. You don't get caught, it's not "illegal".

Problem solved, using our current system. Incest still probably occurs in Corn-fucked, Kansas, but no one there cares. There have also been cases where two people don't know they're cousins or second cousins, get married and have a kid, and find out the hard way. Of course when this happens, the FBI and CIA don't smash down their front door and turn their windows into doors the second they get wind of it. Some of you might think thats how it works, but they actually could care less.

Being elderly or living near Chernobyl might be a tad worse, but incest is still pretty bad for the kids.. I mean, have you *seen* the British royal family? That's all the evidence I need.

http://outnext.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/william.jpg

http://sexysport.sport24.com/images/mn/1158669130.jpg

http://www.nettyroyal.nl/images/beatrice1.jpg

Three of the Queens grandchildren....they look ok to me....

as to having a sexual relationship with your siblings....ewwwwwwww

Notice how the ‘incest is wrong because it is just icky’ people have been complaining about the increased risk of genetic defects or cases of abuse (their only two credible issues) but blatantly ignore the implications thereof?

Argue genetics and you have to support eugenics and non-procreative incest.

Argue abuse and you have to allow non-abusive incestuous relationships as the issue is the abuse, not incest.

Those are the only two arguments I have seen, and they both carry with them the obvious flaw that they are not about incest itself at all.

Please – would those of you arguing that incest is inherently wrong respond to this directly? Do you support eugenics or do you assume all such relationships are abusive?

The article that started this all off was of a brother and sister who didn’t meet until they were both adults. Please show me how that is an inherently abusive relationship.

Also, demonstrate how, despite being an adult, were my sister to come on to me I would suddenly loose my ability to consent to a sexual relationship. How would that be an abusive relationship?

I really do not understand how talking about eugenics has anything to do with incest, nor how talking about abusive relationships (which we all agree on) are wrong leads to incest being immoral.

Pretend for the sake of argument that I concede to the extreme risk of genetic defects; this argument is secondary at best. I see no moral obligation for people to only reproduce when they're sure their children will be free of defect, and you've done nothing but sidestep that part of it, so I guess I will have to remain unpursuaded on that issue. So as far as I am concerned, the idea of the risk is fantastically moot.

The issue of upbringing is inherent in the majority of cases of incest - that someone can be brought up in such a way that their ability to consent is severely impaired.

And such an upbringing falls under the rubric of past abuses. If one's ability to consent is impaired by such past abuses, then the issue becomes about abuse, not incest. To say that anyone engaging in incest cannot consent merely because it is incest is ludicrous, and dangerously close to circular logic. Abuse is abuse regardless of context. This says nothing about incest itself, only an issue that may sometimes be attached to it.

This is also why adoptive children/siblings (where genetics is obviously not an issue) are not legally allowed to have sex even once over the age of consent.

Legality and morality are not the same thing. Because lawmakers are indoctrinated with the same taboos as anyone, their take on the issue can hardly be taken as morally conclusive, only legally. See: slavery. Also, it isn't illegal everywhere. As I understand it, adult incest is legal in France. I imagine France isn't the only one.


Ummm... yes they are.

Nope. I wouldn't lose all mental functioning or my ability to understand reality simply because it was a family member hitting on me. I can consent to my sister as much as to any other person. I'd like to know how, because it's my sister, I would suddenly become incapable.


Wait - I thought the genetic thing was not the issue for you. I agree it is a side issue, however I think it is dishonest for people to play down the risk rather than admit that it greatly increases the dangers posed.

The genetic thing is not the issue for me. However, it does seem to be an issue for you, and if you want to say that incest is immoral because of the possible outcome for the offspring, you have to bite the bullet and say that people with genetic defects also cannot have offspring. The outcome, as you would seem to see it, is the same: a greater risk of having an impaired child. Eugenics never should have gone away, huh? (Not that it really has).

I think it's even more dishonest for people to speak as if it is all but definite that an incestuous couple will automatically have a child with defects. The risk is greater, but not astronomically so. Even it it were, that has no moral bearing on the issue of incest, as I see it. If you have a reason why it should, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

Can you also define what you consider to be a consenting adult.

Can you explain why they are capeable of consent? And how this consent ties in with the defintion you give of consenting adult?

Well, that's easy. Thank dictionary.com for this (or random house. whichever):

Main Entry: consenting adult
Part of Speech: n
Definition: an adult who willingly agrees to participate in a sexual act

Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright © 2003-2006 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consenting%20adult

I can also link you to wikipedia if you have any trouble.

Come on. This is not ancient Athens, and we are not at Plato's Academy. We know what words mean. Attacking the definition died not long after Socrates (or should have). Would you also like me to define virtue, justice, and piety for you?

Snip

Yes.

So most of the posters on the negative side wishes to send the to jail because of "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeew", and not much more? Interesting...


LOL, this is an easy one to solve here.

In NS, I'd dismiss this issue because it appears theres black and white. Let me get my gray crayon out-

1. Incest is illegal
2. Anything illegal isn't "techincally" illegal until you are caught.
3. Incest between family memebers is caught in a few ways-
3a. Rape or molestation (not consenting or underage child)
3b. Two family members have a child (bad for gene pool, genetic disorders, etc)
3c. Blackmail (family member swears to let everyone know, unless price is paid)
4. So, if two family members consent, are adults, and aren't evil towards each other, and have safe sex to prevent pregnancy, no one will know that shouldn't.
5. If no one else knows, you don't get caught.
6. You don't get caught, it's not "illegal".

Problem solved, using our current system. Incest still probably occurs in Corn-fucked, Kansas, but no one there cares. There have also been cases where two people don't know they're cousins or second cousins, get married and have a kid, and find out the hard way. Of course when this happens, the FBI and CIA don't smash down their front door and turn their windows into doors the second they get wind of it. Some of you might think thats how it works, but they actually could care less.

It's still illegal, and we're talking about rights here. You would accept that they have to keep their relationships hidden - will you accept the same when it comes to homosexual or interracial couples, or couples of different religions, or classes?

As long as it is illegal, it will only take one nosy neighbour...

And such an upbringing falls under the rubric of past abuses. If one's ability to consent is impaired by such past abuses, then the issue becomes about abuse, not incest. To say that anyone engaging in incest cannot consent merely because it is incest is ludicrous, and dangerously close to circular logic. Abuse is abuse regardless of context. This says nothing about incest itself, only an issue that may sometimes be attached to it.

In the case of the couple in question in the article then I would agree - abuse is not an issue, however that is the exception - inherent in the majority of incest cases is an abusive relationships the upbringing is inherent in the relationship.

Legality and morality are not the same thing. Because lawmakers are indoctrinated with the same taboos as anyone, their take on the issue can hardly be taken as morally conclusive, only legally. See: slavery. Also, it isn't illegal everywhere. As I understand it, adult incest is legal in France. I imagine France isn't the only one.
What has this got to do with social incest between adopted children (who are grown up) and their siblings or parents?


Nope. I wouldn't lose all mental functioning or my ability to understand reality simply because it was a family member hitting on me. I can consent to my sister as much as to any other person. I'd like to know how, because it's my sister, I would suddenly become incapable.
This also does not address how the relationship between a child and parent is inherently different to the relationship between playground buddies.

The genetic thing is not the issue for me. However, it does seem to be an issue for you, and if you want to say that incest is immoral because of the possible outcome for the offspring, you have to bite the bullet and say that people with genetic defects also cannot have offspring.
That is not my moral position, I brought that up because people were claiming that there was only a slight increase in risk - which based on large scale examples is simply not true.


Well, that's easy. Thank dictionary.com for this (or random house. whichever):

Main Entry: consenting adult
Part of Speech: n
Definition: an adult who willingly agrees to participate in a sexual act

So how old is such a person and how are they judged to have the ability to consent?

This is important as the ability to consent is a very important part of this topic. Why is a four year old not able to consent to her daddy renting her out to be buttfucked by fifteen local pedophiles each weekend for example? Or more direct to this topic - why is a eight year old not able to consent to sex with their parents? or four, or ten or any other childhood age?

all hoomans should be spayed or neutered, and then encouraged to sex up a storm as long as they feel like it.

=^^=
.../\...

The couple's supporters say the law is archaic and harks back to the Third Reich's obsession with racial purity.

This is just dumb. Virtually every society with laws has laws against incest. If the Reich were to pass laws to maintain racial purity shouldn't they require inbreeding, like the Egyptians did?

I don't think they should be arrested for what they're doing. If they're doing something that society really objects to, but causes no real harm to anyone (it's a myth that inbreeding creates genetic deformities) then the appropriate penalty is the social ostracism that's bound to result when you tell people "I had dinner with my wife and my sister, and I totally forgot it was her birthday."

Gtross,sick,discusting people, shoot them both I say...LOL But really it is wrong no matter how you look at it, just gross.

Gtross,sick,discusting people, shoot them both I say...LOL But really it is wrong no matter how you look at it, just gross.

Like homosexuality, its just disgusting and we should kill them all.

And inter-racial marriages; they should stick to their own kind.

Disgusting perverts deserve to be lynched.

Doesn't make them bad parents or wrong.

So, do you have an actual argument, or are you just going to be hateful?

1. birth defects

2. Its dumb

3. How hard is it to find someone who is not related to you.

4. No one buys the consenting adult thing.

Gtross,sick,discusting people, shoot them both I say...LOL But really it is wrong no matter how you look at it, just gross.
So it's gross to have sex with some one of the opposite sex? Are you gay?
What if you had sex with some one you met in a bar, then kept having sex with them, then found out they were a long-lost sibling? What would you do then? Commit seppuku?

1. birth defects

Can happen in 'normal' relationships.
2. Its dumb
Like that ever stopped anyone from doing anything.
3. How hard is it to find someone who is not related to you.
What does that have to do with anything?
4. No one buys the consenting adult thing.
I'm pretty sure everyone except you does.

I frown upon incest. I mightily frown. I don't know if it should be illegal between consenting adults. Maybe if they promise to get their reproductive parts snipped or tied or whathaveyou or maybe not. Maybe it is just something which is fine and makes me frown.

1. birth defects
Can happen in a normal relationship - regardless:

What about a relationship where they don't want or can't have children?
What about a homosexual incestual relationship?

2. Its dumb
Irrelevant.
3. How hard is it to find someone who is not related to you.
Irrelevant.
4. No one buys the consenting adult thing.
I think most people do, actually.